It kind of sort of s*cks that because of labor law, companies have found that sometimes they are better off to just treat an employee as bad as they can so they quit, rather then fire them.

They are afraid of getting sued if they fire.


>Jay,
>
>You're still not getting it. Forget the word "fair". What I'm describing is, IMHO, a departmental mandate to get rid of *all* of us testers, primarily through subjective, unearned, and career-damaging substandard assessments. In my particular case, I had the misfortune of having personal issues that gave them additional leverage.
>
>In fact, I can name at least 3 instances where they violated federal law if I so chose to press it - which I probably won't.
>
>By nature, I'm a pro-business conservative and not one to play the victim. But an employer has to play by a set of rules, right?
>
>Calling your fellow employees "idiots" for being loyal employees and expecting a loyal company simply obviates any good point you were trying to make, Jay. I'm inclined to put the label of "idiot" elsewhere.
>
>
>>Ok, those were all good points and I'm glad you clarified. I will say this, life is not fair, and neither are companies or bosses for the most part. I have people sitting near me who think that "the company" will take care of them if things go bad, because they have been such a "valued employee." They are idiots. We do the best we can, but the relationship between teh company and the employee will always be uneven. It's the nature of things. I still fall into the habit of thinking things should be "fair" and will speak my mind. Then I'm basically told that things are not fair and to get over it. There is nothing I can do. Except put up with it and gripe, change my attitude, or move on. I agree with you on all points, but unfortunately it's how the machine works. Maybe in a small company it can be different, but even then, fair would ultimately go to the company. Just they way I think it is. Fair or not. <s>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hi Jay,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm going to be the fly in ointment here for a minute. I realize all you were going through, but isn't there an expectation that an employee will fit within certain guidelines as well?
>>>
>>>Absolutely.
>>>
>>>>Though they were heavy, just how responsible does the company need to be in regards to your personal issues? They hire someone to do something. It's not a big family.
>>>
>>>True. But my point was that I was doing what I was supposed to be doing in spite of my difficulties. In fact, I was performing above my title and level for a few years. I don't raise my personal issues as an excuse, but more as something which they used to denigrate my work even though, strategically, my goals were being accomplished.
>>>
>>>>I've never worked anywhere that the company ultimately wasn't looking out for the company. And isn't that the deal we strike when they hire us? They agree to pay us a specific amount to do a job. We will do the job because they will pay us. If they don't pay us, we would not come in. If you do not, or are unable to, come in to work according to their guidelines, they should stop paying us.
>>>
>>>Agreed, and that's precisely what they did. But it was a one-way street and there's the rub. They monitored my time on task which I accepted with aplomb - I didn't care; I knew I was doing the job. But when the time came that I tried to negotiate time off and pointed out that I had a far excess of time on job than required (something I would have never known or thought of if they hadn't asked me to micromanage my time), they demurred.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I feel for you John - lots of life came at you big time - but why was the company at fault for not holding your hand and catering to you? Ok, that was a pretty big fly, but I was thinking about it and wanted to say it.
>>>
>>>I never asked the company to cater to me and, frankly, I resent the implication but I realize you're saying that from a lack of understanding. I asked the company to work with me on what I believed were minor issues insofar as goals were concerned.
>>>
>>>Here's a more accurate portrayal: Let's say that your office requires that you are there 9-5 and product 10 widgets during that period. You develop a game leg and can only be there 10-5 but you're producing 15 widgets a day. For the next few years you receive no recognition for the extra 5 widgets you produce and they make your life a living hell that you can't be there at 9. Meanwhile, not only do you continue to produce the extra 5 widgets, but find ways to ensure your team also makes at least 10 widgets a day and your company makes a point to advertise how efficient a widget-making enterprise it is.
>>>
>>>Now do you get my point?
>>>
>>>>>I never wanted to be evaluated on the basis of my personal challenges; I simply wanted to be treated fairly and to be judged in terms of how the product was doing. In my, possibly simplistic, worldview if we were hitting milestones and product failures were minimal, I was doing my job.