Most companies waited a long time before upgrading to XP if they even did that--I still know some major companies using 2000. But the real question is why does ANYONE need to upgrade? Most offices need office applications, email and a web browser. A few people need other, more specialized programs. But if you've got one of the later versions of Office and Windows XP, WHY should you upgrade? And it's not like your users will appreciate having the latest and greatest--they just got used to the last version and you're going to hear a lot of complaints over items moved or changed. What REALLY is office 2007 going to do--make my coffee? Any new release from MS is going to be full of bugs and security holes--why deal with the hassle?
That's why Microsoft wants to move to a lease-type role model where you rent the software rather than own it--because there's no compelling need to change and eventually they will stop upgrading. Or, worse for MS, they'll move to other applications like Open Office.
Our office is certainly not going to Vista and not even IE7. We use Oracle portal for the web and testing found some issues using IE7 with it. I've also helped a friend with her website and commercial CDs. Security setting are almost backwards. We found IE7 will have some basic securities locked up so tight (like running a CD from the drive) that it's hard to find where to turn them off. More important things, like phishing security that should be left on and probably won't interfere, can easily be turned off by a menu, however.
While I currently have IE7 for testing, I personally use FireFox exclusively for everything else, it has everything I could want and then some.
What's sad is all WGA does is prevent EVERYONE from getting easy access to installing security updates, leaving systems more vunerable and a possible danger down the road to the legitmate users.
Now that people can buy individual songs, there's no excuse for a record company or artist to put 2 or 3 good songs and then fill the rest up with crap. And they're slitting their own throats doing so.
But if the RIAA would get their heads out of their ass and realize that the majority of the population doesn't want to hear the crap they put out they might turn things around. First off they're marketing to the wrong bunch. They're marketing to the decling population of teens to twenties. This worked in the 60s and 70s when the baby boomers were that age. Then they dropped them for the younger market. I would argue that most boomers are unlikely to download warez, would gladly purchase some music they'd like to hear and have the disposable income to do so. Just look at the sales of a release of Beatles No. Ones a few years back. And (get ready for the "old foggie" comment) it doesn't have to be old groups, but groups that can sing, not lipsync for for MTV. (Have you ever thought about how many former #1 selling artists would never have made it on American Idol today because they weren't good looking enough!?) Everything today is either rap or Beyonce. I would really like to find some new artists that I can like consistently, but they're few and far between.
There have been times when the Catholic Church has been guilty of all of these at once, and a persuasive argument could be made that some of them still apply today. Were or are they a cult?
The catholic church has their own set of problems, but they would hardly actively try to break up a marriage between a catholic and a non-catholic, keep out non-believers or use mind-control. Although, I suppose some atheists believe that ALL religions are cults and practice mind-control from their viewpoint.
That being said, this is just a list of items generally attributed to cults, in oppostion of religious practices, posted in answer to the question: What makes someone think Scientology is not a religion? The reader can make up their own mind.
Exploits and manipulates its members with mind control techniques
Commitment is encouraged during recruitment process
Criticism is met with threats of legal action
Leader and follower consider leader to be above reproach
Questioning the leader, or basic tenets, is not allowed
I would add these: Outrageous (as in thousands of dollars) "donations" that are required...not just requested. If bad things happen (normal, everyday setbacks), it's the follower's fault--they're viewed as not following the steps close enough. If they're married to a non-believer or that person leaves the church, the church will want them to get a divorce.
I speak from personal experience of being previously married to one.
I agree that if you have to keep a shit list and you find it filling up...well maybe it's time for you to quit taking notes and find another place. Unless you're just an oversensitive prick and then maybe YOU need the help.
But I've got to agree with the cynic. You can be buddies with your co-workers, maybe even managers. But if you leave, are laid off or heck, even retire, it's 'don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out'. Chances are you'll never hear from any of these people again. Basically, most work friendships (we're talking without benefits and not the office romance) is just to get along and ease the workflow. If you get emotionally involved (again as in a true friendship) you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. You're just not going to make the type of friends like you had growing up. Because trust me, if something goes wrong, these fair weather friends are going to scatter like birds. They are NOT going to stand up for you. You are the only one who can do that.
And please don't overlook those over college age. I think recruiters assume an older worker is overqualified, priced out of their range and not as enthusiastic when it comes to learning new things. These, however, are myths. Many workers these days come to a point where they change careers. And some would love to be part of a start-up and would bring experience and stability.
