NZpol: A Dick-Burning Dumpster Fire

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > NZpol: A Dick-Burning Dumpster Fire

Are you a This poll is closed.
homeowner	39	22.41%
renter	69	39.66%
stupid peace of poo poo	66	37.93%
Total:	174 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

echinopsis: Apr 13, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

klen dool posted:

"not fitting in with the workplace dynamic" sounds like employer code for "I didn't like them" - which is a reason an employer would want to fire someone, but not a good or fair one. Its also pretty vague, how about a specific example?
If the employee's attitude is causing a loss to productivity, then an employer needs to offer a reasonable amount of training and failing that they can fire them.

Do you think you can actually do that? and not have someone complain for unfair dismissal?

we have a new employee at work. we are a couple of small pharmacies, less than 10 employees. when you're working in a tight space with 3 people 9 hours a day, you want to be working with people who are team players. you want people who fit in and contribute to morale. she is the absolutely opposite of that and every staff member hates working with her, she made one of my techs go home and cry. people do not want to work with her and while currently she moves between pharmacies, the general mood is that if she went full time in one of the pharmacies, the other staff would consider leaving their job to get away from her

but what does she do wrong? its the way she does everything but it's so difficult to pinpoint A or B and point to it and give written warnings and verbal warnings and move down that path

lucky for her she's now passed her three month trial period anyway. guess we just have to suck it up and do what we can to encourage her to apply for other jobs we find in seek or whatever

i dont expect employers to like everyone, but humans have intuition, and three months is a good window for an employer to use their intuition to decide if keeping this person is in the interest of their business, or if they are not

# ? Feb 3, 2018 11:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 00:00

WarpedNaba: Feb 8, 2012; Being social makes me swell!

Right, we're not living some narrative where everyone on the ground floor is a pure and square-jawed udarnik right out of a Stakhanovite movement propaganda piece. And since the only real way to gather evidence that would tally for reasonable grounds is to train a camera on them every minute they're on work grounds? That's going to get a 123 on your rear end faster than the Jackson 5.

The trial makes sense. Granted, it doesn't make sense for larger businesses that can afford stronger screening measures or hire straight from trusted providers - but hey, that was remedied. For smaller ones, one bad apple that managed to behave for the interview can gently caress up the entire business - and the faster you can kick them out, the less damage is done.

It can be abused. But hey, here's news: So can anything in the legal system.

# ? Feb 3, 2018 12:09

oohhboy: Jun 8, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

echinopsis posted:

Do you think you can actually do that? and not have someone complain for unfair dismissal?

i dont expect employers to like everyone, but humans have intuition, and three months is a good window for an employer to use their intuition to decide if keeping this person is in the interest of their business, or if they are not

You seem to have reason for dismissal that doesn't require the 3 month period. You have another employee abusing another. If repeated warnings verbal and written aren't enough you do have cause for a firing. The hiring process isn't some iron bowl "You're in, you are in" everyone makes it out to be 90 days or not. If you somehow couldn't sort out their behaviour I might think you have an incompetent boss.

I have been dismissed using the 3 month trial but that wasn't because I was incompetent or terrible with the staff, the position itself was really ill defined and was never sustainable due to wildly different expectations between different organizations as to what I did and who I answered to. I am not sure where I would fall legally(Redundancy?) without the 3 month period as there are edge cases but you example isn't one of them.

# ? Feb 3, 2018 13:32

Charles 2 of Spain: Nov 7, 2017

echinopsis posted:

lie on ya CV and fudge ya interview, and then get into job, do half rear end job but not really break any rules and youre set for life?

This is literally most employers and CEOs.

# ? Feb 3, 2018 14:33

echinopsis: Apr 13, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

oohhboy posted:

You seem to have reason for dismissal that doesn't require the 3 month period. You have another employee abusing another. If repeated warnings verbal and written aren't enough you do have cause for a firing. The hiring process isn't some iron bowl "You're in, you are in" everyone makes it out to be 90 days or not. If you somehow couldn't sort out their behaviour I might think you have an incompetent boss.

she came in as a pharmacist so she is superior to the technicians, and so she's not "abusing" the staff as much as abusing her position of power to belittle every single decision the tech makes, make a big deal out of every singly tiny mistake etc. nothing she is doing is "wrong" as such, it's just unrelenting and shows absolutely no respect for the people under her. but it's not direct abuse, it's not directed at her person but her work. the tech told me that it made her feel useless and never want to come to work again.

