So much for the work ethic

 

I was both sympathetic and very annoyed to read a woman's account of how she set about demonstrating that her job was meaningless.

It was around then, as the company went through various rounds of restructuring, that I developed a nagging suspicion that my role was irrelevant and futile ... No one – my new manager included – really knew what my role was meant to entail. I looked at what I was doing day to day, hour to hour, and looked at what everyone else was doing, and it all started to feel like a convoluted farce.

So, I decided to conduct an experiment. Out of protest, I resolved to stop working and to see how long it would be before anyone noticed.

. . .

This was in the era before working from home, so I knew I’d have to go to my office each day and at least appear to be working.

I quickly realised, though, that there is no greater ruse in a modern office than the spreadsheet.

People walk past, see all that small text and columns, and just assume you’re working. What was I actually doing? Meticulously planning 10 months of travel: day-by-day itineraries, budgets, where we’d stay, what trains to get, things to see. My now-husband and I had always planned to travel; I was simply using company hours to prepare for it.

Of course this involved a lot of Googling, so I always had a page that looked like work ready, so that I could minimise my travel research quickly. I’d angled my monitor, but I was lucky to be sat in front of a window, away from any footfall, so it was rare that anyone saw my screen.

To leave a paper trail – so that if anyone asked, I could point to tasks I’d completed – I’d send a couple of emails during the week. I’d pad the basic questions about some account or other out with extra thoughts, so that it seemed like I’d considered the subject at length. Sometimes I’d create a document based on whatever was exchanged in the email. Other times, I might even turn the email contents into a PowerPoint presentation. With about 15 minutes of effort, I would have earned my crust.

If I hadn’t done even that, half an hour before my weekly one-to-ones with my manager I would spend 15 minutes knocking up a page of something, typically a presentation with figures I knew he wouldn’t bother to follow-up on. Then I’d deliver my updates in a convincing tone, using the appropriate buzz phrases. “I’m making great progress... the stakeholders are on board…”

My manager would nod: “That all sounds great! Carry on.”

In that way, I did no work for an entire year. The experiment ended not because anyone exposed my idling, but because I finally left.

There's more at the link.

She doesn't appear to have worried at all that it might be unethical to take an honest day's wage for a dis-honest day's work.  That was the infuriating part.  On the other hand, there was also sympathy for working in such a meaningless, dead-end environment (which I experienced more than once during my years in the business world - not to mention the military).  On average, I'd say that the companies and institutions where I worked probably had a good 30% of staff who were basically redundant, hindering the company rather than helping it, soaking up resources that could have been better applied elsewhere.

I remember when Elon Musk took over Twitter.  I understand he shed about 80% of its workforce, some through being dismissed, others through encouraging them to leave through buyout offers, and not a few resigning in outrage that the left-wing ethos of the company was being stripped away.  For a couple of years Twitter was in financial difficulties, but it bounced right back, and is currently profitable - but still a much smaller company in terms of headcount.  What were those people doing who were removed?  How could Twitter have justified keeping them on the payroll when clearly it could have functioned - and is now functioning - just fine without them?

I suppose part of the problem is that too much of one's corporate status is dependent on how many people and/or functions report to you.  The more people a given level of management supervises, the more senior it's deemed to be, and the greater the rewards and incentives offered to its manager(s) to hire even more and expand even further.  Very few companies seem to value managers who reduce headcount and economize on corporate resources.

On the other hand, small companies seem much more focused on their purpose.  Every employee has to contribute measurably to their success, financially or otherwise.  If someone's a freeloader, he or she will be identified much more quickly as such, and probably shown the door within a matter of weeks.  That's as it should be.  A small company doesn't have the accumulated resources to carry unnecessary bodies with it.  It has to be lean, mean and economical, because its proprietor's income is utterly dependent on himself and his small group of workers.  Any loss of focus will cost money out of his pocket - a very good incentive to keep a tight rein on outflows.

I guess there are too many companies who end up with employees like the author above, but tolerate them for all the wrong reasons.  We really need to have concrete, specific ways to evaluate how every job contributes to the mission of the company/department/etc.  If your output can't be measured, how do you know you're doing something worthwhile?  And how do you know that about those who work for you?

Peter

Kat really needs our help

 

Late last month, I wrote about Kat Ainsworth Stevens.

She's a friend and occasional member of the North Texas Troublemakers, and an active gun writer - you've probably read articles by her if you read gun mags or several well-known Internet sites.  When last I wrote about her, she was facing imminent surgery for breast cancer, and since she's a free-lancer, she doesn't have medical insurance to help.

She's had her surgery, which was massive - double mastectomy, every lymph gland in sight, all that sort of thing.  She's recovering from it at present, and is facing both radiation and chemotherapy to knock down any remaining traces of the cancer.  To make matters worse, her four-year-old son developed some sort of intestinal disorder that required him to be hospitalized as well:  but Kat can't visit him much, because her wounds are still draining and the risk of infection is simply too great.  That's a very tough row to hoe.

