Changing telecommute

Photo by Ketut Subiyanto on Pexels.com

Well, after telecommuting full time for the last 16 months, there is a date to start going back to the office and I am not sure I am all that happy about it. Actually, I am sure that I am not. I lied. I am not happy about it.

Yes, I realize that the expectation to be at the office for work has always been there but this whole situation has fully exposed the fact that we don’t need to be in an office to get our job done. We have proven beyond that shadow of a doubt that our job can be done fully remote and that our clients have been affected to the smallest degree possible. In fact, many have commented over the this time about not really even realizing we were all working from home except that they knew we were working from home. That’s how we roll. There was no break in service, ever.

Anyway, the time has come to get back to the office and there will still be a telecommute policy as before, except that there is a new proposal to expand upon it. Frankly, I don’t think the expansion goes far enough and while I haven’t talked to any of my co-workers yet, I am sure there are quite a few who will express similar feelings.

Prior to the pandemic, we were allowed two days a week (40%, with a few limitations on what days they could be). Now, we are going to be allowed three days a week (60%, not sure of limitations yet). Also what remains to be seen is whether or not this policy has built in flexibility, meaning I don’t have to have a set three days but can pick and choose when I want to telecommute.

Anyway, I don’t think three days is enough.

It could be and should be more.

Perhaps I’ll see what is out there, in regards to full time telecommute and whether or not a change can be had.

Never hurts to have options, right?

Coercion, not freedom

Photo by Vijay Putra on Pexels.com

Hold up!

I think we have started moving the “free to choose” idea into the Soviet establishment of Communism. Lenin and Stalin used to like giving people the feeling like they had the ability to choose…only to find themselves in front of a firing squad or shipped off to a gulag in eastern Siberia. “Sure, you have a choice…my way or the highway…”

Here’s another historical example for you – the Nazis used to ask for “papers” at checkpoints to prove you were or weren’t a Jew. In modern terms, you are now going to have “checkpoints” to determine your eligibility to enter based on your vaccination papers. “Your papers, please…vaccinated to the right, unvaccinated to the left…”

If this whole topic doesn’t scare you as an American citizen, then I am not sure what it will take to wake you up. If this is acceptable now, then where does the line get drawn? Moreover, what other lines will be drawn and socially acceptable as time goes on?

The news about allowing for “vaccinated only” sections is sanctioned discrimination, it is also coercion, which is not the same as “freedom.” Essentially you are telling people that if they want to participate in activities they did before the pandemic that they are going to have to be forced to get the vaccine.

Let’s think about this from this point of view?

  • Have we ever asked if someone has gotten the flu shot before allowing them to enter any facility or venue?
  • Have we ever asked for vaccination proof for measles, mumps, rubella? Diphtheria? Polio?
  • Have we ever verified that someone doesn’t have hepatitis before they are employed or attend a sporting event?
  • Have we essentially banned people with HIV/AIDS from participating in regular societal activities?

No?

Then why would this be any more acceptable? *HINT: It’s not.”

Medical decisions should be between you and your physician, or others you specifically designate. It shouldn’t be subject to “passports,” or proof, to participate fully in society. Anything that allows for someone other than those you designate to decide whether you participate in regular society would be medical discrimination.

Anything other than totally opened and accessible to all citizens, regardless of vaccination status, is just another brick in the road towards a social system that resembles precisely what America was designed not to become.

Own it

Photo by Maria Orlova on Pexels.com

Crisis created by promises made before an election. Promises the American people disagree with, and promises the administration’s rear end can’t cash. Of course, the Biden administration is going to say it isn’t a crisis but the numbers are pretty much the same as they were when the Democrats said there was a crisis under Trump. They probably are worse.

The border is a mess again.

The same as it was during the Obama administration and leading up to a Trump takeover. Why was it bad? Democrats had promised something they couldn’t provide and immigrants were scrambling to get across the border illegally before a new administration took over in Washington, DC.

The Trump administration handled it (maybe not the best way, but it definitely sent a message) and the stabilization of national sovereignty and border integrity was beginning to take shape. Something that is not only necessary, but a requirement for the establishment of law and order.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of people coming over the border illegally and even more headed that way because of bad policy and empty promises from the Democrats. There is no one to blame, though the Biden administration is of course blaming Trump, except the Democrats. There was no crisis at the border when Trump left office. This is clearly the result of Biden entering office and immediately reversing all border policies previously in place.

There is no other explanation.

So, Biden (et al.), own it.

Just step up and own it.

Revert back to policies that were working and engage in true immigration reform, rather than giving the impression that the border is open.

Let it burn

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The West is on fire.

We should let it burn.

The exception to that, of course, would be to protect life and property as much as possible.

The West is on fire not from climate change, but from poor natural resource management.

Fire is natural. Fire is useful. Fire is not always bad.

Why are the fires so bad now? Because people think that fire should always be stopped, all the time. Forests have been left to grow out of control with no management. As such, there is a lot of undergrowth that has gotten out of hand. This provides fuel to a fire that eventually gets so big that it gets into the canopy and then spreads easily, creating it’s own wind (from consuming the air around the fire) and causing it to spread uncontrollably.