or here's a totally different example which maybe proves my point and is actually about my ex-wife. she was a superior in a private hospital and she started getting complaints about her and the way she talked to staff. she demanded to know what it was that the staff were saying happened, but no one could really describe it other than "makes them feel bad". but because wife's superiors couldnt actually give clear answers to what the problem was, nothing could really be done about it. it carried on for a while, never really got resolved. how do you give someone a warning for making people feel bad when people cant point to concrete evidence about what it is. if you read a transcript of what my ex-wife would have said you would just think she's explaining to the nurses why you cant do this or have to do that

but being married to her, I knew exactly what the staff were talking about. and I had tried to raise it with her too, about our own arguments. but to no avail. because I couldnt point to words or whatever that was the problem. it was her entire body language and tone of voice and ability to be quite condescending when she is convinced she is correct (and im sure at work she pretty much always was). but try to tell that to someone or explain that the problem isnt THIS or THAT but everything, while also being unable to identify what it is at all

humans are nuanced creatures. not every problem in a workplace dynamic can be easily put in a box and subsequently warned about. some human dynamic problems are incredibly subtle and insidious.

# ? Feb 3, 2018 21:10

echinopsis: Apr 13, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Charles 2 of Spain posted:

This is literally most employers and CEOs.

employers dont have job interviews???

like I am considering applying to buy a pharmacy... lol no one is going to interview me or look at my CV, I just need a loan from the bank

and I also wont be able to be fired :grin:

# ? Feb 3, 2018 21:11

sebmojo: Oct 23, 2010; Legit Cyberpunk

echinopsis posted:

otherwise what? lie on ya CV and fudge ya interview, and then get into job, do half rear end job but not really break any rules and youre set for life?

Lying in a job application is generally grounds for instant dismissal, no matter how long you've been there.

# ? Feb 3, 2018 22:37

WarpedNaba: Feb 8, 2012; Being social makes me swell!

Jokes on them, that was the only way to get a job after the Great Recession.

"So you've got 10 years experience relevant to this entry-level position, Mr Graduate?"

"... sure, let's go with that."

'course, the stupidly inflated experience requirement was code for 'We're not training you, sink or swim motherfucker'.

# ? Feb 3, 2018 22:57

oohhboy: Jun 8, 2013; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

echinopsis posted:

Seems to be a pretty good reason she's your ex-wife.

That is still an abusive hostile work environment which you and others failed to deal or investigate whether dismissal was on the cards or not. 90 days at will isn't and wasn't going to solve that. Just because someone isn't being quite a big enough rear end in a top hat to get a formal warning doesn't mean the boss washes their hands or it isn't abuse.

# ? Feb 3, 2018 23:45

voiceless anal fricative: May 6, 2007

Everyone spins their CV into poo poo that it really isn't. That's expected. Outright lying is grounds for dismissal regardless of 90 day rule.

Everyone needs to earn money though, even assholes and other forms of unpleasant people. The onus needs to be on employers making their workplaces function and making the relationships work, that's part of being a boss. I recognise that it's harder in smaller workplaces, but again that's part of being a boss. Again if personality is stopping someone from doing their job then that's grounds for dismissal already too, regardless of 90 day rule.

# ? Feb 4, 2018 00:26

edogawa rando: Mar 20, 2007

echinopsis posted:

she came in as a pharmacist so she is superior to the technicians, and so she's not "abusing" the staff as much as abusing her position of power to belittle every single decision the tech makes, make a big deal out of every singly tiny mistake etc. nothing she is doing is "wrong" as such, it's just unrelenting and shows absolutely no respect for the people under her. but it's not direct abuse, it's not directed at her person but her work. the tech told me that it made her feel useless and never want to come to work again.

Sounds like she's using the work as a pretext to abuse the technician.

# ? Feb 4, 2018 00:30

klen dool: May 7, 2007; Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

echinopsis posted:

Do you think you can actually do that? and not have someone complain for unfair dismissal?

