The Corporate Asylum: Journal Entries

19 August 1999 - 1 December 1999

1 December 1999

I'm home sick today. Same yesterday. There is always a tinge of guilt I feel when I call in sick. I guess it is a part of our culture that has in some way influenced me. Why should I feel that way? I'd be miserable at work. That is how I now determine whether or not I should go in. If I decide whatever I have will make me miserable at work then I stay home. I've seen people who drag themselves in no matter what--that kind of martyr mentality that they're willing to "pay the price," but I think it really accomplishes very little and no one individual is so vital to the corporation that their absence for a few days will do lasting and irreparable damage. Yet people often feel this overwhelming sense of duty, this sense that they need to be at work no matter how they're feeling.
I wonder if this does not also have to do with people viewing their jobs with their sense of purpose. Certainly, it is important not just to "feel" needed, but to be needed and I would not negate the importance of jobs that give people that--but it does often seem work gets a percentage of our time and energy that goes beyond necessity and/or well-being.

I've been corresponding with a friend via email about some personal matters and it has been a frustrating situation for both of us. Lots of misunderstanding, some anger, some things we wish we had not written and it has reminded me of the difficulty of communication--we've been friends for over 25 years, though we have not lived in the same vicinity for the last 15. But it has me thinking a little about the difficulty of communicating at work--particularly between management and workers--and what causes that difficulty. Certainly much of it has to do with our own varied personalities, but maybe more than that is that the assumptions we bring to a conversation or to a letter are not always or maybe not even often the assumptions of those we are talking to and yet those remain unspoken and affect how we understand what is being said or written. It almost seems an impossible task to communicate in a clear and understandable manner. I have no doubt that much on this web site is not received in the way I intend it. I suppose part of the solution is to keep that in mind and to keep communicating and to ask questions to clarify points, etc. But probably another big problem is attempting to see a story from someone else's point of view. I do not doubt that management has a different story of horrors to tell and nor do I doubt that those are real horrors. It is a difficult thing to actually try and see something with eyes that are not our own. I think of the letters I've written to management and I am sure some of the content neglected this aspect as do many of their letters and memos. Again, maybe the first step in, not solving, it won't ever be solved in some definitive sense, but in communicating better is to ask ourselves if we have attempted to see things from the other side. Some other good advice, it seems to me, comes from a book about writing, but I think it can apply to conversations, business communication, friendships and life as well.

The conclusion seems that, if you would write well, you will be wise to flee falsity like the plague; that, if you would move your readers (and for worthier motives also), it is better not to palter for one moment with sincerity. That may not save your[sic] from accusations of insincerity: but you can at least avoid deserving them. One cannot ask oneself too often, both in writing and in re-reading what one has written, "Do I really mean that? Have I said it for effect, though I know it is exaggerated? Or from cowardice, because otherwise I should be ill thought of?"

Nathaniel Hawthorne had similar advice in The Scarlett Letter.

Be true! Be true! Be true! Show freely to the world, if not your worst, yet some trait whereby the worst may be inferred!works cited:
Hawthorne, Nathaniel, The Scarlett Letter, Bantam Books, New York, N.Y., 1981, pg. 236.

Lucas, F. L., Style, Collier Books, New York, N. Y., 1962, pg. 146.

29 October 1999

Considering the topic of my last entry it is fitting that this week I received another memo informing my fellow part-time couriers and me that we will no longer be allowed to "give up" Saturdays(All part-time couriers are scheduled to work about one Saturday a month). This ability, to be able to get someone else to work for me on a Saturday, is ultimately how this web site came into being. Is nothing sacred?
I spoke with the supervisor who made this decision. She wants to alleviate some of the problems created by all the switching: people working too much overtime; people not showing up; some part-timers not working any Saturdays and too much white-out being consumed. Well, again, here we go. I told her it was unfair to punish everyone when it is only a minority who are the offenders. I also told her that I completely understand the need to regulate overtime and to make sure people show up. But most of us who work Saturdays or who get people to work on Saturday are not the offenders. The offenders should be addressed on an individual basis. This is, of course, a rehash of my last entry. I sometimes feel as if this entire web site is a rehash of two or three managerial techniques that have their roots in an inability to use common sense.

The frustrating thing is that this is such a frequent management method and so obviously the wrong way to handle it. As one of my co-workers said, "If you have two children and one of them does something wrong you don't punish both of them." The supervisor assured me that she was not doing this to punish anyone, but, unfortunately, regardless of her intentions, that is what happens. I have needed to, over the course of my employment, work a string of Saturdays to make some extra money as have many of my colleagues. This option will now be unavailable, not to mention, though I will because I want to, the inability to get rid of a Saturdays when one has barbecue and softball planned. The majority of us, as so often happens even in our culture as a whole, are treated as if we are the ones who created the problem.

I will be writing a letter to our Service Center manager in attempt to reach a workable compromise. I intend to suggest that responsibility should be nailed firmly on each courier to regulate their own overtime and to show up for work when scheduled. These are, I realize, momentous, revolutionary and innovative ideas, but maybe they will find a small corner of refuge in this room of The Asylum. Don't bet on it.