Seems like a dumb way for a company to waste its time by misrepresenting what they wanted. People looking for a permanent job after graduation could have been passing them up.
Seriously though, sounds like you got caught up in a bait and switch situation. I've known people looking for work approaching a counter about help wanted only to be told by the clerk couldn't find the application or other excuse to discourage them from pursuing further. Especially if they weren't particularly good looking --or young.
If you recall, over the Christmas holiday shopping season both Sony and Microsoft encouraged players to buy the Wii (as a second player instead of what was thought would be their main competitor.)
The advertising paid off. Unfortunately for both Sony and Microsoft...they got their wish. Nintendo made out like a bandit.
And I would add "What IS a Webmaster"? Every company has a different definition on what a Webmaster is. You're right that it's now been broken up. Mainly because one person can't do it all any more. Previously, if you could administrate a server and put up a web page, maybe do a little coding in JavaScript, you were a webmaster. Now with all the different skills needed, not to mention a litany of programming options, no one person can do everything and there's not enough time to, even if they could. Now you tend to have a server admin, graphic artists, content managers and coders. I think it's gone by the wayside for use of a more discriptive, accurate job title.
Contraversy, imflammatory statements, and being a general cynical asshole might make you popular to the lowest common denominator, but it doesn't make your point of view better or inherently more popular.
True to a certain point. Howard Stern comes to mind! The fact is simply that Rush found a market in a (large) group of the population who heard someone saying what they always believed, but couldn't hear elsewhere. It's also about the entertainment factor. It's simplistic to say Judge Judy is only popular because she's a bitch on wheels. Yes, the audience can relate with her berating some idiot who thinks he's clever or can pull something over on her. But anyone can be nasty--JJ is sharp, funny, and takes a common sense approach. And like Rush, there are a horde of JJ wannabees wanting to cash in, some good, but most are pretty lame.
And like it or not, apparently liberal talk show radio hasn't found any liberals that are actually funny or engaging--at least to a mass audience. Al Frankin wasn't funny on SNL and he's not funny now.
The problem behind the people who want the fairness doctrine re-imposed is that they don't really want to do this out of fairness, or improving programming. It's probably one of the most unfair acts as it censors what shows a radio station can and can't run, no matter what the audience wants to hear. And it's never used on the REAL lowest common denominator--primetime TV. I seem to remember someone threatening PBS--a PUBLICLY funded--station to require them to put on more alternate, conservative viewpoints, and all hell broke loose. And that's a station which is partially funded by our tax dollars, so it made sense that it should air political shows that appealed to different viewpoints, not just leaning left.
All this doctrine is about is liberals want to go after talk radio because that has the highest concentration of conservative viewpoint being discussed. They can't get people to listen to their shows, so they want to keep businesses from airing shows with a conservative viewpoint. A case of if you can't be a success on your own--legislate it so you can FORCE business owners to run you programming. Pretty soon, after only making half as much revenue, you end up with a bunch of stations running straight news or playing top-40s. No one was LISTENING to talk radio in the 80s before this so-called fairness doctrine was lifted--it was basically considered a dead medium after cable came along. This is a blatant attempt for the government to micromanage what commercially owned station runs as programming. I don't care at all for Stern--I don't really care all that much about Rush either, btw. But I think a station should has the right to choose it's own programming.
The free market can work. A couple of years ago, we had a long-standing rock station owned by a big conglomerate (you know who that is) suddenly change to Hispanic rap even though we are already saturated, IMO, with the Hispanic statons here. But the old rock station was resurrected by another corporation. Obviously that wouldn't have been done had not investors thought there was still a market. And there have been at least a couple of other rock stations pop up since then with differing formats. No one in government had to force any station to play a certain format or balance the station by playing half rap and then switch to country western for half a day.
1&2. No, no one "owes" me a job. But how about giving me a chance? I don't get a chance to compete for a job that's now over in India.
3&5. It's not about being "better"; it's NEVER about being "better." As long as bean-counters are running things, it will ALWAYS be about, "Who does it the cheapest?" Never mind that someone has to clean up behind that decision--by that time, the CEO/CIO/CFO has cashed in their stock options and has gone on to another company. Business used to be about taking care of your employees and they'd take care of you. Not anymore. And not surprising when most of today's CEOs never work their way up from the bottom of the company they're heading.