Yes, and no. Yes I think someone could legally and fairly follow those steps and fire someone. An ex employee can complain about an unfair dismissal for any number of reasons, some may be valid and some not, and following the process I described wouldn't be valid since it's what employment law says you must do.

echinopsis posted:

we have a new employee at work. we are a couple of small pharmacies, less than 10 employees. when you're working in a tight space with 3 people 9 hours a day, you want to be working with people who are team players. you want people who fit in and contribute to morale. she is the absolutely opposite of that and every staff member hates working with her, she made one of my techs go home and cry. people do not want to work with her and while currently she moves between pharmacies, the general mood is that if she went full time in one of the pharmacies, the other staff would consider leaving their job to get away from her

but what does she do wrong? its the way she does everything but it's so difficult to pinpoint A or B and point to it and give written warnings and verbal warnings and move down that path

lucky for her she's now passed her three month trial period anyway. guess we just have to suck it up and do what we can to encourage her to apply for other jobs we find in seek or whatever

i dont expect employers to like everyone, but humans have intuition, and three months is a good window for an employer to use their intuition to decide if keeping this person is in the interest of their business, or if they are not

If the employee hasn't done anything wrong, then the fault lies with everyone else - it sounds like no one likes her so, so now no one likes her, and no one can get to like her because she keeps getting moved around. It's like the monkey-hose-banana-ladder experiment, and she is the banana.

If she has done something "wrong", you must be able to describe it, otherwise how do you know it's wrong? If you can describe it, tou can fix or warn against it.

# ? Feb 4, 2018 01:07

klen dool: May 7, 2007; Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

WarpedNaba posted:

Right, we're not living some narrative where everyone on the ground floor is a pure and square-jawed udarnik right out of a Stakhanovite movement propaganda piece. And since the only real way to gather evidence that would tally for reasonable grounds is to train a camera on them every minute they're on work grounds? That's going to get a 123 on your rear end faster than the Jackson 5.

I have NO idea what this means, but I really like it.

# ? Feb 4, 2018 01:09

klen dool: May 7, 2007; Okay well me being wrong in some limited situations doesn't change my overall point.

echinopsis posted:

she came in as a pharmacist so she is superior to the technicians, and so she's not "abusing" the staff as much as abusing her position of power to belittle every single decision the tech makes, make a big deal out of every singly tiny mistake etc. nothing she is doing is "wrong" as such, it's just unrelenting and shows absolutely no respect for the people under her. but it's not direct abuse, it's not directed at her person but her work. the tech told me that it made her feel useless and never want to come to work again.

Okay you just described a specific problem which has actionable solutions. The problem here is a manager who doesn't give a gently caress and can't be bothered trying to fix the problem beyond moving her around. Either that, or the manager is unqualified for the position and are doing their best.

# ? Feb 4, 2018 01:16

Varkk: Apr 17, 2004

Sounds like the manager is trying to avoid conflict rather than managing the problem head on. Doing so they have actually opened themselves up to a hostile work environment complaint from the victim. Also setting a precedent for future problems created by the employee.

# ? Feb 4, 2018 01:27

Ghostlight: Sep 25, 2009; maybe for one second you can pause; try to step into another person's perspective, and understand that a watermelon is cursing me

Your example for why the 90 day rule is a good thing is an anecdote where it wasn't used.

# ? Feb 4, 2018 21:30

Murrah: Mar 22, 2015

Random Q but has anyone encountered the New Zealand Honorary Consul in the pacific northwest like Seattle area? or generally much expat activity?

Im thinking of making a move from the South of the US to the Pacific Northwest around the city of Bellingham and it would be nice to meet/network some NZ folks. Ive really enjoyed getting to meet some people via the little Atlanta based NZ American association.

# ? Feb 4, 2018 22:07

exmarx: Feb 18, 2012; The experience over the years
of nothing getting better
only worse.

https://twitter.com/sineadboucher/status/960257995656450048

give it up!

# ? Feb 4, 2018 22:46

echinopsis: Apr 13, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Ghostlight posted:

Your example for why the 90 day rule is a good thing is an anecdote where it wasn't used.

yeah every single staff member that worked with her wanted her gone

and now everyone just resents working with her

# ? Feb 5, 2018 05:27

exmarx: Feb 18, 2012; The experience over the years
of nothing getting better
only worse.

this waitangi day, let's remember that paul holmes was a real piece of poo poo

quote:

Waitangi Day produced its usual hatred, rudeness, and violence against a clearly elected Prime Minister from a group of hateful, hate-fuelled weirdos who seem to exist in a perfect world of benefit provision. This enables them to blissfully continue to believe that New Zealand is the centre of the world, no one has to have a job and the Treaty is all that matters.

I'm over Waitangi Day. It is repugnant. It's a ghastly affair. As I lie in bed on Waitangi morning, I know that later that evening, the news will show us irrational Maori ghastliness with spitting, smugness, self-righteousness and the usual neurotic Maori politics, in which some bizarre new wrong we've never thought about will be lying on the table.

