Useless worker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Lot of people know as long as they do the bare minimum.....
They wont get fired, you see that from lots of people.


Especially if you have WEAK, indecisive management.

If that kid was on my watch as a manager he would have received one warning and the next time it would be straight out the door! I believe in fairness for ALL employees, if you don't carry the responsibility your job requires, you are finished at my workplace, there are plenty of people out there that desperately need a job and will do a very fine job today.

That being said I still think this "punk" is a relation of someone in this company that is management. This kind of [censored] happens all the time today, nepotism is rampant.

I hate to admit it but from my long past with employers and the nepotism I had found with lost of lazy "relations" filling the staffs, not working or doing a horrible job, and never getting their just due, I love to see people like the OP mentioned canned, in grand fashion.
 
What you have encountered my friend is a "Flunky". The older I get I have begun to realize that at least 85%-90% of employees are flunkies who want to do the bare minimum to get by.
 
What kind of hours are those anyways? 2:30-11 PM? Where do you work that is even open that late? And he works Fri-Tues? Meaning FRI SAT SUN MON TUES? Very confusing. Those hours suck, plain and simple. But I am not defending him. Just saying it sounds very weird.
 
^ those hours are awesome if someone has kids and wants to keep them out of daycare.

Sounds like an internal fleet management situation.
 
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Lot of people know as long as they do the bare minimum.....
They wont get fired, you see that from lots of people.

Exactly. I've had to clean up after someone like this for 5 years now. Management is clearly aware of the problem since we've had several blowups, one of which led to a "team building" exercise that problem child felt was demeaning and wanted no part of.

The director has made it very clear to me that the person is here until they decide to leave since she would rather have ANYbody there than NObody (and that's almost an exact quote) and run the risk of HR not allowing her to fill the position if she actually was a leader, did her job and got rid of the deadweight.
 
Good morning guys, and my work is a rental fleet so you all know. New ford and chevy work vans, big trucks, etc. Thats all his job is: new car inspect, pm's and try to fix something or "show some initiative" to my boss. My boss said his new nickname is "blow off boy", as he starts to try to fix something then leaves it for one of the mechanics. My boss told me that we are now non union, and most of that [censored] that the union had provided is gone. Very happy now.
 
Originally Posted By: Silver_civic
Good morning guys, and my work is a rental fleet so you all know. New ford and chevy work vans, big trucks, etc. Thats all his job is: new car inspect, pm's and try to fix something or "show some initiative" to my boss. My boss said his new nickname is "blow off boy", as he starts to try to fix something then leaves it for one of the mechanics. My boss told me that we are now non union, and most of that [censored] that the union had provided is gone. Very happy now.


Will that be good or bad? One thing that I've noted is that the non-union shops (and Im talking professional unions) let people be exempt and they are paid for their 40, which if it takes 50 or 60, you still get 40.

Sure, that's creating "efficiency", but its really profit for someone who gains big, on the backs of those who profit meagerly. So it's essentially do 50 for the cost of 40 so you can keep your job.

The union shops allow payment for the actual time spent. Supervisors can approve it or not. You need to work 50 and youre a good, trustworthy employee? Youll get 50. If youre a poor, inefficient employee, you wont necessarily get it (or a bonus or anything else).

Ive seen a lot more of the eight and skate crowd in the non-union shops and more of the pride of doing things thoroughly and right in the union shops.

Keep in mind this is professional stuff, not manufacturing or other trades.

So while that was a bit of an aside, I wonder what it will mean for the OPs shop. The ability to fire is a right that should be allowed across the board, Union or not. That might help strike some fear into lazy workers if the non-union setup allows for more effective firing.

But depending upon the added demands, I have to wonder how work ethic and pride in their work will change...
 
Originally Posted By: opus1
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Lot of people know as long as they do the bare minimum.....
They wont get fired, you see that from lots of people.

Exactly. I've had to clean up after someone like this for 5 years now. Management is clearly aware of the problem since we've had several blowups, one of which led to a "team building" exercise that problem child felt was demeaning and wanted no part of.

