In my place of employment, loyalty is not rewarded—it is exploited.
In my place of employment, common sense is not heeded—it is
subverted.
In my place of employment, I have become disillusioned with
the blatant bullsh-t that is shoveled down our throats on a daily basis.
I work in a library where our director refuses to “play ball”
with our county commissioners, our administration are conniving individuals
that carry personal agendas, and our employees are screwed over routinely.
There was a time when I felt that this could be my career
and it still may be my carry, but I know that it cannot be here. It cannot be here until things change and
things are not going to change until every collapses in upon itself.
In my short time at the library, I have made some close
companions and now, those companions find themselves in the midst of one of the
system’s “brilliant” reorganization plans.
Now, to better understand the situation, one must know what
has happened within the course of the previous half-year (actually, past seven
months). In May of 2014, the system
hired a new Information Technology (IT) director and during his brief tenure,
this director found himself at odds with his department staff and attempted to
force change by creating a toxic environment in which he mistreated his staff
in a number of ways. But, of all his
methods, the one with the longest lasting effect would be the introduction of
his interns: one was a brash and loud
woman with a poor social skills (she would be paired with the department’s
longest tenured staffer—my companion), another was a stuttering,
mentally-impaired individual that was more a charity case than an actual intern
(he was paired with the department staffer with which this director had the
most issues with), and the final intern was the most competent of the trio
(which is not saying much as the other two were quite incompetent) and he was
paired with the director.
Anyway, fast forward a few months—let’s say four—to September
of 2014 when the incompetent IT director, after a number of miscues and
mistakes, is terminated, but prior to his departure; the ignorant bastard
decides he should write up my companion THREE times. Of course, one should give little credence to
the actions of a vengeful, vindictive and terminated individual—at least,
common sense would dictate that response (but bear in mind my second statement
and we will return to this point later).
After the termination of the previous IT director, the three
interns were left in limbo: the female
intern was rather sporadic to begin with so her eventual phasing out was easy
and non-eventful, the stuttering intern served out the remainder of his “internship”
being passed around various individuals within the library to aid in the
completion of menial tasks, and the third intern was handed a contract to
continue working for the library in a limited basis (one may ask “huh?”, but
the department was in the middle of a major network transfer and the department
was even more understaffed than usual).
Eventually, the position of IT Director is once again posted
and the hiring process begins anew.
During this hiring cycle, it is stated that the system would be much
more methodical in its approach and would slow down the hiring process to avoid
a repeat of the previous incident. Also,
during this period, the process of transitioning the system onto a new ISP
network as well as the installation of a new e-mail service provider were
completed under the direction of the “intern” (which was a clear omen of things
to come). Anyway, four individuals threw
their names into the ring—three received interviews. Of the three interviews, one was a black male
that I knew or learned nothing about, another was a former employee of PINES
and was involved in the implementation of the Evergreen system (this was the
one that our previous IT Director—twice removed—recommended), and the third was
the “intern”.
Now, I know that I have said this before in previous
updates, but I cannot repeat it enough:
common sense would dictate that one does not hire the individual brought into the system by the individual
that your system just fired. There are
too many volatile elements in taking such actions, but again, remember the
second statement I made in this update.
So, despite statements that they would be more cautious and pragmatic in
their hiring approach, the system handed the position to the devil that they
knew best they could pay less.
Here’s the thing about the position:
it was advertised with a pay range of $30,000 - $70,000. Now, I know that $70,000 isn’t much for an IT
position, but I would think that it would still be enough to pique the interest
of the candidate that helped designed the single most important piece of
software in the system (the administration claimed that the candidate’s requested
pay rate was too high). So, because the
system, which I am well aware of their financial woes, was too cheap to offer a
decent pay rate for a position in a highly competitive field, they hired the
intern with no library experience and no graduate-level college degree a
position that will at the minimum pay him $10,000+ more than me.
But, this is not about me, this is about my companion who
learned this week that he was being transferred into another department and
would be receiving a pay rate decrease because the system no longer felt he
warranted his pay rate because he spent much of his shift working courier, a
position that pays the minimum rate the system pays. Of course, he was only running courier
because (1) the system never hired an individual to replace the courier that
left in the summer and (2) they asked him to work that position knowing that
his loyalties would not permit him to say no.
Now, the system line for explaining this decision was that it was based
on the system’s ever-tightening budget and that reducing his pay would help
alleviate the some of the strain, but how does that explain the fact that the
person replacing him in IT—my other companion who worked in Reference—will receive
a pay increase? Anyway, that is the
system’s official line, but the “unofficial line” revolves around my companion’s
inability to learn new skills and fulfill his job responsibilities, which (and
the irony is clearly lost on the administration) is the result of the fact that
he is filling in for a position that was never replaced or will ever be
replaced. To which I shout: BULLSH-T!
All of this is suddenly going down as the result of a series of actions
that occurred nearly four months ago and has only now been given the legs to go
forward. The system’s new IT director
just suddenly realized that my companion was not capable of able to fulfill his
responsibilities in IT, really? And yet,
according to my supervisor (via the administration’s “unofficial” line), this
is an issue that has been festering since prior to the hiring of incompetent
bloke that was hired seven months ago and subsequently terminated four months
ago.
I find the logic behind this statement to be rather
befuddling because if the issue was primarily my companion’s inability to
quickly adapt and learn new job responsibilities, then would it not stand to
reason that the most logical response would be to remove his non-job related
responsibilities and permit him the opportunity to actually try and learn. Does this not speak more to the inability of his
supervisor rather than him that the supervisor is unable to learn how to work
with his limited resources? Quite
frankly, I am running around in circles and banging my head up against a brick
wall trying to contemplate why such incompetence is not only permitted but
promoted. And this does not even go into
the whole issue of my Reference companion deciding to throw loyalty aside and
going along with these actions.
After I learned of this news, I had a long and drawn out “think
session” and I came to the conclusion that regardless of how ridiculously naïve
it may be to others, I would never screw over someone I considered to be a
friend and while friends will come and friends will go; my conscious and
loyalty will always remain with me.