14 October 1999

All couriers received a memo in their box(this must be the week for memos) which contained the following sentences:

Meeting will be approximately 5 minutes in duration at which time expectations will be laid out. This will not be a gripe session. If you have individual issues those will be addressed at a later time.
Any question, please feel free to ask.

I assume the writer meant to write "questions," but the deletion of the "s" may also be a Freudian slip. "You get one question!" I also love the fact that this more-or-less assumes that workers are all going to gripe. That's respect. It is interesting that valid criticism is often labeled "griping" or "complaining." What a great paradox: "I don't want any of you griping, but please feel free to ask any questions, as long they aren't gripe questions and, of course, I will define what is or is not a question of gripeness. Why is it going to be this way? Because I said so!" Parental Management may come into its own in the 21st century.

There has been a trend over the last couple of years at our station in which management makes a point to say things in meetings like: "I will not be taking any questions at this time--if you have any please come see me." It's a lot like a government attempting to limit freedom of the press. They do not want everyone hearing something that might make them look bad or that might be controversial. So, they avoid the issue by limiting discussion. Thank God the lines of communication are always wide open at my company or this might actually be disheartening.

This is also related to a similar trend in which management does not address individuals who are causing problems but addresses the whole group in the hope that the individuals who are the problem will change. Unfortunately, by addressing the group management insults the majority of workers who do not need to be reprimanded. Again, what management is attempting to do is avoid a confrontation. What they do in reality is piss the rest us of off who don't need to hear this crap and allow the offenders to continue on their happy offending ways while management believes, erroneously, that they have dealt with and solved the problem. If one individual is causing a problem that individual needs to be confronted. This is the job of a manager. Individuals who have a distaste for confrontation should, if they want to be managers, overcome their fears or find something else to do.

Another technique, something I experienced today and, unfortunately have experienced in the past, is for management to say, "I can't discuss that." This was said to me in reference to a situation that directly affected me and those around me. A decision was made and management decided to make it without any input from those of us who knew the most about the situation. I know more about it(a personality clash) than they possibly could because I live it everyday. It would be common sense to get information from those people who have the most facts. I was, however, assured that this was for the good of the company and that if I ever needed to come and talk to management about any problem I might have this manager would be waiting with open arms. The three times I have come to this individual with problems have all related to problems with management-- specifically her management--no doubt I'll be visiting again soon.

A few days ago I was listening to a lecture about Thomas Hobbes by Dennis Dalton. Dalton said that Hobbes believed there were two great passions in life--the desire for power and the fear of death--and that these two passions are responsible for most of our actions. I am well acquainted with the latter in my personal spiritual pilgrimage and see the former often where I work. Many people seeking power crave secrecy. It's like the kindergarten playground: "I know something you don't know." But I also think this desire to keep people uninformed is often a trait of those who lack either confidence or competence and view secrecy as a way to get, assert or keep power. A secret cannot be judged(although, ironically, it invariably is). In my case, since this manager would not give her reasons for the decision she made, she does not have to listen to any criticisms regarding it. It's an extremely poor way to manage. It is disrespectful, it is condescending and, ultimately, it is ineffective. It hurts morale and it gives workers little reason to respect, admire or have confidence in those who manage them.

30 August 1999

I saw a shirt today that said, "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead." A perfect, tragic summation of our busy, busy culture. The guy who wears this shirt is the guy who prefers T.V. dinners to prepared meals, the guy who takes a vacation and has to look at the pictures to remember what he saw. Foreplay for this guy is the amount of time it takes to turn off the light.
Sleep is a wonderful, wonderful thing. Going to bed is delightful, something to be savored. To slowly drift off in a warm, cozy bed is one of the great pleasures of life. Eating can be the same. Food, good food is fabulous. What a marvelous thing it is to be able to eat, to relish a long meal alone or with family and friends. And how about hot showers? I love hot showers. Or what about a good book, movie or conversation? Simple pleasures are to be enjoyed. The good life is not determined by how many events you can cram into it.

