How To Demoralize Employees: A DIY Guide for Terrible Companies
-
I never realized how far east I-15 veers. Not that I've ever been on any part of it except in SoCal (and probably a little bit around SLC, but I wasn't paying all that much attention to where the bus was going.)
-
those are merely hills
I won't really argue much with you on that point. The peak of Mt. Hamilton is roughly the same elevation as the floor of Yosemite Valley (± ~100m).
to Santa Cruz) always feels like it should be "west". It's south.
Yeah, I tend to think of it as west, too.
getting off 101 south at Lawrence and taking a 90deg turn means you're now going south on Lawrence.
That's one of those places where northbound El Camino (and 101) are going mostly west.
-
I never realized how far west I-15 veers.
FTFY. From Great Falls, Montana to St George, Utah it fits neatly between I-5 and I-25, but further south they veer to go around the Grand Canyon, end up in the neighborhood of Vegas and then decide what the hell, let's just head for the coast instead of going back over and picking up Phoenix and Tucson like we should have done.(Historical perspective: we used to take I-10 from the LA area to around Carlsbad Caverns ever year at Easter. In those days as soon as you crossed the Colorado River, you left the route of the uncompleted I-10 to turn north to Wickenburg, came through Phoenix via what's now the hot springs motel district, then down another back road to catch the "real" I-10 around Tucson. That's nearly 300 miles of blue highway you don't take today. Vegas wouldn't have been much farther out of the way.)
-
Generally if you have an even followed by an odd the route runs southwest to northeast and if you have an odd followed by an even the route runs northwest to southeast.
-
FTFY. From Great Falls, Montana to St George, Utah it fits neatly between I-5 and I-25, but further south they veer to go around the Grand Canyon, end up in the neighborhood of Vegas and then decide what the hell, let's just head for the coast instead of going back over and picking up Phoenix and Tucson like we should have done.
(Historical perspective: we used to take I-10 from the LA area to around Carlsbad Caverns ever year at Easter. In those days as soon as you crossed the Colorado River, you left the route of the uncompleted I-10 to turn north to Wickenburg, came through Phoenix via what's now the hot springs motel district, then down another back road to catch the "real" I-10 around Tucson. That's nearly 300 miles of blue highway you don't take today. Vegas wouldn't have been much farther out of the way.)
I don't mind, I live near the 15 in down here, and it's easy to take it straight to Vegas.
And yeah, the highways in AZ are a bit WTFey. Quickest way when I was moving out here was coming west on 40 to Flagstaff, south to Phoenix on the 17, get off on the 101, then take the 10 west for a little bit to the 85 south, and go down to the 8, which then heads west towards paradise.
-
And yeah, the highways in AZ are a bit WTFey.
Only reason the 40 even begins to make sense is that most of it used to be Route 66. Five years after I moved to Phoenix, I-10 extended three thousand miles from coast to coast, except for a four-mile gap. Which happened to be downtown Phoenix.
(My ninth-grade English teacher told us that when she came to this general part of the country, all her friends and relations back in the UK wanted to know at what point she had to switch to travelling by stagecoach.)
-
I just used Google Maps to get directions from Wilmington, NC to Barstow, CA.
-
(My ninth-grade English teacher told us that when she came to this general part of the country, all her friends and relations back in the UK wanted to know at what point she had to switch to travelling by stagecoach.)
How could you be in the UK and completely forget about the idea that taking the train'd be an option?
-
(My ninth-grade English teacher told us that when she came to this general part of the country, all her friends and relations back in the UK wanted to know at what point she had to switch to travelling by stagecoach.)
How could you be in the UK and completely forget about the idea that taking the train'd be an option?
I think her peeps back home also worried that she'd be attacked by Indians.
I'm not technically an Arizona native, but I've lived here long enough that the idea of someone who's both a cowboy and an Indian does not strike me as the least bit oxymoronic. (I've also lived here long enough that the first description that comes to mind when Wyatt Earp is mentioned is not "lawman" but "corrupt politician". The default description of Doc Holliday is "sadistic wacked out drug addict".)
-
I'm not technically an Arizona native, but I've lived here long enough that the idea of someone who's both a cowboy and an Indian does not strike me as the least bit oxymoronic. (I've also lived here long enough that the first description that comes to mind when Wyatt Earp is mentioned is not "lawman" but "corrupt politician". The default description of Doc Holliday is "sadistic wacked out drug addict".)
Ditto.
-
I think her peeps back home also worried that she'd be attacked by Indians.
LOLWUT. About the only worry you have about the Native Americans down there any more is that they (well, the Navajo and Hopi at least) conspire with the state of Arizona to make DST utterly wacky.
-
About the only worry you have about the Native Americans down there any more is that they (well, the Navajo and Hopi at least) conspire with the state of Arizona to make DST utterly wacky.
I don't know about Arizona, but around here you can't turn around without bumping into a tribal gaming casino whose sole purpose is to separate you from your money. I would consider that a bigger worry than wacky DST, except that I don't patronize them.
