If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Faux et usage de Faux
When reading this over, I saw the comment "a faux illness", which is faking it etc. But it brought to mind a French criminal charge of "Faux et usage de Faux", meaning not only false but you used it in some way. Of course this is what Bush did done the line with the info "proving" (slam dunk) that indeed WMDs exist. It was false information and he sure used it. It came as a complete surprise that my fellow Americans would call in sick, falsely. This is something that never happens in the rest of the Western world! ***** According to a recent survey conducted by Careerbuilder.com entitled, " Out of the Office 2005 ", a whopping 43% of respondents revealed that they had called in sick with a fake excuse in the last twelve months, up from 35% in the 2004 survey. Unfortunately for some employees, their day of hooky ended up with a pink slip as 23% of managers surveyed reported that they had fired an employee for missing work with a faux illness. The most popular day for faking an illness was Wednesday (27%) followed closely by Monday (26%) and Friday (14%). The most popular reasons for calling in sick included catching up on sleep (23%) and simply not feeling like working (17%). The excuses provided by employees ran the gamut from the mundane to the exotic. The Careerbuilder.com survey highlighted some of the more bizarre excuses provided to managers including: I'm too drunk to drive to work. My boyfriend's snake got loose and I'm afraid to leave the bedroom until he gets home. I'm too fat to get into my work pants. My cow bit me. My son accidentally fell asleep next to wet cement in our backyard. His foot fell in and we can't get it out. My house lock jammed and I'm locked in. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Faux et usage de Faux
Earl Evleth wrote: When reading this over, I saw the comment "a faux illness", which is faking it etc. But it brought to mind a French criminal charge of "Faux et usage de Faux", meaning not only false but you used it in some way. Of course this is what Bush did done the line with the info "proving" (slam dunk) that indeed WMDs exist. It was false information and he sure used it. It came as a complete surprise that my fellow Americans would call in sick, falsely. This is something that never happens in the rest of the Western world! Perhaps, in "the rest of the Western world" one is allowed as much "sick-time" as needed, not a limited annual number of "use it or lose it" days. I think far fewer of us would engage in the practice if we were allowed to carry any unused days over until they were actually needed for their stated purpose. The Careerbuilder.com survey highlighted some of the more bizarre excuses provided to managers including: My house lock jammed and I'm locked in. During a recent widespread power failure here, my neighbor in the next apartment used that excuse quite legitimately. Our building has gated subterranean parking, she works far enough from home so she needs her car to get there, and the gate is electric with, SFAIK, no provision for opening it manually! (None that either she or I knew about, anyway, and those gates are HEAVY.) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Faux et usage de Faux
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:
Perhaps, in "the rest of the Western world" one is allowed as much "sick-time" as needed, not a limited annual number of "use it or lose it" days. I think far fewer of us would engage in the practice if we were allowed to carry any unused days over until they were actually needed for their stated purpose. The whole idea of fixed sick leave is a bit ... sick. If you're sick, you shouldn't come to work; if you're not sick, you should come to work. Setting a fixed number of days for something that is completely uncontrollable and unforeseeable is a tacit admission that employees are expected to lie, and that their lies are acceptable. Not all companies in the U.S. operated this way. I worked for a company that had no set sick leave; if you were truly sick, you didn't come into work, and if you weren't sick, you worked. I don't recall it ever causing a problem. But when you have a fixed number of sick days, dishonest employees are tempted to use them all, whether they are sick or not, and honest employees are penalized if they happen to fall sick for more than the fixed number of days. During a recent widespread power failure here, my neighbor in the next apartment used that excuse quite legitimately. Our building has gated subterranean parking, she works far enough from home so she needs her car to get there, and the gate is electric with, SFAIK, no provision for opening it manually! (None that either she or I knew about, anyway, and those gates are HEAVY.) Sometimes employers reject unusual but perfectly legitimate excuses because they automatically assume the employee is lying, or because they don't bother to think things through and they don't realize that the excuse makes perfect sense, as you explain above. -- Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Faux et usage de Faux
Mxsmanic wrote: Not all companies in the U.S. operated this way. I worked for a company that had no set sick leave; if you were truly sick, you didn't come into work, and if you weren't sick, you worked. I don't recall it ever causing a problem. Unfortunately, I once worked where it became one. When management discovered that people in one department were regulary (and more or less in turns) being "sick" on either Mondays or Fridays, our heretofore unlimited sick leave became finite! As so often, an indisciplined, dishonest few created a penalty for the many. But when you have a fixed number of sick days, dishonest employees are tempted to use them all, whether they are sick or not, and honest employees are penalized if they happen to fall sick for more than the fixed number of days. It's not exactly a matter of "dishonesty", since both management and labor recognize that these are in essence "personal use" days. (They may be used for a "parent-teacher" conference at a child's school, for example - or any personal business that must be transacted during normal working hours.) But I agree that it's much better to simply allow such time when neccesary, and expect employees to be present, otherwise. I am seldom ill - almost never, when I was younger - so with such a policy, I was almost always at work. I liked it better that way, since I knew if I were REALLY ill (hosptalized or whatever), I would not have to worry about loss of income. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
American Airlines Adds Fee to Encourage E-Ticket Usage in Europe | Earl Evleth | Europe | 21 | October 26th, 2004 01:28 PM |
mobile phone usage | Peter | USA & Canada | 3 | May 25th, 2004 03:54 PM |
mobile phone usage | Steven M. Scharf | USA & Canada | 0 | May 19th, 2004 03:19 PM |
mobile phone usage | A Mate | USA & Canada | 3 | May 15th, 2004 10:41 PM |
Air brake usage during descent | John | Air travel | 19 | October 27th, 2003 03:43 PM |