This, we will have to address and somehow apply these never-defined principles of the Treaty of Waitangi because it is, apparently, the next big resentment. There'll be lengthy discussion, we'll end up paying the usual millions into the hands of the Maori aristocracy and God knows where it'll go from there.

Well, it's a bullshit day, Waitangi. It's a day of lies. It is loony Maori fringe self-denial day. It's a day when everything is addressed, except the real stuff. Never mind the child stats, never mind the national truancy stats, never mind the hopeless failure of Maori to educate their children and stop them bashing their babies. No, it's all the Pakeha's fault. It's all about hating whitey. Believe me, that's what it looked like the other day.

John Key speaks bravely about going there again. He should not go there again. It's over. Forget it. It is too awful and nasty and common. It is no more New Zealand day than Halloween.

Our national day is now Anzac Day. Anzac Day is a day of honour, and struggle, bravery and sacrifice. A day on which we celebrate the periods when our country embraced great efforts for international freedom and on which we weep for those who served and for those who died.

I wouldn't take my three great uncles who died at Gallipoli and in France - Reuben, Mathew and Leonard - to Waitangi Day and expect them to believe this was our national day. I wouldn't take my father, veteran of El Alamein and Cassino, there. Nor would I take my Uncle Ken who died in a Wellington bomber, then try and tell him Waitangi Day was anything but filth.

No, if Maori want Waitangi Day for themselves, let them have it. Let them go and raid a bit more kai moana than they need for the big, and feed themselves silly, speak of the injustices heaped upon them by the greedy Pakeha and work out new ways of bamboozling the Pakeha to come up with a few more millions.

When you start doing talkback or any kind of opinion broadcasting in New Zealand you learn that certain groups are loony, highly vocal, highly organised and they never rest. The second looniest are the anti-fluoride crowd. But leave them aside for today.

The looniest crowd in this country, the most irrational and bullying are La Leche, the breast feeding fascists who've become involved in the most bizarre controversy I can remember. Breast feeding is all they think about.

The row actually started with Piri Weepu filming a public health commercial in which he's seen bottle-feeding his daughter who has an allergy to dairy and the message is that she will grow up in a non-smoking house. That was the message, for God's sake. And it's a nice image. Dad, an All Black hero, Maori of the Year, bottle-feeding his little girl.

Many mothers would have appreciated seeing a baby being bottle-fed. Others appreciated that it showed a man involved in an intense part of nurturing baby. One or two mothers came forward this week and spoke about how they've been monstered by bullying women in supermarkets who berated them for buying formula.

Most mothers want to breast feed, I'm sure. No one disputes this. Some simply can't. And in the case of Piri's little girl, she can't handle dairy. But the hysterics saw a man, a bottle and a baby and were about to erupt. Never mind the positives, the non-smoking household, the All Black tenderly feeding his little girl. There was man and a baby and a bottle and it was the crime of the century.

Take it off, screamed La Leche, obviously. And suddenly the segment disappeared. The chief executive of the Health Sponsorship Council, which made the ad, is Iain Potter. Mr Potter says the council received overwhelming opposition to the bottle-feeding clip.

I bet it did. And I bet I know who from. Iain Potter should show some common sense, grow some balls, and learn to stand up to a highly organised band of intolerant people.

Overseas, just to change the subject and keep an elegant internationalism in the column, can you believe Russia's and China's intransigence at the United Nations Security Council on the matter of Syria?

So now Syria will grind on in broken, abject misery for the rest of the year until they shoot the despot.

I can't figure old rat-face Bashir. He must know that he's going the way of Gaddafi, with a refuge in a filthy sewer pipe for a while before the bullet in the head, being towed backwards through the streets to public display in a meat locker.

He's married to a very beautiful British woman, Bashir, a real English rose. One report suggested she and her family had tried to leave Syria last week but the convoy had been seen and turned back.

She must know what's coming. Armageddon is what's coming. One dreads to imagine what they'll do to her pretty face.

# ? Feb 5, 2018 23:58

Varkk: Apr 17, 2004

gently caress he was all over the place on that rambling rant. At least with the cheeky darky rant he stayed on topic.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 00:55

SurreptitiousMuffin: Mar 21, 2010

Western society is being held hostage by senile old men so arrogant they refuse to accept their own neurological decline

# ? Feb 6, 2018 01:20

Xik: Mar 10, 2011; Dinosaur Gum

Waitangi Day, breasts, racism, nationalism, All Blacks, Syria, Anzac Day....

