Thursday, May 06, 2004
Friday, April 30, 2004
I made a promise to some friends that I would update this thing more often, and this is the first post to that effect.
I was discussing Creationism vs Evolutionism with one of the afore mentioned friends, and we hit upon some interesting points.
1. There is a lot of hate between the two camps. There are many people who get entirely too irrational about the subject; Creationists saying that Evolutionists are trying to undermine their religious institutions, and the Evolutionists calling the Creationists stupid for believing in fairy tales. I'm not saying that these arguments are representative of either side, but the people making these comments seem to be the ones who get the most press.
2. Evolution is still a scientific theory; it is not proven and it is not law. Many people seem to forget this fact. While there is a lot evidence pointing to evolution as a verifiable natural process, it still has not entered into scientific dogma, and there are many people working on the problem. From a purely scientific standpoint, it would be acceptable for evolution to be proven false, as that would end the debate, and allow us to further our knowledge of the world. Unfortunately, people seem to be more concerned with being right rather than factual.
3. The ideology of Creationists and Evolutionists are inherently different. Their basic assumptions about the whole issue are not the same. An Evolutionist is looking for something that can be objectively and independently verified. They are looking for an experiment that can be published and then duplicated by anyone in the world with the equipment and inclination to do so. Creationists, on the other hand, operate on faith. They are have no need of independent verification because having faith in God and the Bible does not require it. This is not to imply that scientists are without any sort of faith, or that devout people are foolish for their beliefs, just to point out that the ideology is different, and that causes problems.
Some thoughts on political parties.
As I've said before, I can't always remember what I've talked about on this page, so I apologize if I repeat myself. If you know me personally, then you know that that is pretty much how I operate in real life anyway.
Political parties are not interested in finding the best man for office. They are not even interested in finding the best Democrat or Republican or whatever for office. They are interested in the person most likely to get elected, whatever his qualities. The only reason that issues matter to the party at all, is that issues affect your ability to get elected. If a study was done proving that penis size affected your chances, you can be damn sure that every presidential hopeful would find himself in a room with doctor, a ruler, and his pants around his ankles.
Overheard in my Literature 275 class
A student mentioned that she was dying to ask the professor if he held any kind of religious beliefs at all, because shed couldn't tell.
It's true; from his lectures you really don't get any kind feel for weather or not he has any, but that doesn't bother me.
I wanted to ask her, "If he was Christian, would that make him a better professor? Would he be a worse teacher is he was an Atheist?"
Just an interesting question. Not sure why I didn't speak up. Maybe I'll ask next week.
Marriage (Mine)
I'm still developing a.... an image, if you will, of myself as a married man. It's still hard for me to grasp that she doesn't care if screw up, because she loves me. It's strange that I should forget that, as it's the same way I feel about her.
I'm also learning that just because I love her very much, does not mean that I'm always happy with her. We're human, above all, and we get upset with each other. Sometimes a lot, sometimes not at all. But we always come out of it.
I was discussing Creationism vs Evolutionism with one of the afore mentioned friends, and we hit upon some interesting points.
1. There is a lot of hate between the two camps. There are many people who get entirely too irrational about the subject; Creationists saying that Evolutionists are trying to undermine their religious institutions, and the Evolutionists calling the Creationists stupid for believing in fairy tales. I'm not saying that these arguments are representative of either side, but the people making these comments seem to be the ones who get the most press.
2. Evolution is still a scientific theory; it is not proven and it is not law. Many people seem to forget this fact. While there is a lot evidence pointing to evolution as a verifiable natural process, it still has not entered into scientific dogma, and there are many people working on the problem. From a purely scientific standpoint, it would be acceptable for evolution to be proven false, as that would end the debate, and allow us to further our knowledge of the world. Unfortunately, people seem to be more concerned with being right rather than factual.
3. The ideology of Creationists and Evolutionists are inherently different. Their basic assumptions about the whole issue are not the same. An Evolutionist is looking for something that can be objectively and independently verified. They are looking for an experiment that can be published and then duplicated by anyone in the world with the equipment and inclination to do so. Creationists, on the other hand, operate on faith. They are have no need of independent verification because having faith in God and the Bible does not require it. This is not to imply that scientists are without any sort of faith, or that devout people are foolish for their beliefs, just to point out that the ideology is different, and that causes problems.
Some thoughts on political parties.
As I've said before, I can't always remember what I've talked about on this page, so I apologize if I repeat myself. If you know me personally, then you know that that is pretty much how I operate in real life anyway.