4. Really? So YOU really want to be at the bottom of the heap? Didn't think so. And tell me, if we're all at the bottom, who's going to keep the country going? We won't be able to afford all the niceties that keep this economy alive if we're making $8/hour.
Corporate motives have been shown in report after report regarding H-1Bs, as in the H-1B Swindle story when immigrants are brought over here. The excuse given for both H-1Bs and outsourcing is there aren't enough qualified engineers. When in fact, it's shown that the companies just don't want to pay the going US rate for those engineers and so either hire from overseas or outsouce to an overseas company.
HOW are you going to claim that an open-source has stolen from a closed sorce app. Isn't it more likely that there is open source code being used illegally (under the GPL) in THEIR product? Especially because they have a habit of me-too programming or just buying the other vendor outright instead of innovation.
And is M$ going to be able to PROVE their property was stolen; they would have to show us "theirs" to do it?
Well as long as we're holding people accountable for "feeding the beast", I'll be sending you the bill for fixing the window I broke after reading your post sent me into a fit of rage.
I'm sure you'll think of something else to work of the tension...
Golly! Porn _does not_ "fead the beast", if anything it quenches it! Imagine the frustration of those million wankers and the resulting mess if not for the porn industry!
Yes, because as we all know, once you go to a porn site, you're totally satisfied and have no need to see it again.:-/
because before viewing the violent porn, this guy was obviously a choir boy...
No, and I don't think that porn (or violent video games) MAKES someone violent. But it does "feed the beast." OTOH, our brilliant supreme court in the US thinks it okay to have kiddie porn if it just LOOKS like kiddie porn. If it's animation or not really an under-aged student, that okay. But tell me that DOESN'T fuel the pedophile to eventually want to go out and get some real action on a kid?
What will the law do? Well it WILL allow charges to be brought without having to wait for some freak to practice his homemade snuff film on an innocent victim.
People complain about government stepping in, but the population at large does nothing to reign in their own vices or show SOME measure of standards as to what society will put up with.
I don't think that point is correct--I think it's just more likely that the powers that be will go after the distributor than the collector because it's more cost effective legally. But the DMCA has taken away our rights to a fair use copy in digital media.
However, the point is moot--if you're using bit torrents you're automatically UPLOADING as well as downloading. May be harder for the RIAA, et. al to track though since the bits are coming from several different locations instead of a single source in regular P2P.
Remember that the majority of new Windows PC owners buy an OEM machine and can barely plug in all the color-coded cables. They turn it on and the Windows setup wizard starts as you said. Fine. Now your OEM machine is detecting the 3-in-one inkjet-scanner-fax printer that came bundled free with the computer. Windows is now pompting them to install three items it has detected. Each one throwing up the New hardware wizard. Not to mention the computer's system image was from 4 months ago, so they need to download 55MB of patches on their dial-up connection in order to be "safe".
And don't forget half a hard drive filled with demo apps that will expire in 30 days if you don't buy them. I had to clean off all kinds of worthless crap on my parents' new machine and install their working applications.
Oh and then bounce all over over the OS to turn off the crappy Window's defaults. Which they HIDE!
It's not always about money. It's also about whether people, singular or as a group can get away with something.
Many years ago, I worked a short temp job in the office of a shipping facility where they had a night time shift crew in the warehouse. My first day I brought up a six-pack of soda for the week. The next day it was gone and my supervisor said, apologetically, "Oh I should have told you not to leave anything in the fridge--the night shift guys go in their and take what they want."
Obviously every company has their thief, but never had I seen it on this scale and basically expected and in the open. There was no company "team" here...just two groups where one group thought it was perfectly okay to steal from the other. Did they think that because we were in the office and they weren't that they were entitled to our stuff? And no one in management anywhere that gave a damn either. I was glad it was only a temp job. I would have been tempted to "forget" and leave behind a nice plate of ex-lax laced brownies otherwise.
Being that this was a alcohol distributing point, I wondered how many boxes of booze road home in the back of their car trunks. Because if they were willing to steal from fellow employees, I'm sure they had less qualms stealing from the employer. Ironically, their slogan was [Company Name] People Care.
Slashdot Mirror
Most companies waited a long time before upgrading to XP if they even did that--I still know some major companies using 2000. But the real question is why does ANYONE need to upgrade? Most offices need office applications, email and a web browser. A few people need other, more specialized programs. But if you've got one of the later versions of Office and Windows XP, WHY should you upgrade? And it's not like your users will appreciate having the latest and greatest--they just got used to the last version and you're going to hear a lot of complaints over items moved or changed. What REALLY is office 2007 going to do--make my coffee? Any new release from MS is going to be full of bugs and security holes--why deal with the hassle?
