Not exactly the hoped for reaction.
File this one under "social injustice rant (subcategory: feminism)".
Building fire drill today. Since the alarm gets tested every week (usually on a Monday but it's been known to get moved), and since it's not quite a steady signal, and since it started, stopped, started, stopped, and started again, obviously it took us a while to decide okay, this is in fact a drill, better leave the building.
An email has just come around:
"The reason the fire alarm kept stopping was because the receptionist at [one of the buildings] silenced her alarm - twice. The Building Manager has assured the tenants that she will be replaced as soon as possible."
I have such a problem with this kind of "fire the wench!" reaction. I realise that this is a safety issue and hence Terribly Important. I realise that some of the companies in this building might have very strong opinions about the stupidity of such an error. But. Is it okay to "replace" her just like that? A rollicking bollocking, sure; an official warning, okay, maybe; but immediate firing? Somehow I expect grown-ups, and corporations, to have a more mature reaction than that. Not to mention a little more decency and, oh yes, respect for employment law, even when the employee might be expected not to know her rights.
It is so painfully easy for those on the bottom of the ladder (usually women, by the way) to lose their jobs - those who frequently need them the most - whereas those with more power (usually men) are all but impossible to get rid of, even if they are dangerously bad at their jobs. CEOs who run their corporations into the ground (and/or turn a blind eye to large-scale safety hazards*) tend, if anything, to be rewarded with golden parachutes. But the receptionist who screws up a fire drill, man, she's going down.
_____
* You think I'm being a little overimaginative? What about the management errors leading up to the 2003 Central line crash? What about the errors behind the 2000 Ladbroke Grove rail crash, and many, many others? I may have missed something (very likely, since I wasn't even in the UK at the time of most of the famous crashes) but I don't think anyone lost their job for failing to implement proper maintenance and training procedures.
3 comments:
Seriously, which seems easier: (re)train existing receptionist with correct procedure, or hire new receptionist, then train *her* with correct procedure?
Must come down to money. Hmm, which is the less expensive solution: minimal retraining or complete employee turnover?
Seems beyond stupid.
Your message was not lost on me, and I agree that termination was probably not the most logical course of action. I'd guess there must have been something else going on.
Nonetheless, all I take away from this post is "rollicking bollocking."
Well, she's probably just a temp, so replacement is easy, cheap and less of a disaster for her than otherwise. Still, it's the mindset I object to. A bit like the whole fire-the-blogging-nanny business (links and commentary here). I have various thoughts on that saga, none of them exceptionally sympathetic to either party, but predominantly: how is it okay to fire her because you don't like her blog? None of the mommy's arguments convince me that firing was a mature or rational response.
Post a Comment