Slashdot Mirror
German IT Outfit Bans Whining
theodp writes "German IT outfit Nutzwerk Ltd has come up with the perfect solution to whining in the workplace - it's made cheerfulness a contractual obligation, advising those who don't measure up to the prescribed level of jollity in the morning to stay at home until they cheer up. The plan was prompted by a female employee whose constant complaining prompted the other staff to complain about her complaining."
is over the top, but there are few things more irratating & detremental to productivity than an angry/whiny co-worker.
I was allowed to stay at home as long as it takes to become happy before going to work ;)
A rule-of-thumb in software development: If a place has too many Dilbert cartoons on cubicle sides, have an exit strategy. If it has none, RUN!!!
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
...but I am under contractual obligation to not whine.
I can imagine that being under contract to not whine will mean that people will come up with creative ways to whine without really whining. Reminds me of a conversation I had last night. I am recent transplant to The South and was told that there were phrases in use here that didn't mean what they really mean. For example, if you tell someone something like "I just inherited a million dollars" they will reply be saying "That's nice." ...which really means F*ck you.
So, image code words and phrases will be created to allow whining without breaching the contract.
but there are few things more irratating & detremental to productivity than an angry/whiny co-worker.
One thing more detrimental is an angry/whiny co-worker (or employee) who is pretending to be cheerful.
This really just sounds like management doesn't have the skill or the emotional maturity to actually deal with the problem, so instead, they sweep it under the rug.
If an employee is angry/whiny, there is a reason. Maybe that reason is internal to the employee. Maybe that reason is the result of something in the work environment. Force the employee to pretend to be happy, and the employee will probably more unhappy. Then you have an employee not working to the best of their ability, who may even be acting out passive aggressively. That attitude can spread just as quickly as overt angry/whiny behavior, and can be even worse to tolerate because it is harder to pin down.
Because emotions aren't something that one can always control with impunity? Besides, no whinging means you can't complain about the PHB or you cow-orker while on the job - you end up being a good little robot. IME emotions - both good and bad - spark thought, and thought leads to greater productivity. I can see a policy of dealing directly with someone who does _nothing_ but complain and then offers no creative solutions, but trying to program happiness? No thanks.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
The plan was prompted by a female employee whose constant complaining prompted the other staff to complain about her complaining.
Wonder why they felt it relevant to point out it was a woman?
there are few things more irratating & detremental to productivity than an angry/whiny co-worker
Actually, the person most irritating and detrimental to productivity is the cheerful, optimistic sysadmin who continues to do upgrades and apply patches while saying, "It won't affect anything," no matter how many times he has broken everything. I can ignore the angry/whiny people that aren't breaking stuff (well, except when it's my boss :).
Urination is a God-given right. Our ancestors did it all the time, all over the place, until some religiously motivated tight-assed sourpusses decided it would damage fragile minds to accidentally see a tip of flesh. This kind of irrational repression is what we like to ridicule the Muslims for.
When a German's gotta go, he gotsta go. There is a reasonable modesty mechanism in place, i.e. I will feel uncomfortable about it and seek out a dark corner, the back of a preferrably windowless, non-residential building, behind a tree or wherever. And I'll be more likely to do this at night than in broad daylight. If I'm out walking in a "public" forest where I'm likely to be seen by joggers, cyclists or families taking a walk, I'll walk 20 - 50 feet off the path and into the woods so no one will see me in profile unless they follow me in. On two or three occasions, I've been in the woods with a girlfriend when she had to go, and she asked me to look out for passersby and shield her from view if necessary while she pulled down her pants and squatted to do her thing.
As a net result, you'll sometimes see the back of a man standing by the side of the road or up against a tree, with his legs spread and pelvis pushed forward. If you look closely, you may even see a yellow stream. But why would you want to look closely? You accept that the guy apparently had a hard time holding it before finding a proper convenience, turn away and ignore him.
I rarely heed Nature's call in the open, maybe once or twice a year; but when I do, I don't worry my head about it. By contrast, I understand that doing this in the US may get me arrested on charges of sexual misconduct and branded for life as a sex offender, with incriminating bulletins sent to prospective neighbors and employers. I find public urination as distasteful as the next guy, but... sanity check, anyone?
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
No one should need to leave, and supressing ppls freedom of speech
in the workplace is just the beginning .
Soon it will be politically correct to suppress it elsewhere .
If the person does not do their job that is one thing, but
for them to be silenced for expressing discontent over maltreatment
or inequality is a bad idea in my humble opinion .
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Germany has customer service that you can't get and the US has customer service that you don't want.
Other than sexism, was there a reason to point out that the individual is female?
I feel sorry for the woman. She shouldn't be discriminated against, she should be able to get any job she is capable of doing.
But she isn't capable of doing this one.
Equal opportunity means that. It doesn't mean a free pass for something you can't do.
I hope they offered her other positions at the company.
I have to say having RTFA now, it seems like they'll have a tougher time of it than my explanation makes it out. If she couldn't smile, why did they keep her on for a couple years, then fire her? But I stand by my statement that just you don't deserve compensation for being fired for not doing a job that has requirements you cannot satisfy. I mean, it is well known that people with disabilities cannot do every job able-bodied people can. If this weren't the case, there'd be no Social Security money paid to disabled people.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95