That's why Microsoft wants to move to a lease-type role model where you rent the software rather than own it--because there's no compelling need to change and eventually they will stop upgrading. Or, worse for MS, they'll move to other applications like Open Office.
Our office is certainly not going to Vista and not even IE7. We use Oracle portal for the web and testing found some issues using IE7 with it. I've also helped a friend with her website and commercial CDs. Security setting are almost backwards. We found IE7 will have some basic securities locked up so tight (like running a CD from the drive) that it's hard to find where to turn them off. More important things, like phishing security that should be left on and probably won't interfere, can easily be turned off by a menu, however.
While I currently have IE7 for testing, I personally use FireFox exclusively for everything else, it has everything I could want and then some.
What's sad is all WGA does is prevent EVERYONE from getting easy access to installing security updates, leaving systems more vunerable and a possible danger down the road to the legitmate users.
And that's to no one's advantage.
Like terrorizing some ten-year-old about their music collection?
Now that people can buy individual songs, there's no excuse for a record company or artist to put 2 or 3 good songs and then fill the rest up with crap. And they're slitting their own throats doing so.
But if the RIAA would get their heads out of their ass and realize that the majority of the population doesn't want to hear the crap they put out they might turn things around. First off they're marketing to the wrong bunch. They're marketing to the decling population of teens to twenties. This worked in the 60s and 70s when the baby boomers were that age. Then they dropped them for the younger market. I would argue that most boomers are unlikely to download warez, would gladly purchase some music they'd like to hear and have the disposable income to do so. Just look at the sales of a release of Beatles No. Ones a few years back. And (get ready for the "old foggie" comment) it doesn't have to be old groups, but groups that can sing, not lipsync for for MTV. (Have you ever thought about how many former #1 selling artists would never have made it on American Idol today because they weren't good looking enough!?) Everything today is either rap or Beyonce. I would really like to find some new artists that I can like consistently, but they're few and far between.
There have been times when the Catholic Church has been guilty of all of these at once, and a persuasive argument could be made that some of them still apply today. Were or are they a cult?
The catholic church has their own set of problems, but they would hardly actively try to break up a marriage between a catholic and a non-catholic, keep out non-believers or use mind-control. Although, I suppose some atheists believe that ALL religions are cults and practice mind-control from their viewpoint.
That being said, this is just a list of items generally attributed to cults, in oppostion of religious practices, posted in answer to the question: What makes someone think Scientology is not a religion? The reader can make up their own mind.
One of their catch phrases is, "Cash is trash."
Well...YOU'RE supposed to view it as trash apparently--they certainly don't.
Another from them is, "If it's true for you, then it's true." (Unless of course, it disagrees with one of their tenants.)
Difference between a cult and a religion.
I would add these: Outrageous (as in thousands of dollars) "donations" that are required...not just requested. If bad things happen (normal, everyday setbacks), it's the follower's fault--they're viewed as not following the steps close enough. If they're married to a non-believer or that person leaves the church, the church will want them to get a divorce.
I speak from personal experience of being previously married to one.
I agree that if you have to keep a shit list and you find it filling up...well maybe it's time for you to quit taking notes and find another place. Unless you're just an oversensitive prick and then maybe YOU need the help.
But I've got to agree with the cynic. You can be buddies with your co-workers, maybe even managers. But if you leave, are laid off or heck, even retire, it's 'don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out'. Chances are you'll never hear from any of these people again. Basically, most work friendships (we're talking without benefits and not the office romance) is just to get along and ease the workflow. If you get emotionally involved (again as in a true friendship) you're just setting yourself up for disappointment. You're just not going to make the type of friends like you had growing up. Because trust me, if something goes wrong, these fair weather friends are going to scatter like birds. They are NOT going to stand up for you. You are the only one who can do that.
The cheese stands alone.
I've got the scoop the story:
"The school and Harry's friends are scandalized when he shows up to the prom naked on a horse."
Ooops...sorry, wrong story.
And please don't overlook those over college age. I think recruiters assume an older worker is overqualified, priced out of their range and not as enthusiastic when it comes to learning new things. These, however, are myths. Many workers these days come to a point where they change careers. And some would love to be part of a start-up and would bring experience and stability.