Political parties are not interested in finding the best man for office. They are not even interested in finding the best Democrat or Republican or whatever for office. They are interested in the person most likely to get elected, whatever his qualities. The only reason that issues matter to the party at all, is that issues affect your ability to get elected. If a study was done proving that penis size affected your chances, you can be damn sure that every presidential hopeful would find himself in a room with doctor, a ruler, and his pants around his ankles.
Overheard in my Literature 275 class
A student mentioned that she was dying to ask the professor if he held any kind of religious beliefs at all, because shed couldn't tell.
It's true; from his lectures you really don't get any kind feel for weather or not he has any, but that doesn't bother me.
I wanted to ask her, "If he was Christian, would that make him a better professor? Would he be a worse teacher is he was an Atheist?"
Just an interesting question. Not sure why I didn't speak up. Maybe I'll ask next week.
Marriage (Mine)
I'm still developing a.... an image, if you will, of myself as a married man. It's still hard for me to grasp that she doesn't care if screw up, because she loves me. It's strange that I should forget that, as it's the same way I feel about her.
I'm also learning that just because I love her very much, does not mean that I'm always happy with her. We're human, above all, and we get upset with each other. Sometimes a lot, sometimes not at all. But we always come out of it.
Monday, April 05, 2004
A casualty of the information age.
That's how I describe myself, at the moment. I was thinking about how I was tired of being sold shit, and how difficult it can be to research something on line, and I decided the two were related.
I feel that almost all advertising is deceitful. Every time I see an ad, I think, "Where's the catch?" Most of you are probably thinking, "Well, duh," but I don't think the point is addressed enough. While ads may not lie outright, as in passing off cubic zirconia as natural diamond, by it's very nature seemingly, there is always a kernal of dishonesty, of chicanery, double-dealing, fourberie, fraud, hanky-panky, highbinding, or sharp practice. To quote Tolkien, it's "wicked, tricksy, false." Either by omission or clever word choice, they attempt to lead you astray.
It can't be good to be this cynical, but growing up with the glut of information we have these days has sent my bullshit detector into overdrive. It doesn't help that I find myself right a lot of the time.
Some examples:
I was investigating a bartending academy that opened recently in town. The comely young woman explained that, normally, the cost is $599.00, but because they've had such a need for students, they're currently offering classes for only $349.00. I needed to act quickly, she told me, because that special price was scheduled to end tomorrow. At this point, the BS radar went 'ping,' and I told her I'd think about it. (Not that I had six hundred or three hundred fifty or even fifty dollars to give her at that point.) I asked around and, sure enough, the 'special price' had been scheduled to end for several months now.
RC Willey, a furniture chain for those readers lucky enough to not live within range of their incessant advertising, advertised a sale where, quote, "Absolutely everything in the store is on sale!" Then at the end of the broadcast the announcer quickly added that, "A very few items not included in this sale." You can't have it both ways.
Mor, another furniture chain, has had a sale going on "Today, Tonight and Tomorrow Only!" since they opened in town, two years ago. The deal never really changes, only the name of the sale. I rest easy every night knowing that I will probably never have to pay money down, interest, or delivery fees at Mor, OAC.
Political ads are a whole category of dishonesty to themselves.
So everything I'm presented with I regard warily. I see the man begging on the corner and wonder if really does need money or is just lazy. There's a collection cup on the counter at work for a little girl who needs an unfathomably expensive operation. I know the girl's need is genuine, but I wonder how much of the spare change in the cup actually makes it to her family. The cup does say dose that 100% of the funds go directly to Annabelle, and that is comforting, but I still can't bring myself to trust them.
Somebody wants me to "click here to receive a free prize." I have never once clicked one of those.
This other person wants my email address to sign me up for a newsletter, and I want to know who else is getting my address.
Even my employer is trying to sell me something. Not a product, but we have these five 'core values' that are basically trying to trick me into being a good little employee. (I'll save my thoughts on those gems for later.)
As jaded as I am, ads still work on me from time to time. Case in point, I tried one of BK's new chicken sandwiches the other day because mostly I thought the commercials were funny.
I understand that whining about advertising being double-plus un-good is like whining about an elm tree shedding it's leaves in the fall; it's just the way things are. But the elm tree doesn't make me wary of almost every one I meet.
I wonder what all this cynicism is doing to us.
That's how I describe myself, at the moment. I was thinking about how I was tired of being sold shit, and how difficult it can be to research something on line, and I decided the two were related.
