Faux et usage de Faux
Oct 31st 2005, 4:55 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
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.
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.
Oct 31st 2005, 7:03 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 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.)
>
> 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.)
Oct 31st 2005, 7:38 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
A
On 31/10/05 21:03, in article [email protected],
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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,
I was joking, of course, it does happen! The problem is that
I had a "job" what was fun, not work, and missing a day
at "work" was missing out on the fun. Also, I had no boss
as such who kept track of my time so if I was not around
for a couple of days, nobody noticed.
Once a year I had to write a report!
In between time I had to get out several scientific papers
a year to make myself feel like I was doing something for
my salary.
"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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,
I was joking, of course, it does happen! The problem is that
I had a "job" what was fun, not work, and missing a day
at "work" was missing out on the fun. Also, I had no boss
as such who kept track of my time so if I was not around
for a couple of days, nobody noticed.
Once a year I had to write a report!
In between time I had to get out several scientific papers
a year to make myself feel like I was doing something for
my salary.
Oct 31st 2005, 2:39 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 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.
> 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.
Nov 1st 2005, 3:35 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 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.
>
> 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.