Seems like a dumb way for a company to waste its time by misrepresenting what they wanted. People looking for a permanent job after graduation could have been passing them up.
Glad things worked out for you at any rate.
spinfire leaves....
Hot chick walks up to Alcatel
HC: Hi, I'm looking for a internship or whatever.
BBDfA: Right this way...
Seriously though, sounds like you got caught up in a bait and switch situation. I've known people looking for work approaching a counter about help wanted only to be told by the clerk couldn't find the application or other excuse to discourage them from pursuing further. Especially if they weren't particularly good looking --or young.
If you recall, over the Christmas holiday shopping season both Sony and Microsoft encouraged players to buy the Wii (as a second player instead of what was thought would be their main competitor.)
The advertising paid off. Unfortunately for both Sony and Microsoft...they got their wish. Nintendo made out like a bandit.
Your environmentally friendly bio-fuels are triggering a 400 percent increase in the cost of tortillas.
Next you'll ban the beans....
Damn you!
And I would add "What IS a Webmaster"? Every company has a different definition on what a Webmaster is. You're right that it's now been broken up. Mainly because one person can't do it all any more. Previously, if you could administrate a server and put up a web page, maybe do a little coding in JavaScript, you were a webmaster. Now with all the different skills needed, not to mention a litany of programming options, no one person can do everything and there's not enough time to, even if they could. Now you tend to have a server admin, graphic artists, content managers and coders. I think it's gone by the wayside for use of a more discriptive, accurate job title.
Contraversy, imflammatory statements, and being a general cynical asshole might make you popular to the lowest common denominator, but it doesn't make your point of view better or inherently more popular.
True to a certain point. Howard Stern comes to mind! The fact is simply that Rush found a market in a (large) group of the population who heard someone saying what they always believed, but couldn't hear elsewhere. It's also about the entertainment factor. It's simplistic to say Judge Judy is only popular because she's a bitch on wheels. Yes, the audience can relate with her berating some idiot who thinks he's clever or can pull something over on her. But anyone can be nasty--JJ is sharp, funny, and takes a common sense approach. And like Rush, there are a horde of JJ wannabees wanting to cash in, some good, but most are pretty lame.
And like it or not, apparently liberal talk show radio hasn't found any liberals that are actually funny or engaging--at least to a mass audience. Al Frankin wasn't funny on SNL and he's not funny now.
The problem behind the people who want the fairness doctrine re-imposed is that they don't really want to do this out of fairness, or improving programming. It's probably one of the most unfair acts as it censors what shows a radio station can and can't run, no matter what the audience wants to hear. And it's never used on the REAL lowest common denominator--primetime TV. I seem to remember someone threatening PBS--a PUBLICLY funded--station to require them to put on more alternate, conservative viewpoints, and all hell broke loose. And that's a station which is partially funded by our tax dollars, so it made sense that it should air political shows that appealed to different viewpoints, not just leaning left.
All this doctrine is about is liberals want to go after talk radio because that has the highest concentration of conservative viewpoint being discussed. They can't get people to listen to their shows, so they want to keep businesses from airing shows with a conservative viewpoint. A case of if you can't be a success on your own--legislate it so you can FORCE business owners to run you programming. Pretty soon, after only making half as much revenue, you end up with a bunch of stations running straight news or playing top-40s. No one was LISTENING to talk radio in the 80s before this so-called fairness doctrine was lifted--it was basically considered a dead medium after cable came along. This is a blatant attempt for the government to micromanage what commercially owned station runs as programming. I don't care at all for Stern--I don't really care all that much about Rush either, btw. But I think a station should has the right to choose it's own programming.
The free market can work. A couple of years ago, we had a long-standing rock station owned by a big conglomerate (you know who that is) suddenly change to Hispanic rap even though we are already saturated, IMO, with the Hispanic statons here. But the old rock station was resurrected by another corporation. Obviously that wouldn't have been done had not investors thought there was still a market. And there have been at least a couple of other rock stations pop up since then with differing formats. No one in government had to force any station to play a certain format or balance the station by playing half rap and then switch to country western for half a day.
The problem with "facts":
1&2. No, no one "owes" me a job. But how about giving me a chance? I don't get a chance to compete for a job that's now over in India.
3&5. It's not about being "better"; it's NEVER about being "better." As long as bean-counters are running things, it will ALWAYS be about, "Who does it the cheapest?" Never mind that someone has to clean up behind that decision--by that time, the CEO/CIO/CFO has cashed in their stock options and has gone on to another company. Business used to be about taking care of your employees and they'd take care of you. Not anymore. And not surprising when most of today's CEOs never work their way up from the bottom of the company they're heading.