Kat's received her first bill from the hospital.  It's well into the five-figure bracket, and it won't be the last, either, what with chemical and radiological therapy still to come.  Her friends have therefore organized a raffle for a Foxtrot Mike Ranch Rifle (description at link).

The one on offer in the raffle has been upgraded even further, making it a very desirable firearm.  Click the link to see it in more detail, with more and larger images, and enter for the raffle.  Any donation up to $100, no matter how small, gets one ticket, and multiple tickets are given for larger donations - details at the link.

Kat's good people, and deserves our help.  Please donate whatever you can afford, either to the raffle, or (if you prefer) to the original GiveSendGo fundraiser, which is still in operation.

Thanks, friends.

Peter

"Pie in the sky" prepping - or, getting real about our chances

 

I'm a relative lightweight in the "prepping" world.  I have emergency food, water and other supplies to keep my wife and myself alive for a few months in a disaster situation, and (hopefully) enough to share with friends for at least the short term;  but that's based on "bugging in", staying in our home and not venturing far unless and until it's safe to do so.  We don't have a "bug out" location, or remotely stored supplies, or anything like that - it's simply unaffordable for us.

Nevertheless, I'm often surprised to hear from people who are very much in our situation that they have these grand plans to "bug out" to the sticks, establish a survival homestead from scratch, grow their own food, herd a few cows, steal a travel trailer from somewhere as a place to live, and so on.  Frankly, I think they have no idea at all of just how much effort will be involved in making that plan work.

Eaton Rapids Joe has put up a couple of recent blog posts in which he lays out precisely what skills and resources are needed (and vitally important) if one is to homestead successfully.  In the first article, "A man has to know his limitations", he looks at all the skills needed to successfully homestead (some required all the time, others for specific situations).  In the second, "Why 'Russian' Dachas all look alike", he examines what successful country farms have in the way of facilities and equipment, and also what they don't have (because it's either way too expensive, or too resource-heavy, or unnecessary).  Both articles, and both of the lists he provides, are well worth reading.  If, after reading them, anyone still thinks it'll be easy to set up an emergency homestead . . . well, you're probably going to learn the hard way how wrong you are!

Another aspect of the problem is that too many people stock up on "second-best" gear, food and equipment for emergency use, because it's cheaper and they can afford more of it.  Commander Zero discusses this approach with respect to firearms:

... if you need to resort to your hideaway stash becase you can’t get to your primary gear, then its safe to assume that your life has just taken a turn for the spectacularly ungood, agreed? So, in that time of (literally) existential crisis doesn’t it seem to make sense that you would want the best gear you can have?

It does, indeed, make sense.  That's a lesson I learned the hard way in Africa over many years.  If you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Mother Nature is a stone cold bitch who's out to kill you, wouldn't you want the best gear you can get in your emergency stash, to help you withstand her advances?  Quality can save your life.  Economy can kill you.  That applies to all our emergency preps, not just firearms.

(On a related subject, Commander Zero recently bought some land in the back country of Montana, and is beginning to set it up as a private retreat.  He recently blogged about his first weekend excursion to begin preparing it for use.  So many things went wrong that one can almost feel his pain, but he's not afraid to discuss all the mistakes he made, and what he's learned from the experience that he'll apply in future visits.  A very useful discussion, and a very useful reality check for the rest of us.)

Preparation isn't just physical.  One's outlook on everyday living - and what it costs - is a foundational element.  SNAFU links to a social media comment from a teacher who's complaining that she can't come out on $7,500 net income per month - while spending over $1,500 on a vehicle payment, and over $3,000 on rent!  Some commenters at his site question whether the original post is truthful, because the payments seem extraordinarily high, but he makes the very valid point that "Financial Education needs to be a REQUIRED course in school (along with NOT chasing luxury items to impress people that don't give a damn)".

On that subject, here's some brutally frank (and very truthful) advice from the TV series House Of Cards.  Kevin Spacey plays Frank Underwood, a highly immoral yet realistic politician.

Yes, that is brutal advice:  but in this world of easy-fulfilment dreams, hire purchase, leasing, and all the other debt instruments out there, it remains true.  If you're in debt, you're a financial slave to those who own your debt, and most of them will be utterly ruthless in coming after you to get what they're owed.  Being prepared for emergencies is as much about financial preparation as any other type of preparedness:  and one of the first and most fundamental steps in financial preparation is to get out of debt as far as possible.  As Spacey's character says, "The moment you get in debt, you're enslaving yourself until you buy back your freedom with interest."  Believe it.  It's true.