I feel that almost all advertising is deceitful. Every time I see an ad, I think, "Where's the catch?" Most of you are probably thinking, "Well, duh," but I don't think the point is addressed enough. While ads may not lie outright, as in passing off cubic zirconia as natural diamond, by it's very nature seemingly, there is always a kernal of dishonesty, of chicanery, double-dealing, fourberie, fraud, hanky-panky, highbinding, or sharp practice. To quote Tolkien, it's "wicked, tricksy, false." Either by omission or clever word choice, they attempt to lead you astray.
It can't be good to be this cynical, but growing up with the glut of information we have these days has sent my bullshit detector into overdrive. It doesn't help that I find myself right a lot of the time.
Some examples:
I was investigating a bartending academy that opened recently in town. The comely young woman explained that, normally, the cost is $599.00, but because they've had such a need for students, they're currently offering classes for only $349.00. I needed to act quickly, she told me, because that special price was scheduled to end tomorrow. At this point, the BS radar went 'ping,' and I told her I'd think about it. (Not that I had six hundred or three hundred fifty or even fifty dollars to give her at that point.) I asked around and, sure enough, the 'special price' had been scheduled to end for several months now.
RC Willey, a furniture chain for those readers lucky enough to not live within range of their incessant advertising, advertised a sale where, quote, "Absolutely everything in the store is on sale!" Then at the end of the broadcast the announcer quickly added that, "A very few items not included in this sale." You can't have it both ways.
Mor, another furniture chain, has had a sale going on "Today, Tonight and Tomorrow Only!" since they opened in town, two years ago. The deal never really changes, only the name of the sale. I rest easy every night knowing that I will probably never have to pay money down, interest, or delivery fees at Mor, OAC.
Political ads are a whole category of dishonesty to themselves.
So everything I'm presented with I regard warily. I see the man begging on the corner and wonder if really does need money or is just lazy. There's a collection cup on the counter at work for a little girl who needs an unfathomably expensive operation. I know the girl's need is genuine, but I wonder how much of the spare change in the cup actually makes it to her family. The cup does say dose that 100% of the funds go directly to Annabelle, and that is comforting, but I still can't bring myself to trust them.
Somebody wants me to "click here to receive a free prize." I have never once clicked one of those.
This other person wants my email address to sign me up for a newsletter, and I want to know who else is getting my address.
Even my employer is trying to sell me something. Not a product, but we have these five 'core values' that are basically trying to trick me into being a good little employee. (I'll save my thoughts on those gems for later.)
As jaded as I am, ads still work on me from time to time. Case in point, I tried one of BK's new chicken sandwiches the other day because mostly I thought the commercials were funny.
I understand that whining about advertising being double-plus un-good is like whining about an elm tree shedding it's leaves in the fall; it's just the way things are. But the elm tree doesn't make me wary of almost every one I meet.
I wonder what all this cynicism is doing to us.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
It's called the "Bible," not God's Big Book Of People Who Are Going To Hell, And Therefore Are Acceptable Targets Of Your Narrow-Minded Scorn And Ridicule. Seeing as gay marriage and ten commandments monuments are on everybody's mind just now, I thought I'd take the time to weigh in on both subjects. First, the 10 commandments monument in Julia Davis park.
It seemed to me that the importance of of having the monument in the park quickly overshadowed the message the monument represents. (I wonder how many of the people in these vigils and protests were aware it existed before Fred Phelps made a fuss about his monument. More than that, I wonder how many of them actually practiced what the stones preached.) But command number 2 is all about not having graven images, i.e., worshipping things as opposed to God. I don't think Boise is any better or worse off for having or not having the monument in place. Now that's is being moved, I'm fairly certain that people will forget about the fracas, and continue on with their lives.
The point I'm trying to make is, if you truly believe, if you give more than lip-service to God and the Bible, then you don't need a monument; you have it in your heart.
Broadly speaking, I'm very pro religion. I don't have much use for organized religion, personally, but in general, it's a good thing. Almost every religion I've come across, and certainly the Big 3, boil down to: don't be a dick, don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, be nice to people, avoid drugs and alcohol, don't have sex unless you're absolutely prepared to have kids, respect people, and so on. All very good things, things that wouldn't kill more people to try. But then you get into the zelots, and the whole system breaks down. This seqways nicely into my thoughts on gay marriage.