Are we playing lovely opinion piece bingo?

# ? Feb 6, 2018 01:23

voiceless anal fricative: May 6, 2007

SurreptitiousMuffin posted:

~~Western society~~The entire world is being held hostage by ~~senile~~ somehow fully sane old men so arrogant they refuse to accept their own ~~neurological decline~~ total lack of morality, competence or basic human empathy

ftfy

# ? Feb 6, 2018 01:27

exmarx: Feb 18, 2012; The experience over the years
of nothing getting better
only worse.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 02:26

edogawa rando: Mar 20, 2007

exmarx posted:

IIRC, that was a broadcast done on public access television in Auckland by NZUSA students on election night. David Seymour would be at every student government AGM nitpicking everything, but I don't remember him ever actually running for any positions.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 02:55

1000 Brown M and Ms: Oct 22, 2008; F:\DL>quickfli 4-clowns.fli

Just like the ACT candidate I use to flat with. Loved to complain about things, but never wanted to do the work to fix them.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 03:17

WarpedNaba: Feb 8, 2012; Being social makes me swell!

Yeesh, Paul, are you still stewing about me schtupping Katie back in Haumoana? I can't have been the first one you caught, just let it go dude.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 03:47

exmachina: Mar 12, 2006; Look Closer

exmarx posted:

Hey and that is Peter Calder's son on the right, a genuinely good oval office

# ? Feb 6, 2018 07:29

The Schwa: Jul 1, 2008

eat it, Holmes, go be dead

How do y'all feel about ANZAC Day? As a thread? Individually?

# ? Feb 6, 2018 09:01

sebmojo: Oct 23, 2010; Legit Cyberpunk

The Schwa posted:

eat it, Holmes, go be dead

How do y'all feel about ANZAC Day? As a thread? Individually?

Feels like a balanced, not particularly jingoistic acknowledgment of sacrifice. Plus: day off, sweet.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 09:08

voiceless anal fricative: May 6, 2007

It used to be a day when people would protest NZ's involvement in wars and I think we need to reclaim that and the spirit of regret about the day. I also think the memorial services and the relationship with Turkey are a good part of our national culture and identity. I don't want to see it become like Australia Day or July 4th in the US but it seems to he trending that way.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 09:09

sebmojo: Oct 23, 2010; Legit Cyberpunk

The Gallipoli exhibition at te papa is loving amazing, go if you haven't.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 09:16

Dsmif: Sep 4, 2014

sebmojo posted:

The Gallipoli exhibition at te papa is loving amazing, go if you haven't.

Second this, I also enjoyed the Great War Exhibition in the Dominion Museum as well.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 09:21

WarpedNaba: Feb 8, 2012; Being social makes me swell!

The day and the original spirit of it was good (Holy poo poo, guys, there's nothing glorious about war - don't do it again) but I'm getting a bit tetchy over how it's edging into jingo territory. That and GALLIPOLI GALLIPOLI GALLIPOLI ever and anon.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 09:33

Ghostlight: Sep 25, 2009; maybe for one second you can pause; try to step into another person's perspective, and understand that a watermelon is cursing me

I don't care for celebrating our association with a nation so comfortable with its past and current human rights abuses.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 11:19

redleader: Aug 18, 2005; Engage according to operational parameters

If people are going to start calling Anzac Day "the real New Zealand day", then I'm happy to scrap the whole thing. I don't think the world needs another ghastly, bullshit glorification of war - because that is certainly what it will turn in to.

# ? Feb 6, 2018 12:26

exmachina: Mar 12, 2006; Look Closer

WarpedNaba posted:

ever and anon.

That means occasionally.

Signed,
A Pedant

# ? Feb 6, 2018 14:57

Xik: Mar 10, 2011; Dinosaur Gum

So it's a choice between celebrating war or celebrating Europeans tricking natives into giving them their land.

:thunk:

_{(I don't actually care, I never "celebrate" any of it, I just want a day off work)}

# ? Feb 6, 2018 22:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 25, 2024 00:00

exmachina: Mar 12, 2006; Look Closer

I think that intentions were good for the Treaty, the problem is whenever the colonial govt were short or when demand outstripped supply, they just ignored it.

So it was less that the Maori got tricked as much as just straight out robbed.

# ? Feb 7, 2018 04:07

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > NZpol: A Dick-Burning Dumpster Fire

«‹›446 »