(Sometimes, of course, we can't afford not to go into debt.  We had to replace my wife's car in early 2022, because her old one had been driven into the ground until it was no longer viable.  The impact of COVID-19 had led to a drastic shortage of all types of vehicles, partly due to the reduction in dealer inventory, partly due to the shortage of used vehicles thanks to President Obama's "Cash For Clunkers" scheme, which scrapped tens of thousands of otherwise worthwhile cars.  We ended up buying a new car, and paying above the manufacturer's MSRP, because nothing else worthwhile was available to us:  and, to finance that very expensive purchase, we took out a loan.  It was a loan neither of us wanted, but under the circumstances, it was necessary.  Under such circumstances, one does what one must.  We bought an entry-level model without all the luxury features, and that helped lower the price and keep payments down.)

All of the above articles are food for thought.

Peter

A different way to look at inflation

 

Inflation hits the contraceptive market!  Reuters reports:

Malaysia's Karex Bhd, the world's top condom producer, plans to raise prices by 20% to 30% and possibly further if supply chain ​disruptions drag on due to the Iran war, its chief executive said on ‌Tuesday.

Karex is also seeing a surge in condom demand as rising freight costs and shipping delays have left many of its customers with lower stockpiles than usual, CEO Goh Miah Kiat told ​Reuters in an interview.

"The situation is definitely very fragile, prices are expensive... We ​have no choice but to transfer the costs right now to ⁠the customers," Goh said.

There's more at the link.

Well, "inflation" sort of goes with the territory of condoms, so to speak, so for prices to match reality is logical, I suppose.  The same might be said for "dragging on".  However, regarding the "very fragile" situation, I daresay that's inimical to the product!

Sometimes the jokes almost write themselves . . .

Peter

Medicine, health and gender ideology

 

I hadn't realized how endemic the gender apocalypse had become in the health care (?) industry until I read this article.

In Minton v. Dignity Health, Evan Minton, who was born female but masqueraded as a male, was scheduled by her doctor for a hysterectomy at Mercy San Juan Medical Center, a Catholic hospital near Sacramento, in August 2016. Two days before the procedure, the doctor informed the hospital that she was transgender, and the hospital canceled the surgery. The hospital’s position was that the surgery was elective, part of a “transition,” and that, as a Catholic hospital, they could not participate in sex change operations.

The ACLU filed suit under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. The California Court of Appeals ruled in 2019 that Minton had standing to proceed, and in 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Dignity Health’s appeal, leaving that ruling intact.

In the end, the San Francisco County Superior Court entered the following judgment: “It is adjudged that plaintiff Minton, Evan take nothing from defendant Dignity Health dba Mercy San Juan Medical Center.” Minton lost. She was awarded nothing.

In Hammons v. University of Maryland St. Joseph Medical Center, the ruling went the other way when a federal court subsequently ruled that the hospital’s refusal to perform a hysterectomy on a woman who dressed as a man violated the Affordable Care Act.

. . .

Jessica Simpson, a Canadian transgender activist who retains male genitalia, filed a complaint against a gynecologist who refused to treat her, claiming discrimination. The complaint was filed with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia in 2019, though no resolution has been publicly reported.

A report by Advocates for Trans Equality states, “If a transgender woman’s health care provider decides she needs a prostate exam, an insurance company can’t deny it because she is listed as female in her records. If her provider recommends gynecological care, coverage can’t be denied simply because she was identified as male at birth.”

There's more at the link.

Verily, the mind doth boggle.  How on earth is an insurance company to assess the likely costs to be incurred by a prospective member if they can't be sure whether he/she is male or female?  Women have gynecological expenses that men don't have;  men have male-specific illnesses that women don't have.  It makes a difference to risks, premiums, etc.  For that matter, how about life insurance when life expectancy is affected by biological sex?  All other things being equal, women live several years longer than men, and insurance companies take that into account when deciding on the premium for life insurance policies.  What if they can't be sure of the biological sex (and hence natural life expectancy) of the person applying for insurance?

I've got a simple proposal.  Whenever anyone applies for health insurance, life insurance, or anything else where biological sex makes a difference, insist that they have to undergo a chromosome check.  If it comes back XX, they're female, no matter what they say they are.  If it comes back XY, they're male, ditto.  Only in the vanishingly small number of so-called "intersex" cases (generally accepted by authoritative medical sources as being far less than 1%) would further testing be required.  The insurance or medical procedures the individual seeks should be awarded on the basis of this chromosome test.  If it's not appropriate for their chromosomal (i.e. biological) sex, they can't have it unless they pay for it out of their own pockets and the provider is willing to provide it.  Period (you should pardon the expression).  Biologically female?  No subsidized prostate or testicular cancer exam for you.  Biologically male?  No subsidized birth control pills or cervical cancer test for you.  Is the examination or procedure you want against the moral or ethical code of the provider?  Then you don't get it from them.  End of story.

I think that would eliminate most of the legal problems facing the health care industry, exclude a great deal of the political correctness and "wokeness" involved, and save insurers a lot of money into the bargain.  What say you, readers?

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 308

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.