It's well established that the Bible, and by extension God and Jesus, take a very dim view of homosexuality. By most readings, homosexuals go to hell. End of story. Guess what? Gay people know this. You don't have to beat them over the head with the fact that you may consider their whole like to sinful. Gays, for the most part, are not asking the Catholics, or Luthren, or LDS, etc, etc, etc, to suddenly approve of homosexuality, they're asking governments to.
I see three levels, no, let's call them types of marriage, as levels implies a hierarchy, of marriage, each capable of existing with or without any of the others. The first is a 'spiritual' marriage. This is where two people decide that they love each other, and make lifelong commitments to support each other. Weather or not this union is recognized by any religious or secular authority is another question, and irrelavent. These people love each other, and that's all that matters
The second type, is a religious marriage, that is one sancioned by a higher power, weather that be Buddha or God or Jehova or Allah or Kali or Deanna or a thousand other deities. These unions can exist with out without any kind of legal status, and with or without any kind of love or emotion.
The final type is a civil union, which is largely a taxable arrangement anymore.
Every combination of these types of 'marriage' is possible. If you think for a moment, you've probably encountered several combinations in your own life.
The gays have the first type, they mostly don't care about the second, seeing it, I think, as a lost cause for the time being, and are after the third. Just because San Francisco, or New Paltz says these two people are married, does not imperatively mean they love each other, or any sort of deity gives a damn. It's just a monetary situation. gays want to get all the cool financial stuff straight people do: lower taxes, better interest rates and insurance, the right to inherit and all that stuff.
It was asked of me, if they allow gay marriage, since tradition is out the window, why not allow incestual marriage? I say sure, but the problem lies in the semantics of the word 'marriage.' 'Marriage' implies a religious ceremony, so I propose that we leave marriage to refer specifically to that alone, and have the word 'union' apply to any two people who want this tax status to apply to them. There does not need to be any physical love/sex/lust involved, (and if there is, what business is it of yours?) but this could really help people out. As an example, my uncle and grandmother have lived together for many years. My grandmother is divorced and my uncle shows no signs of getting married any time soon, if at all. If the option were open, setting up a 'union' could help them tremendously. (Money is very tight with them.) If would lower their taxes, my uncle would be able to add his mother to his health insurance, and they would have more money in pocket because of lower deductions.
It seemed to me that the importance of of having the monument in the park quickly overshadowed the message the monument represents. (I wonder how many of the people in these vigils and protests were aware it existed before Fred Phelps made a fuss about his monument. More than that, I wonder how many of them actually practiced what the stones preached.) But command number 2 is all about not having graven images, i.e., worshipping things as opposed to God. I don't think Boise is any better or worse off for having or not having the monument in place. Now that's is being moved, I'm fairly certain that people will forget about the fracas, and continue on with their lives.
The point I'm trying to make is, if you truly believe, if you give more than lip-service to God and the Bible, then you don't need a monument; you have it in your heart.
Broadly speaking, I'm very pro religion. I don't have much use for organized religion, personally, but in general, it's a good thing. Almost every religion I've come across, and certainly the Big 3, boil down to: don't be a dick, don't lie, don't steal, don't kill, be nice to people, avoid drugs and alcohol, don't have sex unless you're absolutely prepared to have kids, respect people, and so on. All very good things, things that wouldn't kill more people to try. But then you get into the zelots, and the whole system breaks down. This seqways nicely into my thoughts on gay marriage.
It's well established that the Bible, and by extension God and Jesus, take a very dim view of homosexuality. By most readings, homosexuals go to hell. End of story. Guess what? Gay people know this. You don't have to beat them over the head with the fact that you may consider their whole like to sinful. Gays, for the most part, are not asking the Catholics, or Luthren, or LDS, etc, etc, etc, to suddenly approve of homosexuality, they're asking governments to.
I see three levels, no, let's call them types of marriage, as levels implies a hierarchy, of marriage, each capable of existing with or without any of the others. The first is a 'spiritual' marriage. This is where two people decide that they love each other, and make lifelong commitments to support each other. Weather or not this union is recognized by any religious or secular authority is another question, and irrelavent. These people love each other, and that's all that matters
The second type, is a religious marriage, that is one sancioned by a higher power, weather that be Buddha or God or Jehova or Allah or Kali or Deanna or a thousand other deities. These unions can exist with out without any kind of legal status, and with or without any kind of love or emotion.
The final type is a civil union, which is largely a taxable arrangement anymore.
Every combination of these types of 'marriage' is possible. If you think for a moment, you've probably encountered several combinations in your own life.
