No Wonder We Don’t Know Anything About Personal Responsibility

Recently a friend was telling me a story about something that happened at work.

According to my friend, the employees had long been allowed to take scrap materials home for personal use.

Then, there came a project where the customer wanted all the scrap materials from that specific project returned to them after completion of the project. Apparently no one told the workers that this particular scrap was “Off Limits”.

One employee on night shift had taken a few pieces of scrap materials home. It just so happened that it was some of the special “Off limits” scrap.

Another employee, on day shift, was driving his truck up to the back and just hauling off all the scrap he could find and selling it. It also happens that it was the special “Off limits” scrap he was taking.

I don’t know how many others may have gotten some of this scrap.

So when someone went to collect the special “Off limits” scrap in order to return it to the customer, there was none left. The Management began to question workers about the scrap.

When the first employee (the one on night shift) answered honestly that yes, he had taken some home, he was suspended without pay for a week. I don’t know what happened to the guy on day shift with the truck. I assume he got far worse punishment. At least I hope he did.

The company has changed their policy regarding scrap materials and now no one can have any scrap material whatsoever.

It seems to me that the guy who took a few pieces of scrap and was honest about it, did no wrong. After all, the policy had been that workers were allowed to take scrap materials home. No one had informed the workers that this particular scrap was off limits. AND this guy was honest. AND this guy did not seem to be abusing this policy.

The guy with the truck seems to have been abusing the privilege (of being allowed to take scrap for personal use). Even had it not been special “Off limits” scrap. Even had there been no stated limits to how much you could take, his taking does seem over the top to me. He was hauling it away in a truck for the purpose of selling it! So I can see punishing this guy. However, he was doing it during day shift when the Management Staff were presumably around. Why did no one notice before this and do something about it?

It seems to me that the company is punishing all the workers for the missing scrap with the new policy of “No one is allowed to take any scrap materials home”. They are punishing the guy on night shift (severely it seems to me). They are probably punishing the guy with the truck.

Someone was supposed to be responsible for communicating the special instructions for this particular scrap. Whoever it was, dropped the ball. What happened to that person? I don’t know. Has anyone even evaluated their communication system? Alas, I doubt it.

The company was in trouble with the customer, and needed a scapegoat or two. So they picked some out.

Unfortunately, this is not that unusual. Those in charge will almost always pick someone on the lower rungs to take the fall when things go wrong. I admit it is easier to do this than to make sure your company is running efficiently and with good communication in the first place. An ounce of prevention may be worth a pound of cure, but it is easier to find a scapegoat when the **** hits the fan than put in the effort of that ounce of prevention.

It is also common to use group management techniques like punishing the whole group for what one or two individuals have done. I had a teacher once who did this, and called it using “peer pressure” to his advantage. At least he told us up front what he intended to do should one of us act out. The company seems to be using a form of this with their new policy, but peer pressure does not work if no one is informed of the rules. No one knew that this particular scrap was “Off Limits”, and therefore none of the workers had reason to “pressure” the two mentioned above to leave that scrap.

Of course, the company is fully in its rights to make policy about what to do with their scrap, and to discipline their workers. Hoiwever, all actions have consequences. Some of these consequences have ripples of effect.

One of the results of actions like this is in what the workers learn. Often in these types of environments which are more the norm than the exception, people learn that what they do does not matter. That they will get punished or not based on unknowable factors. So why try at all?

To me, this whole thing is irrational. Discipline is supposed to put errant individuals back on the right track. Rewards are supposed to reinforce good behavior. When discipline is imposed upon an individual who thought his behavior was in line, what do you think this individual now feels? To have the rules changed without notice and to then be punished for not following those rules creates rage.

Sure life is unfair, but do we need to add to that? Some things that are unfair are beyond anyone’s control, but some things are within our control.

Should we not think about what we do, and think ahead to the consequences. I fear short term thinking is quite rampant in this world. The short term solution solves the current problem, but often creates new problems for the future. However, I don’t think the company really solved a problem, they covered it up. The problem was lack of communication. By punishing the lowly worker bee, they got their scapegoat so they could get out of trouble with their customer. “See we did something about it!” The problem of poor communication will probably live on to create more problems in the future.

Any thoughts on this?

Checks and Balances and Why They Are Important

In support of Democracy and freedom, I submit this post:

I have determined that I prefer living in a Democracy. I value freedom above pretty much everything else. I am passionate about freedom. I believe freedom is worth fighting for.

If you also value freedom, please read this and think about it. I welcome comments. It is the beauty of a free society to be able to discuss these kinds of things.

It has often been said that: “Power corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.”

Humans are not perfect. No one is completely immune to things like ego, emotions, greed, etc. We all know this, right?

Humans get conditioned by their environment. Someone in power is in an environment where he/she gets his/her way most if not all of the time. Imagine getting used to having your own way.

Even someone with good intent can and often does become corrupted by power.

Someone with evil intent starts out with selfish goals and plans on using others in order to accomplish them. Imagine what this person could do with power.

It is not always easy to tell what someone’s intent truly is. Some are very good at presenting a charming and good-natured facade. So I have to conclude that sometimes persons with evil intent do get elected to power.

We think of corruption as being evil. This makes it difficult to determine when corruption is happening. I don’t think corruption is always evil of itself. Think of corrupted data. Also power does not corrupt all at once. Usually it is over time, in very small increments. It is hardly noticeable in the moment, but accumulates over time. In the end, it can become evil in its effects. Read on…

Absolute power means to have power over everything, and everyone. So by definition, there is no one else with enough power to confront the leader (who has absolute power) when he/she makes a mistake. And everyone makes mistakes.

Being human, no leader can know everything. He/she relies on his/her followers to keep him /her informed. However, have you ever noticed that people do not always tell their leader the complete truth. They don’t want to tell things that they perceive their leader does not want to hear. Even with a leader who encourages truth, some people cannot quite believe it is really what the leader wants. They want to please the leader. This is human nature.

How can one determine truth if one doesn’t have all the information? Even reason fails when you don’t have all the facts. Without honest feedback, one’s perceptions become skewed. We all need feedback from time to time.

Do we rely on each person we elect to power to be able to monitor himself/herself? I think the founders of the United States considered that to be unwise. After all, they wrote the Constitution.

In the Constitution is a system of Checks and Balances. What does this mean? In a general way, it means that in this government, no one is allowed absolute power. “The Three Branches of Government” have oversight rights and responsibilities over each other. You notice they are called “The Three Branches of Government”, not “One Branch of Government With Two Supporting Arms of Government”? I think our founding fathers realized humans are not perfect at their best, and are dangerous at their worst.

As a government “Of the People, For the People, and By the People”; our “Right to Free Speech” and a “Free Press” are two more elements of the “Checks and Balances”. A “Free Press” keeps us informed on current events and issues. The founding fathers even wrote into the Constitution that no law is to be passed that restricts the free press. We have our free speech as a means of discussing our views with each other and conveying our wishes to our leaders. I am telling you, I really don’t think that we were given the right to free speech in the Constitution just so we can stand on street corners to recite poetry! It was intended to give us freedom to dissent, providing a check on the government.

It is a tyrant who does not want the people to be informed. It is a tyrant who does not want anyone to speak against his/her actions. Sound familiar? It should. These last several years, I have heard the current Administration call people “Unpatriotic” for voicing dissent. Is patriotism now to be defined as loyalty to individuals who hold office, or shall we keep patriotism to mean loyalty to the country and the principles upon which it was founded?

I fear I am speaking heresy as regards the current Administration. I argue that it should not be heretical to speak truth. It should not be heretical to defend the principles that created this great country! I say it is I and those like me who are the patriots, and that those who dismantle the Constitution are committing treason. Treason as defined as an attack on the very foundation of our government.

A tyrant wants to keep you in the dark and feed you propaganda. If a tyrant cannot silence the press, don’t you think he/she/they would discredit it, or even manipulate it? I recommend you check out Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media. (Get the movie if you can, I rented it from Netflix).

It greatly disturbs me that the current Administration has been dismantling our “Checks and Balances”.

I have heard Bush on national T.V. say that he is going to get the Judicial Branch (of Government) under control. Just in case you missed it, the Judicial Branch of Government is one of those “Three Branches of Government” I mentioned earlier. I have heard him say “I am President, I can do what I want”.

Are these the words of someone who supports the Constitution? Of someone who supports “Checks and Balances”?

More Checks and Balances Violations:

Under Homeland Security Acts, it was made allowable for agents to search your baggage after it has been checked at the airport (without you being present). Although, it may have been written thusly for the best of intentions, it is a bad idea. I understand increasing security if there is a threat. I don’t mind having my baggage searched. I want to be present while it is done, though. Can you guarantee that every agent who searches baggage is honorable? What if they are angry at a particular group of people? What if they are dishonest?

Did you know that the President now has the power to have anyone (he wants) arrested? Also under Homeland Security Acts, all he has to do is declare them a terrorist. He can appoint any agent he chooses to have this same authority. This means that your local police can call you a terrorist and take you away. They don’t have to tell anyone where you are, they don’t have to have any evidence, and they don’t have to tell you the charges. We have been told it is so they can fight terrorism. I want to know what is wrong with needing evidence. Without evidence, how do you know someone is guilty? Again, even if this is written for the best of intentions, it is a bad idea. Can you guarantee that every agent, police officer, etc is honorable? I think not. I periodically see news stories of dishonorable officers of the law getting caught doing a wide variety of bad things. Certainly I believe the great majority are honorable, but not all of them. That is why we have “Checks and Balances” like needing evidence, making formal charges, allowing the prisoner to contact a family member, etc. Sure it is inconvenient, but it protects the rights of the innocent as well as the guilty.

I don’t understand. I don’t understand how we can impeach one president over a sexual act, but we allow another to destroy our Constitution and the principles it represents. Is sex a worse crime than treason?

What Has Happened to Personal Responsibility?

I was blog surfing yesterday, and came across this post: “I’ve Had It With The Wine When The Social Politics Are Ringing In My Ears” I am curious what you think of this.

If this story is true, think about it for a minute. The young woman was held responsible for the man who asked for a wine sample. It was the young woman’s job to pass out samples to “everyone obviously over 21 who asked for it”.

What responsibility does the man have? What responsibility does the young woman have? What about the “authorities” who apparently know of the man, and believe him to be an alcoholic?

The man was free to wander the city. Either he has been determined to be of sound enough mind and not a danger to himself or others; or he has not. If he has been determined to have sound enough mind, what is the problem? If he has been determined to not be of sound mind, why is he wandering the city? Why are the community members being held responsible for his safety when they do not even know him or anything about him?