11:54 p.m. - 2003-06-14
Work a Day
Interesting help wanted ad featured in the paper today. Wanted - one personal aide, wage $200,000 per year. Generally on a yacht in the Mediterranean willing to ski, swim and participate in any number of leisure pursuits. The person posting the ad included a warning that they were a swine in personal habits and in behaviour and the candidate would have to have the hide of a rhinocerous to cope. Ahhh honesty.
Better was the article about a discovery at the university here, that may allow spinal cord injury survivors to walk again. The use of minocline will begin trials in human patients soon. Apparently, the anti-inflammatory which is already approved for use in the treatment of MS, can reduce the damage to nerves if administered in the first three months after the injury.
Next up, there appears to be legislation coming through that will allow for more effective enforcement and greater penalties for white collar corporate crimes. The major thrust seems to be to stop insider trading and corporate negligence that causes harm to employees, but it also provides protection for staff who report crimes witnessed at work. About time. Often stealing from one's employer has been shrugged off with the comment that the big corporations can afford it, but the person it costs the most in the end is the taxpayer and the company's staff.
Not convinced? Think of the statistics for loss from shop-lifting. Consumers pick up the bulk of the cost of loss of property as well as greater security and enforcement, through higher prices. When corporations lose through staff theft, they do three things - they write off the losses on their taxes both directly and in replacement costs. That means that the individual taxpayer picks up the slack to fund government services. Now part of my job is to try and locate lost documents. Some of them - single pieces of paper - represent investments of corporate cash to the tune of $100,000. Sometimes I can locate several of those in one day. Pays for my salary many times over. Now think of someone stealing a handful of those same papers. It means that much less is being paid out in taxes for the value of the property, both because the company must take action to recover or redo the testing, acquisition or legal access that they are entitled to and because the loss will be written off. Going back to the salary issue, it means a lot less money goes into hiring staff - lost jobs.
Finally, there is a loss to the taxpayer because thieves rarely declare their illicit gains on their tax forms. One case before the courts right now is of just one man working for Mobil Oil who took $7 million US in kickbacks. Think about it - someone who steals food or clothing because they can't meet their basic needs is charged, fined and often serves time in jail. Someone who steals a few million? They get a higher standard of living and often are promoted to boot. Who pays for that both in taxes and lost wages? You do.
An odd article about good management techniques with respect to personnel. I guess it was courageous of the specialist being interviewed to admit it, but he talked about his surprise over losing a valuable employee because of what he seemed to perceive a minor mistake. Not taking into consideration that employee's feelings. The issue? The staff member had been in an accident and was hospitalized. The specialist called them every day to ask aggressively when they were returning to work and to ask about work issues. He said he acted under the assumption that the employee was extending the time away from work on purpose to gain an edge in negotiations in a lawsuit - there was no lawsuit. He was surprised that the employee was both hurt and insulted.
If this "specialist" is considered sensitive and generally a good manager in management circles, it explains a lot about stress and employee dissatisfaction in the workplace. The last thing you need when you are dealing with illness or some trauma, like a death in the family, is someone who badgers you, implies your job is on the line, and/or accuses you of malingering. This man did all three. I would say he was typical of some of the managers I've had to deal with ( I've experienced the treatment he described). Why is he being touted as a manager's manager and a specialist, when he hasn't even got enough common sense or decency to respect someone's basic physical and emotional needs? Sounds to me like he should be looking at dealing with the people committing crimes in the office cited in the article just mentioned before this one, rather than those who are just trying to do their jobs.
�
�
