Quake3World

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:26 am**

*poasting in a YGP thread*

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:53 am**

YourGrandpa wrote:I guess it would be paid if you had personal days that you could use. Unpaid if you didn't. But that's irrelevant to my point. I wouldn't think you should take the day off period.

As long as it's not a sickday I guess it's none of your business why somebody takes a day off

I mean, as long as it doesn't screw the company over, who cares?

If it's like "I know this project needs to be finished by tomorrow and if I stay home the company will lose money but my dog died so I'm staying home anyway." I guess I would agree with you.

But if it's like "If I stay home today YGP's toilet will be clogged for another day and he'll have to use another one, but my dog died so I'm staying home anyway." I wouldn't.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 3:15 pm**

Grudge wrote:*poasting in a YGP thread*

*quoting grudge in a ygp thread!*

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:06 pm**

I know that by page 9 the people posting in this thread must have read my opinion and according to the pole, most of them disagree. Even though I won't change your mind, nor do I intend to, I'd still like to add a bit more validity to what I’ve said.

Let’s say these two guys are talking at work.
Guy 1: Hey, have you seen Guy 3 today?
Guy 2: No. He’s not going to be in to work.
Guy 1: Oh really. Why not? It isn’t anything serious, is it?
Guy 2: He called me up crying this morning and said he was too distraught to come in.
Guy 1: What happed? Is he ok?
Guy 2: His cat died last night.

Now what do you think the first thought that goes through Guy 1’s mind is going to be after he hears that excuse? I’ll tell you. It’s, “Man that Guy 3 is such a puss.” Guy 1 might not only think it, but he’ll probably say it.

Guy 1: Oh man, he’s such a puss.
Guy 2: Heheh, yeah I know.
Guy 1: Heheh.

BTW, they’re not laughing about Guy 3's dead cat. They’re laughing because Guy 3 is a puss.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:10 pm**

So what, his business. Though quite why those guys think it's professional to share that information is beyond me.

-For starters the guy in questions should have just requested a day for unexpected personal reasons.
-Second, if the manager he presumably reports to in the morning HAS to have a reason given, then that manager should take it in all confidence.
-Third, if anyone asks, that manager should just explain that he's on a personal day, and if pressed, just let people know that they'll have to ask the guy personally if they want to know the reason why.

So your scenario should never happen unless:
-The guy makes an error of judgement and makes it public knowledge
Or
-The manager does the same

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:12 pm**

. wrote:Let’s say these two guys are talking at work.
Guy 1: Hey, have you seen Guy 3 today?
Guy 2: No. He’s probably not going to be in to work.
Guy 1: Oh really. Why not? It isn’t anything serious, is it?
Guy 2: He called this morning. The dog he's had since he was 19 died on him. He has to find out what to do to get him buried and everything (and he's not sure how long that takes), and he wants to stay home with his kids because they're pretty torn up about it. His 7-year-old really loved that dog.
Guy 1: Oh hell that sucks.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:17 pm**

YourGrandpa wrote:guy1 and guy2 stuff

doesn't really add validity - you're just projecting your opinion onto the two guys' minds.

To be honest, after reflecting on this issue a bit, I think I've gained some more insight.

In the case of a lost spouse, or child, a major part of the shock to the system is having to deprogram a planned future - one of the things which humans are great at is the ability to make detailed and sophisticated plans into the future - some cognitive scientists call this mental time travel (the opposite of this is episodic memory, which allows us to re-live past events).

When you make long term plans with someone you love, and they die, you are doubly fucked over - not only have you lost a source of joy, but you have to literally reprogram your brain with respect to the future. This is a very tough process.

With a non-human companion, it is less likely that long term future plans are involved.

That said, if someone were too distraught to come into work based on the loss of a non-human companion, I wouldn't judge them harshly, if in other cases I saw them to be responsible, honest, and well tuned primates - for in that case, I'd assume that they really are suffering greatly and could really use a day off.

It's called compassion.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:20 pm**

In before words like 'cognitive' 'organism', 'episodic' and 'the'.

Too late

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:25 pm**

this thread is done.

erase the stats!

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:25 pm**

Again, this thread is about broad, sweeping generalizations, and some people's tendency to see everything in black and white.

This is a clear case where circumstances need to be considered before casting any sort of judgment on someone. And yet, even after admitting that circumstances can affect this type of decision, some people still refuse to relinquish their dogma that missing a day of work for an event involving a sub-human makes them less reliable and diminishes their value to the company.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:26 pm**

YGP is failing to leverage enterprise synergies.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:30 pm**

Foo wrote:YGP is failing to leverage enterprise synergies.

Your people are your biggest asset, people!

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:30 pm**

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:this thread is done.

erase the stats!

let the record show that Gramps is in fact a heartless asshole

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:13 pm**

If I may beat the dead horse...

YGP, everyone does things that our 'co-workers' would laugh at. People have soft-spots for all sorts of things in life; people are not cookie-cutter personalities who follow all current social 'norms' all the time without fail.

Still, workers who find themselves in this situation will have to juggle a bunch of factors in deciding whether to come into work or not. Such as:

(1) Attachment to pet
(2) How long they have worked at the company to establish reliability
(3) Co-workers... will they think less of him/her for doing so

Another factor in this discussion is that most of us would go to work even if our pet died. I would, you would, most everyone else. So why am I and others defending those people who would take the day off? Because I accept that beliefs are relative, that my 'world view' is not the only world view. Therefore, I acknowledge that it is possible someone could truly 'really use the day off' to cope with the loss of a pet. It is better to be compassionate in these types of situations, turn aside the arrogance that would force our beliefs ('guys must repress their emotions when something dies, a dead animal is a dead animal, it ain't coming back') onto them.