Forest management and use of fire isn’t a new concept and it still gets used, but not to the extent that is should be. What is new is that groups of activists who have no desire to manage forest lands so much as to stop all activity in forests. This is an issue of environmentalist being out of control and locking down good, demonstrated practice.

If you wanna stop fires so bad, how about we send them environmentalists out there to fight them? Let’s see if they can stop what they have set in motion with their emotions instead of science and management.

40%

batch books document education

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

We, as in our office (which is in a separate location from the “head office”), got an update on the policies regarding telecommuting during this health crisis, scare, whatever you wanna call it.

Prior to the outbreak of COVID-19, telecommuting policy said that we could telecommute up to 40% of a work week (two days) and that could only be done on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. I have talked about before how my job could literally be done from anywhere in the world with an internet connection, so 40% for my office is a ridiculous restriction.

Now, with COVID-19 being a thing and recommendations from every level of government (techinically I am a public employee) stating that employees should stay home and telecommute if feasible (again, it is totally feasible for my office) the “head boss” has issued new permissions for telecommuting.

Yesterday’s email said, in effect, “we are allowing telecommuting on Mondays and Fridays now, but we are still limiting overall permission to 40% of the work week, per board policy.” In other words, we are still required to go into our office three days a week! So, if I may paraphrase…policy over people. I gotta say, that right right there is some crappy ass leadership.

I have said it before and I will maintain that I am not an alarmist by any means. I am going about my daily life normally. I went out to eat last night and supported a local business near my home.

This issue I have here is that a public institution is going against the recommendations of the government, the one that funds it, and demanding adherence to a policy which they clearly have been given the green light to alter in this extraordinary time. There is no expectation by me or my colleagues that the alteration would adjust regular practice in the future (though we would like to see that). We just want acknowledgement that our government agency is recognizing the recommendations of the government and that isn’t happening.

I am in the office today. Nearly all of us are. But none of us are happy about it.

 

We all heard it

man using smartphone while sitting at the table

Photo by bruce mars on Pexels.com

So, my sick note means nothing, apparently.

As it turns out, I have to use another sick day today despite what the superintendent (“head boss”) said in our meeting on Friday.

On Friday, he had a meeting with out entire organization (our division really, because we are completely separate from the main entity) and we all heard that we shouldn’t go to work if we suspect we are sick but that if we could get a doc’s note approving telecommuting then we could amend the regular telecommute schedule as needed. My coworkers heard it, my manager heard it, my director heard it…or at least that is the way we all understood it.

Today, I am told my doc’s note doesn’t apply and only the regular telecommute schedule applies. WTF? According to the head office, there are no policies in place to accommodate this adjustment and until there is we have to stick with it – no matter that the head boss said something completely different.

Yeah, that’s BS – requiring your employees to burn their sick days when there is a major health concern going on when you know full well they can do their jobs from anyplace in the world without impacting the client (and have done so repeatedly). That makes complete sense.

So, I think I’ll binge on TV, and video games….and slowly burn in contempt of the head office.

Price match please!

img_5064

Competition is rough these days! Retail stores, brick & mortar vs. online, are in a battle to get your dollars because there are so many choices out there. Most stores, in order to overcome the competition, will do just about anything to get your business once you’re in the store, so many of them will price match identical goods found at other stores just so they can capture your money before you walk out the door.

Walmart won’t even match it’s own online price!

Yesterday was the strangest experience I have had as a consumer in quite a while.

My daughter wanted to buy “Grand Theft Auto V” and she was going to just buy it online from the Microsoft store as a digital download for $29.99. I said she should check around first to see if she can get a better price since it has been out for a while. So she did. As it turns out, there were several stores who had it on sale – Walmart and Game Stop, just to name a couple.

So, we jumped in the car and headed out to Walmart. We located the game in their electronics section in two place, neither of which indicated the online price as seen above. One was priced at $29.98 and the other one was priced at $59.98. These are the same game, mind you…

We asked for some help, showed the employee the price on the phone, he looked in the locked case and said something to the effect of “Well, we just updated prices so that is a bit of a mystery.” He pulled out both items at different prices and we went to do a price check. Both came up as marked. Wait, what?!? So, I asked if we could get the price as indicated online and he looked at my phone again, scrolled through the listing and said, “It must be an online only special.”

I was like, “It doesn’t say that anywhere. If it were online only, it would say that wouldn’t it?”

His response was, “It usually does.”

So, again, I asked if they would honor online price.

He said, “I don’t have the authority to do that but if you want to order it online then you could pick it up at the front of the store.” REALLY???? You’re gonna go there?

I asked for a manager. He said he called one. We waited for 15 minutes and still no manager. I asked if one was coming. He said they should be but they have to do “rounds” before they can get there.

I called Game Stop, verified they had the game in stock, left Walmart, and she spent her money there instead. No hassle.

When the physical store can’t (any employee should have this ability) to match it’s own online store price, you have a problem.

Walmart versus Walmart.com – both losers in my book!