The gays have the first type, they mostly don't care about the second, seeing it, I think, as a lost cause for the time being, and are after the third. Just because San Francisco, or New Paltz says these two people are married, does not imperatively mean they love each other, or any sort of deity gives a damn. It's just a monetary situation. gays want to get all the cool financial stuff straight people do: lower taxes, better interest rates and insurance, the right to inherit and all that stuff.
It was asked of me, if they allow gay marriage, since tradition is out the window, why not allow incestual marriage? I say sure, but the problem lies in the semantics of the word 'marriage.' 'Marriage' implies a religious ceremony, so I propose that we leave marriage to refer specifically to that alone, and have the word 'union' apply to any two people who want this tax status to apply to them. There does not need to be any physical love/sex/lust involved, (and if there is, what business is it of yours?) but this could really help people out. As an example, my uncle and grandmother have lived together for many years. My grandmother is divorced and my uncle shows no signs of getting married any time soon, if at all. If the option were open, setting up a 'union' could help them tremendously. (Money is very tight with them.) If would lower their taxes, my uncle would be able to add his mother to his health insurance, and they would have more money in pocket because of lower deductions.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
So, had another drug test at work the other day. That makes two in seven months. I'm seeing some kind of trend here: Store Director leaves (the first for incompetence, the second for screwing the Bakery Manager (rumor, tho widely repeated)), Area Supervisor holds an Emergency Store Meeting, we meet the new Boss Man, pizza is served, then we are all asked to share a few ounces of our urine with the nice man from Occupational Health Services.
It's the last part that gets me.
Now, I have smoked pot, as have large portions of this country, though never regularly and not in several years, so passing the test was not an issue for me, but it still bothered me that they wanted to screen my urine.
{I would like to take the time to mention that pot is fun and enjoyable [if it wasn't, would people smoke it?] and if given the opportunity, I would probably do it again.}
A couple of reasons:
The first is a trust thing. There has to exist a certain amount of trust between employer and employee. I have to trust that my employer will give me the hours I need with respect to my class schedule, will pay a more or less (emphasis on less) fair wage, not intentionally endanger my life, etc.
The Employer should trust that I will execute my duties (more or less) faithfully, show up for work ready to work, not (wantonly) steal from the store, respect the rules and policies in effect, etc.
I have worked there for, as I said, seven months, and have, so I thought, proven myself to be a willing, capable, and trustworthy employee. I have never given them any reason to doubt my sobriety on the job, unlike one or two employees I can think of. So when it comes time to see which peons are tweaking after work, they should say to themselves, "He is a trustworthy employee. We do not need to test him." But they don't. I'm equally suspect as anyone else, which is annoying. What is the point of trying to be a mostly scrupulous person if no one ever believes you?
My soul mate says it not about trust, that it's about all the other people who came before and have ruined for me. But that's exactly about trust. It's not that they are unable to trust me, they are unwilling to.
I don't like not being trusted, especially when I feel I've gone out of my way to be worthy of trust.
The second reason is for broader, political reasons. Some of you may find it strange that I take the time to connect a simple piss test that I'm in no danger, whatsoever, of failing, with national policy, but this is a way that larger issues manifest themselves directly in our lives (or mine at least).
Certain drugs are illegal, others are not, and I find the distinctions arbitrary.
Pot is illegal. Tobacco is not.
Pot is, insofar as I know, not chemically addictive.
Nicotine in tobacco is. I have never heard of any one getting emphysema from pot, though I suppose it's possible with heavy use. Cigarettes kill something like one in three people who use them. See what I mean by arbitrary?
Another fun fact: of all the varied and sundry substances you can become addicted to, alcohol is the only one that can kill you with withdrawal symptoms. That's right, the delirium tremens (DTs) are the only commonly fatal withdrawal out there. Many withdrawals, heroin and cocaine notably, may make you wish you were dead, but only alcohol can kill you if you're an alcoholic and try to quit. And alcohol is the legal drug.
My point to this is, there seems to be no logical reason why some things are illegal, and other are not.
Let's suppose, for a moment, that I'm a HUGE pot-head. Let's say I have trouble paying the bills and am failing my classes for all the time and money I spend on pot. Or Cocaine, or heroin, or meth or pick your drug. Has that effected the company in any way? No. I'm still a reliable person, who keeps his habits at home, and does his job well. Why should they care if I get high after work? I really don't think it any of their business, so long as my personal activities do not interfere with my ability to do my job.
I am not the world's best employee. I slack off like most people, cut corners when I'm feeling lazy and think I can get away with it, and sometimes simply sit behind the register and stare for a while, so don't think I'm coming from some kind of holier than thou stance, but I see a lot of inherent contradictions in this policy.