I think that is why most everyone here sees you as an asshole: you position yourself as having absolutely correct knowledge on how 'a man should mourn' and won't budge on the issue, even though we present you with situations where it seems clear a day off would be reasonable. Again, we try to clarify that not all situations are reasonable, just some, based on the owner's attachment to the pet and the type of job they have. You don't seem able to step 'out of your shoes', accept that your beliefs are the not only acceptable beliefs, and admit that perhaps someone really could use the day off. Instead you treat the issue as black or white: I will think less of someone who takes the day off for mourning their pet, no ifs, ands or buts.

I know it's impossible to make you change your beliefs. You probably are correct that being an asshole has worked for you at your job; some lines of business work very well with asshole bosses. That's why I tried to steer the situation to more of a 'how should a good manager react' rather than 'how a good manager should feel'. The former, to me, is a more clear answer, the latter is prone to creating 10 page long threads.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:37 pm**

See, you are wrong again. YOU and others position me as some kind of authority on everything. I never once claimed that I was the only one right in this situation. In fact, I agreed with several counter points made in this thread.

All I've done is generalized. That's all I can do. I can't claim, nor have I ever claimed that everyone would react the same. Everyone is different in one way or another. I didn't need some bozo on the internet to explain that to me.

Besides, we all know that the "average" man would probably see this as a weakness and possibly find humor in it, at the other guy's expense. Unless the man wasn't so "average" and more of a metro/homo sexual pansy that cries during chick flicks.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:41 pm**

YourGrandpa wrote:All I've done is generalized. That's all I can do.

Why do you feel like you need to generalize at all?

YourGrandpa wrote:Besides, we all know that the "average" man would probably see this as a weakness and possibly find humor in it, at the other guy's expense. Unless the man wasn't so "average" and more of a metro/homo sexual pansy that cries during chick flicks.

Did you read my alternate version of your story a few posts above?

Would you laugh at somebody for staying home to take care of their kids, and finding a decent way to bury the dog they've had for 15 years?

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:49 pm**

R00k wrote: Why do you feel like you need to generalize at all?

It's funnier that way. What else should I do, take an internet poll of 10,000 people and post statistical facts?

R00k wrote:Did you read my alternate version of your story a few posts above?

Would you laugh at somebody for staying home to take care of their kids, and finding a decent way to bury the dog they've had for 15 years?

I did read your post. Though I may not laugh, I would question his fortitude.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:54 pm**

Well that seals it then, doesn't it?

What a prick.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:58 pm**

YourGrandpa wrote:See, you are wrong again. YOU and others position me as some kind of authority on everything. I never once claimed that I was the only one right in this situation. In fact, I agreed with several counter points made in this thread.

You ARE claiming to be an authority on this matter. You say quite clearly: "you still shouldn't be taking a day for dead animals".

That is where you become the asshole. You use the word "shouldn't", and you imply there aren't any exceptions. No exceptions = black and white = no compassion = asshole.

If you do believe there are exceptions, where a person could, possibly should, take the day off for their dead pet, then say it. And be done with it.

That is all I am arguing here.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:41 pm**

YourGrandpa wrote:
I did read your post. Though I may not laugh, I would question his fortitude.

I don't know about your line of work but neither my boss nor co-workers ask questions when I take a personal day as long as it isn't negatively affecting a major project or deadline. Its part of being a professional and being respected for your skills. Its also because my organization, like most that have competent management, have planned ahead for contingencies such as people having their personal lives interfere with their ability to be at work occasionally.

With regards to your analogy if a manager tells their employees something he or she is told in confidence then to me it says a lot about that manager's lack of aptitude for their position and a lack of personal character.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:06 pm**

Wabbit wrote:
Dr_Watson wrote:just because you specifically jumped to 9-11 like some flag waving sheeple. and that the "homeless animals" comment added to the fire.

but nice dodge.

I'll tell you what i really think now.

Your problem is pride.
You don't do anything truely important, instead you live a normal mundane meaningless existance. So you feel the need to qualify your place on the planet by being excessivly proud of your occupation.
You don't like the idea of someone taking off work for a dead animal because in your mind that would deflate the value of your job. Somone thinking that roadkill is more valuable than chasing a dollar at the office, means that they don't think your company is doing anything meaningful. If they did think they were working for a company that was actually doing something to help humanity, they would certainly come in.

I second Wabbit's motion!

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:13 pm**

YourGrandpa crushed this thread.

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:24 pm**

Looks like he upset alot of people

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:29 pm**

Posted: **Thu Feb 15, 2007 11:19 pm**

mjrpes wrote: You ARE claiming to be an authority on this matter. You say quite clearly: "you still shouldn't be taking a day for dead animals".

That is where you become the asshole. You use the word "shouldn't", and you imply there aren't any exceptions. No exceptions = black and white = no compassion = asshole.

If you do believe there are exceptions, where a person could, possibly should, take the day off for their dead pet, then say it. And be done with it.

That is all I am arguing here.

I am NOT, you dipshit. I just said I wasn't. You're obviously confused, which isn't hard to do. I think everyone can see that you’ve taken a statement out of context and are trying to twist it into something it's not. That statement was prefaced multiple times in this thread by IMHO or some other derivative. Everything in this thread is based on MY opinion, which I'M entitled to. None of this is fact or law. Furthermore, the entire issue isn't black and white to me, just the end result. I can see how people get attached to their pets. I understand that some people may determine that they need a day off to grieve. I also said that I wouldn't fire someone for taking a day to deal with there emotions. But what I did say and stand behind is, I would loose confidence in that person's ability to be totally reliable.

I hope you can understand that.

Quake3World

Am I a heartless asshole?