19 August 1999

Yesterday my colleagues and I all received shirts from management. This was to reward us for something we had done in the last few months. I don't know what that was because I could not hear what was being said--but it doesn't matter. The shirts have the company logo on them. Nevermind that the shirt is ugly, I have no desire to wear anything with the company logo on it when I am not at work. I wear a uniform for the better part of the day, why would I want to keep wearing one when I get home? But, not to worry, we will be allowed to wear the shirt one Friday per month--they'll tell us which one. I can't tell you how ecstatic that made me because I was not ecstatic. Insulted? Yes. I know what some of you are thinking: "The Inmate is a grouch. They gave him a shirt!" For me the shirt has little to do with my criticism of this event. It has more to do with the accumulation of events. It is no accident that long time employees of corporations tend to be cynical. It is not the one insulting event, the one stupid incentive program, the one idiotic bureaucratic procedure, the one inane managerial blunder that makes one cynical--it is their accumulation and consistency over a long period of time. They build slowly like a 401k retirement plan. Management keeps contributing and contributing and contributing. There is a constancy and a predictability about these things. It's a form of slow torture. From what I understand our station received money from corporate headquarters because of our accomplishments. I would have at least liked to have been asked what to do with the money because it was a reward to us--but, of course, I probably wouldn't use it correctly so I'm glad someone who is much wiser than I chose something so practical. Give me some money. That's why I work. Far too much time and effort is spent by corporate types trying to convince everyone that we are part of a team or a family. We come here to work, to earn a wage. Let us do that and leave us alone.
One of the results of this emphasis on corporate life is that employees begin to get a distorted view of what is important. Our culture tends to push the idea that the place you gain your self-respect and personal pride is at the office and this would not be so bad if what was being done there had some intrinsic value--most of the time it does not. I do not believe that the nature of many jobs is in itself bad--it is simply the result of our current civilization--modern life, technology, the division of labor. That does, of course, have many benefits. Look at the standard of living we enjoy. It's also nice not to have to hunt and fish in the hope that one does not starve to death. The problem comes when individuals attempt to attach a meaning to labor and employment when it is not there. The tragic thing is when employees believe the rhetoric and seriously try to extract their meaning, their contentment and their self-worth from their jobs. What are the results? The workaholic strives for a plaque or a pat on the back. People go into work sick because "the company needs them." Here are some lines from Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman :

To devote your whole life to keeping stock, or making phone calls, or selling or buying. To suffer fifty weeks of the year for the sake of a two-week vacation, when all you really desire is to be outdoors, with your shirt off. And always to have to get ahead of the next fella. And still--that's how you build a future.

No it's not. And if a future is "built" that way it will be a future with a meager, ultimately, unfulfilling past. It doesn't have to be this way. I don't know that the corporation will ever change significantly. I hope it does, but one cannot place one's future on that uncertain hope. Corporations take advantage of employees--it is their nature to do so. Managers feel pressure from their bosses, who feel pressure from theirs who feel pressure from the CEO who feels pressure from ego or stockholders or boards or whatever. By the time it gets down to workers no one is really concerned about their well-being. Oh sure, they are concerned in a very superficial way but what about the essential aspects of living? What about peace and contentment? Not only are they not concerned, but one would find little help from the corporation in these matters. Some cliché about getting blood from a turnip comes to mind. Therefore, workers have to take advantage of the corporation. I don't mean this in a dishonest way, but in way that allows them to live. This might take on any number of characteristics: work part-time, refuse overtime, change jobs if necessary, but more importantly and more necessarily once time has been seized workers and management will at least have the opportunity to cultivate a meaningful life away from work.

There are always going to be jobs that people will work even though they do not like them. Probably the majority of the jobs available are like that. The way employees should be compensated for these jobs is not only with more money. More important is a shorter work week. A 30 hour week is a good start. I suppose just limiting workers to an actual 40 hour week would be a more realistic start. I just talked to a guy who moves big construction equipment whose normal week is between 55 and 65 hours. When it gets busy he has worked 100 hours a week. This is madness. Salaried employees are often some of the most abused. They, too, should only have to work 40 hours a week. The corporation won't do this. They are too interested in more and more profits. They say they aren't--but another cliché comes to mind--something about actions speaking louder than words. The most feasible way to fight back is to use and abuse the corporation. What's the reality? The reality is that there are plenty of people who get used and abused, who are willing to sacrifice their lives on the altar of higher corporate stock prices, so if a few workers use and abuse the corporation about all they'll be doing is slowing down the swing of the pendulum. It will swing back--just don't expect it in our lifetime.

Does all this seem depressing? It is. But it doesn't have to be. I really believe that. Securing a shorter workday, pursuing your passions with the extra time, taking time to think about life, cooking great meals, having the time and energy for great sex, long showers, movies, plays, gardening, reading, friends, family, etc., etc., etc.,--it's possible and a lot of people are discovering this. So you don't have a new car, so you don't have a huge house--so what? You just might get a life. Pop culture is shallow. Movie stars are shallow. Sports heroes are shallow. CEO's are shallow. Don't dive into any of their pools--they're all mirages--you'll break your neck. That will kill you. Advertising is shallow--and why wouldn't it be? All they want is your money. They do not want you to enjoy the simple pleasures of life because if you do that you will be less likely to spend and spend and spend. Most of what advertising and television does is seduce people into buying more and more so they have to work more and more and then the advertisers tell them that that is fulfilling. And they believe it. God help them.

As for me and my house--bring on the barbecue, the six hour days, the vine-ripened tomatoes and afternoons with my son. Call me lazy, call me unambitious--just don't call me at work--I try to be there as little as possible.

works cited:
Miller, Arthur, The Portable Arthur Miller, edited by Harold Clurman, Penguin Books, New York, N.Y., 1982, pg. 16.

©1999 The Corporate Asylum

More Journal | Home | Back to Top | Contact The Inmate