4. Really? So YOU really want to be at the bottom of the heap? Didn't think so. And tell me, if we're all at the bottom, who's going to keep the country going? We won't be able to afford all the niceties that keep this economy alive if we're making $8/hour.
Corporate motives have been shown in report after report regarding H-1Bs, as in the H-1B Swindle story when immigrants are brought over here. The excuse given for both H-1Bs and outsourcing is there aren't enough qualified engineers. When in fact, it's shown that the companies just don't want to pay the going US rate for those engineers and so either hire from overseas or outsouce to an overseas company.
Um...Butter?
HOW are you going to claim that an open-source has stolen from a closed sorce app. Isn't it more likely that there is open source code being used illegally (under the GPL) in THEIR product? Especially because they have a habit of me-too programming or just buying the other vendor outright instead of innovation.
And is M$ going to be able to PROVE their property was stolen; they would have to show us "theirs" to do it?
Well as long as we're holding people accountable for "feeding the beast", I'll be sending you the bill for fixing the window I broke after reading your post sent me into a fit of rage.
I'm sure you'll think of something else to work of the tension...
Golly! Porn _does not_ "fead the beast", if anything it quenches it! Imagine the frustration of those million wankers and the resulting mess if not for the porn industry!
Yes, because as we all know, once you go to a porn site, you're totally satisfied and have no need to see it again. :-/
And no one advocated criminalizing all porn.
because before viewing the violent porn, this guy was obviously a choir boy...
No, and I don't think that porn (or violent video games) MAKES someone violent. But it does "feed the beast." OTOH, our brilliant supreme court in the US thinks it okay to have kiddie porn if it just LOOKS like kiddie porn. If it's animation or not really an under-aged student, that okay. But tell me that DOESN'T fuel the pedophile to eventually want to go out and get some real action on a kid?
What will the law do? Well it WILL allow charges to be brought without having to wait for some freak to practice his homemade snuff film on an innocent victim.
People complain about government stepping in, but the population at large does nothing to reign in their own vices or show SOME measure of standards as to what society will put up with.
I don't think that point is correct--I think it's just more likely that the powers that be will go after the distributor than the collector because it's more cost effective legally. But the DMCA has taken away our rights to a fair use copy in digital media.
However, the point is moot--if you're using bit torrents you're automatically UPLOADING as well as downloading. May be harder for the RIAA, et. al to track though since the bits are coming from several different locations instead of a single source in regular P2P.
Remember that the majority of new Windows PC owners buy an OEM machine and can barely plug in all the color-coded cables. They turn it on and the Windows setup wizard starts as you said. Fine. Now your OEM machine is detecting the 3-in-one inkjet-scanner-fax printer that came bundled free with the computer. Windows is now pompting them to install three items it has detected. Each one throwing up the New hardware wizard. Not to mention the computer's system image was from 4 months ago, so they need to download 55MB of patches on their dial-up connection in order to be "safe".
And don't forget half a hard drive filled with demo apps that will expire in 30 days if you don't buy them. I had to clean off all kinds of worthless crap on my parents' new machine and install their working applications.
Oh and then bounce all over over the OS to turn off the crappy Window's defaults. Which they HIDE!
Late to the party, but have to chime in anyway.
It's not always about money. It's also about whether people, singular or as a group can get away with something.
Many years ago, I worked a short temp job in the office of a shipping facility where they had a night time shift crew in the warehouse. My first day I brought up a six-pack of soda for the week. The next day it was gone and my supervisor said, apologetically, "Oh I should have told you not to leave anything in the fridge--the night shift guys go in their and take what they want."
Obviously every company has their thief, but never had I seen it on this scale and basically expected and in the open. There was no company "team" here...just two groups where one group thought it was perfectly okay to steal from the other. Did they think that because we were in the office and they weren't that they were entitled to our stuff? And no one in management anywhere that gave a damn either. I was glad it was only a temp job. I would have been tempted to "forget" and leave behind a nice plate of ex-lax laced brownies otherwise.
Being that this was a alcohol distributing point, I wondered how many boxes of booze road home in the back of their car trunks. Because if they were willing to steal from fellow employees, I'm sure they had less qualms stealing from the employer. Ironically, their slogan was [Company Name] People Care.