01:23 - 05.11.05
interpretations
Well I didn't get fired today, but the meeting about the project and "other things" was all about the other things with about 5 minutes at the end for the project. It didn't start off too badly with my supervisor acknowledging that I had every right to register a complaint and that the behaviour that had occurred was completely unacceptable. That being said the two of them launched into a list of complaints about how much I had inconvenienced everyone and how much damage control had been necessary for them to carry out because the issues had been escalated to the Texas office.
What did become apparent was that the head of security had not shown them the original email report I sent to him less than an hour after leaving him a voicemail the day the problem was discovered. Because he had stated that he was going to call my supervisor, I left it up to his discretion how much was disclosed to her. Several misrepresentations and accusations about what I had said and done during that first few hours were complete contradictions of what I had submitted as information in that email. The second in command's first comment was "well why do you think the action was directed at you". In my email the second sentence is about what other reasons could have caused those dolls to be there - I speculated it was part of the Hallowe'en party for staff that might have gotten out of hand. The third sentence was about the trespass in to my work area which is supposed to be off limits for security reasons. The time spent in there to create the little scenario that greeted me both in terms of the dolls and the box that had been rifled through leading to the loss of some of my music CDs must have been substantial- that was the breach in security. I did not interpret or speculate any further on the incident although I did provide history about some of the security issues that the second in command had raised earlier herself. I explained the industry training I had had around reporting security breaches in the past and apologized if that had not translated perfectly in this situation. My supervisor's comment was that I had made the two of them "look like idiots". I had only reported to the supervisor on the work site and the head of security in this company. Each of them knew that I hadn't yet reported that to my supervisor because I told them so. I asked the onsite supervisor whether he wanted to make the first contact with the company security as one security officer to another or if I should do it. When he hadn't made that call within an hour I did it as a matter of due diligence. That is the regular sequence of calls required even stated in company emergency response plans. It is so that the company can protect itself. I can't make a call on whether the breach is serious or not, because I don't have the tools or training to make that determination.
There were also misstatements about discussions we had had months ago and the outcomes, but I have the written (email) documentation to back up how I responded. Then there was the complaint about the response to an action I undertook at the second in command's direction to contact the legal department about the status of a subcompany. It should have been a simple research to conduct, but for whatever reason, that is when I ended up discussing it with the head office's legal department. And you know what dear diary, they're entitled to that information for their own use or protection as they see fit. What I provided was a list of names and a citation of some legislation that applied to it. The second in command took exception to me citing the act because it created "misinformation". Huh? It was the section that defined the status of a company based on corporate actions. There was no attempt on my part to interpret it. I was just supplying the facts that I had readily available that were pertinent. The woman who called me did ask how that law was applied and some of the technicalitites around jurisdictions and legislation as it applies in Canada. That is all public knowledge and I had included a link to the one government webpage that clarifies that information. The fact that that legislation and its regulations exists is not my doing - although in fact it is good governance practice - and the discussion about it was not directed at undermining their positions. What interested the lady in head office was that there were retention periods even legislated in our statutes. How is that an attack on either the supervisor or the second in command.
Th next issue rasied was about the security cards. The tone of my note "suggested that I felt the problem was all directed at me personally", stated the second in command. Well no, as a matter of fact in the email I sent, I mentioned three other cowoker's names with respect to their experiences with similar problems so that the person I was talking with could have some context. "Yes well you spelled one person's name wrong, do you know how much trouble that caused?" Huh? The person in question is new and her name is from another language that I don't have complete mastery of yet. Mea culpa. However I don't think that that should be grounds for a verbal attack. I am certain that there have been other instances where names have been mis-spelled and I don't think it caused major disruptions as a result. "Well your tone was abrupt, you scared one of the recipients". I don't see how documenting a sequence of events can be threatening, but fine each person reads into a message whatever is in their experience has taught them to see. I can't do much about that. Too many people's time was wasted on this. Well I wasn't asking for anything different than the other coworker who got a replacement permanent card within hours of discovering the problem and I wasn't the person who cc'd everyone else on the issue. I did exactly the same set of steps as the co-worker who had no difficulty getting her new card.
So much for 40 minutes of my work day. I guess I could have complained that my valuable time was wasted but whatever. Several of my coworkers came by at different times of the day to talk with me about day to day issues or interests. I think some of them knew what had occurred and were offering moral support. One was the young woman who was harrassed by her three supervisors when they were all dumping a days worth of work on her each day when they were only souppoed to delegate tasks for a third of the day. I had made a point of supporting her through it all and I think that she was offering the same for me. Another came by to urge me to go to the Christmas party and another arrived to chat about her holidays and bemaon the state of chinook suffers everywhere - the two of us included. She was going to her chiropractor at lunch and so was I. My chiropractor and I talked about solutions to traffic problems - or lack of - in his part of town. Other than that I just kept my headphones on and keyed as fast as I could since the other complaint was that I wasn't getting the work done quickly enough. Don't think just code with a single designation. That's lovely but the company files weren't set up that way being that they were created long before taxonomies were established. Files are business process oriented not retention category oriented.
During the day my youngest called in to get clarification about the work being done at home. The contractors arrived in the late afternoon and had finished puling down my fence and marking the locations for the post holes before I returned home. Talked with my oldest son about the timing of that sequence of work so he could rent the tools necessary for that step as well. We tried several times to contact the neighbours with the dog so that they would know to keep him inside this weekend but no one responded to the knocking.When I looked at their home it appeared they might be gone for a bit anyway whcih would be a bonus. As it was a car pulled up earlier while I was posting and it sounds like one of them opened the door but at 2 in the am I am not knocking on anyone's door unless there is a natural - or otherwise disaster happening. Specially not in my jammies.
Anyway time for bed. The next morning is coming up quick and I have a lot to try and finish by next post. Wish me luck dear diary.
�
�
