Sometimes, on occasion, one of my employees will tell me about something another employee did. Responding to that is kind of tricky, though some supervisors say you should discourage this entirely. Too much tattletelling can create a work environment where everyone is suspicious of everyone else, and people may only tell on those they dislike...which lets personal issues get in the way of it.
On the flip side, I (as a supervisor) can not be everywhere at once. And my people generally know when I'm around, and aren't stupid enough to do something wrong where I will see it. So I won't really know there's an issue to address if I'm not told...
Stepping aside from those sorts of questions, however, is what happens if I do decide to address it. First, I have learned to space things out from when someone talks to me and when I address it. That's because one of the first things the employee does is to try and figure out who told on them. To me, that's missing the point. I'm addressing you because you did something wrong. Something you should fix. Who told me that you did something wrong is beside the point, and makes me feel like you don't really think you did anything wrong. And probably aren't going to do anything to fix it or change it in the future. (Or, at best, that you'll just try not to do it where you might get caught).
Even worse, of course, is that whoever I'm addressing might try to take revenge or get back at someone if they figure out who did it. And may even mistake the source, and make life difficult for someone who is completely uninvolved. (I had someone at our mid-year review mention that she was mad at the HR person and me for a little while, because one of her co-workers claimed we had told the co-worker she'd said something.)
So anyways. I generally try not to fill this blog up with work stuff. I brought all that up more because I want readers to understand where I'm coming from when I say that I'm pretty disgusted with how the Democratic Party has handled a variety of issues over the last year. Some of their arguments sound like something a five year old would say (i.e. "But everyone else is doing it!!!"), some of it is the response of my less mature associates (i.e. "Who gave you that information?!? Was it the Russians?)...
and none of it actually addresses the wrong that was done. It makes me think that they really don't see a problem with it, assume that this is just 'business as usual', and are more upset at having to deal with a media scandal than that they have any real belief that wrong was done.
One of my employees likes to talk politics, and he claims that the Democratic Party has always been corrupt, and that it's only this past year that's made it obvious to everyone. Note: I am not looking for a "Republicans are just as bad" response, because that's just another way of looking away from the problem.
And is there a problem? I think so. The wikileaks e-mail dump about the DNC shows that Debbie Wasserman Shultz was playing favorites. Howard Dean, who I presume ought to know as he was a DNC Chair himself, believed the DNC was supposed to be impartial. If the Democratic Party can show that these e-mails were forged, then I would care more about Russian involvement. (Their attempt to influence the election is disturbing, but it wouldn't have been possible if the DNC wasn't doing something wrong in the first place. So to me this is a lesser problem than what the e-mails revealed. Wikileaks allegations that there is more to leak is somewhat more disturbing, mainly because if they're going to leak it they should just get on with it. This attempt to time when you release info shows that they aren't really about freedom of information so much as using an information I get that loyalty is a prized trait in political circles. So much so that they will value the loyal supporter over someone more talented (and this brings it's own issues, and has it's own implications, but that's a post for another time). If Hillary wanted to take care of a loyal supporter - someone who wasn't supposed to act like a loyal supporter in the role she was in - than I'm sure she could have found an ally to hire Debbie. The fact that Hillary felt no need to distance herself from Debbie, and hired her on (even if it's a token role), shows that Hillary really doesn't see anything wrong with what Debbie did.
All my arguments hold true, as well, for what I find disturbing about those defending Hillary's use of a private server.
And the total lack of concern about this, the attitude that nothing wrong was done and it's all just conservative witch-hunting, kind of makes me mad. I still think Trump is worse, but I just can't bring myself to say I would actually vote for Hillary. Not when she, her staff, and the entire Democratic Party doesn't seem to realize that they're doing anything wrong. In some ways I have more respect for the Republicans who are speaking out against Trump than for the Democrats who are willing to look the other way so long as their candidate wins.
And this ties in to another article I read, Politico's article discussing how Barack Obama decided Hillary should be his successor. See, I get why he would want his legacy to continue. I suppose there's reason to think Hillary's most likely to succeed. Hell, according to a site I go to Hillary most closely matches my own views...and I guess I'm supposed to be a supporter.
But here's the thing. How you get somewhere matters. It's part of that whole "do the ends justify the means?" debate. If the only way you can make your policies continue, if the only way to secure your legacy, is to do things that subvert the democratic process and basically take away our right to choose...
Than that's a pretty big problem. Almost, but perhaps not quite, as big as Trump taking office. It's presents a very different sort of problem, one not quite as big and bombastic, one that is perhaps even scarier in how quiet and subtle it is.
After all, nobody seems to think there's anything wrong with Hillary hiring the former DNC chair.
On the flip side, I (as a supervisor) can not be everywhere at once. And my people generally know when I'm around, and aren't stupid enough to do something wrong where I will see it. So I won't really know there's an issue to address if I'm not told...
Stepping aside from those sorts of questions, however, is what happens if I do decide to address it. First, I have learned to space things out from when someone talks to me and when I address it. That's because one of the first things the employee does is to try and figure out who told on them. To me, that's missing the point. I'm addressing you because you did something wrong. Something you should fix. Who told me that you did something wrong is beside the point, and makes me feel like you don't really think you did anything wrong. And probably aren't going to do anything to fix it or change it in the future. (Or, at best, that you'll just try not to do it where you might get caught).
Even worse, of course, is that whoever I'm addressing might try to take revenge or get back at someone if they figure out who did it. And may even mistake the source, and make life difficult for someone who is completely uninvolved. (I had someone at our mid-year review mention that she was mad at the HR person and me for a little while, because one of her co-workers claimed we had told the co-worker she'd said something.)
So anyways. I generally try not to fill this blog up with work stuff. I brought all that up more because I want readers to understand where I'm coming from when I say that I'm pretty disgusted with how the Democratic Party has handled a variety of issues over the last year. Some of their arguments sound like something a five year old would say (i.e. "But everyone else is doing it!!!"), some of it is the response of my less mature associates (i.e. "Who gave you that information?!? Was it the Russians?)...
and none of it actually addresses the wrong that was done. It makes me think that they really don't see a problem with it, assume that this is just 'business as usual', and are more upset at having to deal with a media scandal than that they have any real belief that wrong was done.
One of my employees likes to talk politics, and he claims that the Democratic Party has always been corrupt, and that it's only this past year that's made it obvious to everyone. Note: I am not looking for a "Republicans are just as bad" response, because that's just another way of looking away from the problem.
And is there a problem? I think so. The wikileaks e-mail dump about the DNC shows that Debbie Wasserman Shultz was playing favorites. Howard Dean, who I presume ought to know as he was a DNC Chair himself, believed the DNC was supposed to be impartial. If the Democratic Party can show that these e-mails were forged, then I would care more about Russian involvement. (Their attempt to influence the election is disturbing, but it wouldn't have been possible if the DNC wasn't doing something wrong in the first place. So to me this is a lesser problem than what the e-mails revealed. Wikileaks allegations that there is more to leak is somewhat more disturbing, mainly because if they're going to leak it they should just get on with it. This attempt to time when you release info shows that they aren't really about freedom of information so much as using an information I get that loyalty is a prized trait in political circles. So much so that they will value the loyal supporter over someone more talented (and this brings it's own issues, and has it's own implications, but that's a post for another time). If Hillary wanted to take care of a loyal supporter - someone who wasn't supposed to act like a loyal supporter in the role she was in - than I'm sure she could have found an ally to hire Debbie. The fact that Hillary felt no need to distance herself from Debbie, and hired her on (even if it's a token role), shows that Hillary really doesn't see anything wrong with what Debbie did.
All my arguments hold true, as well, for what I find disturbing about those defending Hillary's use of a private server.
And the total lack of concern about this, the attitude that nothing wrong was done and it's all just conservative witch-hunting, kind of makes me mad. I still think Trump is worse, but I just can't bring myself to say I would actually vote for Hillary. Not when she, her staff, and the entire Democratic Party doesn't seem to realize that they're doing anything wrong. In some ways I have more respect for the Republicans who are speaking out against Trump than for the Democrats who are willing to look the other way so long as their candidate wins.
And this ties in to another article I read, Politico's article discussing how Barack Obama decided Hillary should be his successor. See, I get why he would want his legacy to continue. I suppose there's reason to think Hillary's most likely to succeed. Hell, according to a site I go to Hillary most closely matches my own views...and I guess I'm supposed to be a supporter.
But here's the thing. How you get somewhere matters. It's part of that whole "do the ends justify the means?" debate. If the only way you can make your policies continue, if the only way to secure your legacy, is to do things that subvert the democratic process and basically take away our right to choose...
Than that's a pretty big problem. Almost, but perhaps not quite, as big as Trump taking office. It's presents a very different sort of problem, one not quite as big and bombastic, one that is perhaps even scarier in how quiet and subtle it is.
After all, nobody seems to think there's anything wrong with Hillary hiring the former DNC chair.
No comments:
Post a Comment