The director has made it very clear to me that the person is here until they decide to leave since she would rather have ANYbody there than NObody (and that's almost an exact quote) and run the risk of HR not allowing her to fill the position if she actually was a leader, did her job and got rid of the deadweight.


And that goes back to "Lot of people know as long as they do the bare minimum....."

Many middle managers do the bare minimum, especially in large bureaucratic organizations.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: opus1
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Lot of people know as long as they do the bare minimum.....
They wont get fired, you see that from lots of people.

Exactly. I've had to clean up after someone like this for 5 years now. Management is clearly aware of the problem since we've had several blowups, one of which led to a "team building" exercise that problem child felt was demeaning and wanted no part of.

The director has made it very clear to me that the person is here until they decide to leave since she would rather have ANYbody there than NObody (and that's almost an exact quote) and run the risk of HR not allowing her to fill the position if she actually was a leader, did her job and got rid of the deadweight.


And that goes back to "Lot of people know as long as they do the bare minimum....."

Many middle managers do the bare minimum, especially in large bureaucratic organizations.


But the bureaucracy also does things in the name of "efficiency" like not allow spots to be filled, and then there is as much hassle and effect down the line as having someone in the spot.

So I can almost see where the person in Opus's comment is coming from.

Getting rid of the deadweight if there is nobody that can fill in the spot is as damaging as having to have to train and keep "team building" with this other person.

Its broken in many ways and it isnt just leadership on part of the director, IMO. Its the beaureaucracy...
 
I dont know what the boss will do with the worker. I hope he disciplines him real good and or cans him. The union has never done anything for the employees at the location I work at also. Dont mention unions anymore also as I was paying like $50something each paycheck for no representation or anything that would help me. I am not a big union person, never have and dont plan to be.


Adam
 
Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Get rid of the bum and let the others pick up some extra hours.

Are unions necessary?


My issue would be if he gets canned (a good thing), and then whatever slack exists everyone else gets to pick up on an unpaid basis.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Lot of people know as long as they do the bare minimum.....
They wont get fired, you see that from lots of people.



Especially if they are the owner's or a manager's relative, which just from reading the OP situation seems likely. If this kid doesn't get canned, you can be SURE that he isn't some random "flunky" off the street they just happened to hire, it is more likely nepotism rearing its ugly head. It is WAY more common than most people think, even today.

Quote:

I've had to clean up after someone like this for 5 years now. Management is clearly aware of the problem since we've had several blowups, one of which led to a "team building" exercise that problem child felt was demeaning and wanted no part of.

The director has made it very clear to me that the person is here until they decide to leave since she would rather have ANYbody there than NObody (and that's almost an exact quote) and run the risk of HR not allowing her to fill the position if she actually was a leader, did her job and got rid of the deadweight.



[/quote]


Not buying that part of that "directors" story. Sounds to me like someone defending the "nephew" or "niece" of the senior managemenr or owner with a reasonable sounding excuse. Which is likely what it is. LOL
Quote:

But the bureaucracy also does things in the name of "efficiency" like not allow spots to be filled, and then there is as much hassle and effect down the line as having someone in the spot.



You swallowed the "story line" just like they intended.

I'd bet money on it that this person as well was a reliative, that needed a job.
 
Last edited:
If it isn't nepotism it could be a boss with no children or only girls who wants a "son" or "project"-- I've seen that happen too.
frown.gif
 
Originally Posted By: urchin
Quote:

But the bureaucracy also does things in the name of "efficiency" like not allow spots to be filled, and then there is as much hassle and effect down the line as having someone in the spot.



You swallowed the "story line" just like they intended.

I'd bet money on it that this person as well was a reliative, that needed a job.


No, Ive lived this firsthand in scenarios where nepotism was absolutely NOT the issue in any way, shape or form.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

shortyb
Luna loses her golf cart buddy
Replies
19
Views
420
shortyb
9
Saved co-worker from "I want to buy your car" scam
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
ctechbob
S
Interesting push for pension over lump sum
2 3
Replies
50
Views
1K
Sj08
rstcso
Wife Accepted Voluntary Retirement
2
Replies
26
Views
852
supton
R
cats and cancer
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
mdtn952
Back
Top Bottom