-
I don't know about Arizona, but around here you can't turn around without bumping into a tribal gaming casino whose sole purpose is to separate you from your money. I would consider that a bigger worry than wacky DST, except that I don't patronize them.
That's the sole purpose of any casino...
-
Of course, but in most states, the only casinos that are legal are ones owned and operated by Native Americans on tribal land. The existence of those casinos is, IMHO, in conflict with your statement that "[a]bout the only worry you have about the Native Americans down there any more is that they ... conspire with the state of Arizona to make DST utterly wacky." Conspiring to separate you from your money is another thing to worry about.
-
All the casinos I've known to any degree are not on tribal land. *chuckles* (Although I do live in a state which bans casino gambling within its borders -- the reason why Native Americans are exempt from those laws is a very interesting quirk of federalism).
-
All the casinos I've known to any degree are not on tribal land.
Explain? Am I wrong that tribal casinos must be on tribal land, or are you referring to casinos in places like Vegas or Atlantic City, where non-tribal casinos are legal?
the reason why Native Americans are exempt from those laws is a very interesting quirk of federalism
For the benefit of the furrinurs (and even 'Muricans) who might not know this, the Native American tribes were sovereign nations who made treaties with the US in which they gave up some, but not all, rights of sovereignty in exchange for certain benefits granted them by the US1. One of the quirks of this is that, as semi-autonomous nations, they are subject to Federal regulation, but not State regulation.1 The principal benefit being that of not getting slaughtered by the US Army.
-
All the casinos I've known to any degree are not on tribal land.
Explain? Am I wrong that tribal casinos must be on tribal land, or are you referring to casinos in places like Vegas or Atlantic City, where non-tribal casinos are legal?
Pretty sure there are places where "riverboat" casinos are legal. They don't operate on land at all, tribal or otherwise.
-
Pretty sure there are places where "riverboat" casinos are legal. They don't operate on land at all, tribal or otherwise.
Good point, but I see that as falling in the "places ... where non-tribal casinos are legal" category.
-
It's a place, it's a casino, it's not run by any tribe, and as long as it keeps in the water it's legal. What category would you put it in?
-
And would you separate the ones that are legal when docked from the ones that are legal only when not docked?
-
What category would you put it in?
Huh? I thought he said:
the "places ... where non-tribal casinos are legal" category.
-
Seriously, people, there aren't that many categories involved here. @tarunik already eliminated the category of "tribal casinos on tribal land." That leaves the categories of "tribal casinos somehow not on tribal land," if that category exists (the determination of which was rather the aim of the question) and "all other legal casinos," although I suppose we might add the category of "illegal casinos" for completeness. Legal riverboat casinos, whether docked or not, clearly fall in the "all other legal casinos" category, unless they are owned by a Native American tribe.
-
You can go to the Smithsonian Nat'l Museum of the American Indian in DC, and on the fourth floor you'll find Nation to Nation, an exhibit protraying how the caucasian Americans basically broke all of our treaties with the natives! Including three videos narrated by Robert Redford and four interactives all of which I made slightly less broken in some way!
</shamelessSelfPlug>
-
or are you referring to casinos in places like Vegas or Atlantic City, where non-tribal casinos are legal?
Yes. I live across a river from a state where non-tribal casinos are legal.
Pretty sure there are places where "riverboat" casinos are legal. They don't operate on land at all, tribal or otherwise.
The state in question (until recent liberalizations) was in that category.
-
So, to recap, Demoralize your employees by inviting them to a tribal riverboat that allows gambling when un-docked, but end the affair before the boat sails?
They keep their chips as momentos of a beautiful team-building excercise.
-
This post is deleted!
-
I am not sure if that's a legitimate post by a crazy person, extremely awesome robospam, or actual human-perpetrated spam from the most awesome SEO blackhat ever.
Serious uncanny valley moment here.
-
I am not sure if that's a legitimate post by a crazy person, extremely awesome robospam, or actual human-perpetrated spam from the most awesome SEO blackhat ever.
Serious uncanny valley moment here.
(assuming you're even responding to me)
From five months ago?? I honestly have no idea what hat I was wearing when I posted that....
-
assuming you're even responding to me
He's not. There's an intervening spam post that got removed.
-
There was a post between Weng's (1266) and yours (1264). That post is no longer there.
-
assuming you're even responding to me
No, there was some sort of spammer. But they did actually mention demoralizing employees and were much more coherent than the usual auto spam
-
But they did actually mention demoralizing employees and were much more coherent than the usual auto spam
.. which is why it took a while for it to get removed...
-
Well... OK... I'm not legitimately offended by being accused of crazy...
Filed under: You all are bunch of sane-ists around here.
-
I'm not legitimately offended by being accused of crazy...
Would you be legitimately offended by being accused of being sane?
-
Would you be legitimately offended by being accused of being sane?