For example, almost every time I show up for work and one of the Smokers is working, as soon as my till is ready to go, they go outside have a smoke. Often for ten minutes or more. They're outside puffing away, and stuck inside with the customers. I don't mind when there's nothing going on, but frequently, I have a line of three or four people and my coworker is nowhere to be found. As an estimate, I would say that the smoking population at my store loses one-half hour per person per shift due to smoking. Assuming five shifts a week, that's two and a half hours a week per person! Assuming that they make at least as much as I, the math works to approximately $217.50 a month that the company is paying to have people smoke.
And the company is worried that I may be smoking pot.
It's the last part that gets me.
Now, I have smoked pot, as have large portions of this country, though never regularly and not in several years, so passing the test was not an issue for me, but it still bothered me that they wanted to screen my urine.
{I would like to take the time to mention that pot is fun and enjoyable [if it wasn't, would people smoke it?] and if given the opportunity, I would probably do it again.}
A couple of reasons:
The first is a trust thing. There has to exist a certain amount of trust between employer and employee. I have to trust that my employer will give me the hours I need with respect to my class schedule, will pay a more or less (emphasis on less) fair wage, not intentionally endanger my life, etc.
The Employer should trust that I will execute my duties (more or less) faithfully, show up for work ready to work, not (wantonly) steal from the store, respect the rules and policies in effect, etc.
I have worked there for, as I said, seven months, and have, so I thought, proven myself to be a willing, capable, and trustworthy employee. I have never given them any reason to doubt my sobriety on the job, unlike one or two employees I can think of. So when it comes time to see which peons are tweaking after work, they should say to themselves, "He is a trustworthy employee. We do not need to test him." But they don't. I'm equally suspect as anyone else, which is annoying. What is the point of trying to be a mostly scrupulous person if no one ever believes you?
My soul mate says it not about trust, that it's about all the other people who came before and have ruined for me. But that's exactly about trust. It's not that they are unable to trust me, they are unwilling to.
I don't like not being trusted, especially when I feel I've gone out of my way to be worthy of trust.
The second reason is for broader, political reasons. Some of you may find it strange that I take the time to connect a simple piss test that I'm in no danger, whatsoever, of failing, with national policy, but this is a way that larger issues manifest themselves directly in our lives (or mine at least).
Certain drugs are illegal, others are not, and I find the distinctions arbitrary.
Pot is illegal. Tobacco is not.
Pot is, insofar as I know, not chemically addictive.
Nicotine in tobacco is. I have never heard of any one getting emphysema from pot, though I suppose it's possible with heavy use. Cigarettes kill something like one in three people who use them. See what I mean by arbitrary?
Another fun fact: of all the varied and sundry substances you can become addicted to, alcohol is the only one that can kill you with withdrawal symptoms. That's right, the delirium tremens (DTs) are the only commonly fatal withdrawal out there. Many withdrawals, heroin and cocaine notably, may make you wish you were dead, but only alcohol can kill you if you're an alcoholic and try to quit. And alcohol is the legal drug.
My point to this is, there seems to be no logical reason why some things are illegal, and other are not.
Let's suppose, for a moment, that I'm a HUGE pot-head. Let's say I have trouble paying the bills and am failing my classes for all the time and money I spend on pot. Or Cocaine, or heroin, or meth or pick your drug. Has that effected the company in any way? No. I'm still a reliable person, who keeps his habits at home, and does his job well. Why should they care if I get high after work? I really don't think it any of their business, so long as my personal activities do not interfere with my ability to do my job.
I am not the world's best employee. I slack off like most people, cut corners when I'm feeling lazy and think I can get away with it, and sometimes simply sit behind the register and stare for a while, so don't think I'm coming from some kind of holier than thou stance, but I see a lot of inherent contradictions in this policy.
For example, almost every time I show up for work and one of the Smokers is working, as soon as my till is ready to go, they go outside have a smoke. Often for ten minutes or more. They're outside puffing away, and stuck inside with the customers. I don't mind when there's nothing going on, but frequently, I have a line of three or four people and my coworker is nowhere to be found. As an estimate, I would say that the smoking population at my store loses one-half hour per person per shift due to smoking. Assuming five shifts a week, that's two and a half hours a week per person! Assuming that they make at least as much as I, the math works to approximately $217.50 a month that the company is paying to have people smoke.
And the company is worried that I may be smoking pot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)