No, but I'd doubt the sanity of the one making the accusation. :)
-
Would you be legitimately offended by being accused of being sane?
Crazy has its own special sanity. - Yakoff Stalin
Filed under: US-ians!! What a people!
-
I work for a large government department in my country.
Today, the head of the Division I worked for released direction regarding risk management for Work Health and Safety for Remote and Isolated Work.
Naturally this includes risk management of everything from working alone in a laboratory to working late in the office or overnight, working at home, and travel (ranging from overseas, domestic and local).Sadly this included standing risk profiles for travel, ranging from air travel, long and short distance car travel, public transport, the local departmental shuttle bus and believe it or not, walking between offices.
It included, as mitigations, such gems of wisdom as
- carry sufficient medication for your known medical conditions as may be necessary
- call for assistance if you suddenly become ill
- while waiting for the bus, dress appropriately for the weather and stay out of the roadway to avoid being hit by traffic.
- obey road rules when crossing the road
Also mandated were the conduct of a risk assessment using these risk profiles for conduct of such task and seeking of approval of the assessment.
So, by the book, I have to complete a five page form and seek sign-off any time one of my team will be alone in our computer laboratory, stay late in the office or walk down the street to another departmental office.
FFS - how do they come up with this shit and expect us to remain productive?
-
Also mandated were the conduct of a risk assessment using these risk profiles for conduct of such task and seeking of approval of the assessment.
We only have to do risk assessments for working in certain areas, such as in a machine room or a real lab; you know, with robots and lasers and real toxic chemicals and stuff. Demanding that sort of thing for working from home (when there is no special reason to suspect elevated hazard is present) is just idiotic.
The right way for everyone to deal with this is to explain that doing any ordinary work at all is impossible until all the risk assessments are complete. And to note that filling out the forms for the risk assessment can't be done until that's been risk assessed in all the environments where people might be doing it.
-
Demanding that sort of thing for working from home (when there is no special reason to suspect elevated hazard is present) is just idiotic.
Funny you should say that.
If we want to work from home regularly (as opposed to occasionally), then the workplace WHS and Security people demand to do a WHS assessment of your home, with their own five page form.
Apparently they're of the opinion that allowing people to work near the hazards that they spend their home lives around could end up with the department being liable under 'draconian' WHS legislation.
-
how do they come up with this shit and expect us to remain productive?
The people coming up with this shit, typically, aren't overly concerned about the bit I've helpfully bolded in your quote.
-
do a WHS assessment of your home
Does that includes physically going to your home and doing all that stupid light & db checks? That's is truly way over a WTF and right into legal litigation.
-
Does that includes physically going to your home and doing all that stupid light & db checks? That's is truly way over a WTF and right into legal litigation.
Yes, it does.
It's insane.
-
It could be worse though, they could require a safety inspector on-premise, even when working from home.
-
@mratt said:
how do they come up with this shit and expect us to remain productive?
The people coming up with this shit, typically, aren't overly concerned about the bit I've helpfully bolded in your quote.
It's a
long-term vacationgovernment job, so lack of productivity is probably both expected and better for the country, anyway.
-
'draconian' WHS legislation
You know how I can tell you're in Australia?
So, by the book, I have to complete a five page form and seek sign-off any time one of my team will be alone in our computer laboratory, stay late in the office or walk down the street to another departmental office.
Do you not have standing assessments (and approvals) to cover these sorts of regular and well known activities? It's not sane to require assessment and approval every time.
-
Man... This is getting old as I've seen similar things 10+ years ago. The list need to be updated.
Say, "Employees are strictly prohibited from bring smartphones into premise. Any smartphone found by securities will be confiscated, and you'll receive written warning for doing so".
-
I worked at a place ten years ago that prohibited phones with cameras. Back then, of course, most cells still didn't have them.
I wonder if they ever updated their policy. Good luck finding a cell phone these days without a camera.
-
I worked at a place ten years ago that prohibited phones with cameras. Back then, of course, most cells still didn't have them.
When I worked for Cardinal Health as a field technician, we were expressly prohibited from carrying a cell phone with a camera in to hospitals and pharmacies. The company Blackberry I was issued...had a camera...and I was told to keep it on me at all times while on-call or on the job.
Violation of either policy carried the risk of being written up or fired.
-
I worked at a place ten years ago that prohibited phones with cameras.
Intel used to require a permit to have a camera of any kind anywhere on the premises. Some time before I left, in recognition of the fact that this was effectively banning most phones, they relaxed to policy to allow cameras in most areas without special permission; however, they were still restricted in some areas like manufacturing and Document Control due to the possibility that one might photograph confidential information.
-
No. This morning I read from a Taiwanese forum regarding some chips manufactorer still doing that and there was heated debate on whether the policy still makes sense. The post does provide background that it was this way because some years ago, one of the staffs taken photo of an undisclosed (at that time) prototype of product and product line and put it on web, this gives advantage to the competitors, though.
