crotchitymedic1986 Posted April 11, 2011 Author Posted April 11, 2011 No you just validated my point, in the right is always right scenario, it is wrong for someone to break in your house for any reason. Just because he is hungry does not give him/her the right to steal. There are food kitchens, support agencies, part-time jobs, and several other ways an individual can get food without stealing. As far as unmotivated, what if the difference in motivation is purely greed. What if you have a single female employee who has been a great employee for 8 years, and does not work a parttime or other fulltime job because she has a disabled child at home, and the 10 year employee who got the shift works two jobs because he has to pay alimony to the exwives he cheated on, or just needs the extra money to support an extravigant lifestyle ?
MetalMedic Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) No hellsbells, that is the problem, RIGHT IS ALWAYS RIGHT, it is we who choose to not do the right thing for a variety of reasons. I also disagree with your stance on management, I believe they were trying to do the right thing when they realized they were hamstrung by an ancient policy. I believe the right thing would have been for those who had other fulltime jobs to step down, so that the rest of these folks could still draw a full salary. Right is always right is too simplistic. What is right for the person may not be right for the company, what is right for the company may not be right for an employee. What is right for my family may not be right for your family. Does it make it WRONG? No. Does it make it less right? Depends on the person or outcome. While I may have a full time job, I may still need the extra job to support my family. While I understand your needs, for me my family and their needs have to come first. It would have been honorable for people to step down, but it's not about what others can do to make your life easier, it's about what they can do to support themselves. If I didn't need an "extra" job, I wouldn't have one. For your right is right senario: Lets say I give up my "extra" job which means I make less money. Now I have to chose between electric, rent or food. Sure you have your job, but because I had to work 2 jobs to make ends meet, I've lost my place to live. Would it still have been right for me to give up my hours? Yeah it sucks, and I'd be a little pissed if I were in your shoes too, but sometimes circumstances aren't what they seem. -MetalMedic Edited April 11, 2011 by MetalMedic 3
DwayneEMTP Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 (edited) ...No you just validated my point, in the right is always right scenario, it is wrong for someone to break in your house for any reason. Just because he is hungry does not give him/her the right to steal... I didn't say that he was hungry, I said that his children were hungry. What kind of world do you live in that you can imagine every single atrocity delivered to blacks but can't imagine a scenario where a child may go hungry? Absolutes require options. Ignorance often removes all of your options so stealing to feed your family may be appropriate. What if I made the intruder black? The shooter? ...As far as unmotivated, what if the difference in motivation is purely greed... What if it is? ... What if you have a single female employee who has been a great employee for 8 years, and does not work a parttime or other fulltime job because she has a disabled child at home, and the 10 year employee who got the shift works two jobs because he has to pay alimony to the exwives he cheated on, or just needs the extra money to support an extravigant lifestyle ? And what if the 10 year employee is working the extra jobs to get his handicapped child the services that he needs to thrive? What if the single female has no time for extra jobs because of the time she spends at the bar and whoring around? There was a black dude/chick that didn't get the shift they wanted..right? That is where this is all leading? You don't, in a sane world, penalize people for being productive. Unless the people with one shift have been ordered to work only one shift, then they have to choose to thrive. Your question, and the obvious answer that you're looking for has the very common liberal slant, that the people with two jobs were 'gifted' with them. They didn't compete for them, don't suffer for them, don't deserve any more reward than those with one job....that is damaged thinking my friend. Dwayne Edit. MetalMedic Edited April 11, 2011 by DwayneEMTP
Just Plain Ruff Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 I have liked most everyone that I've worked with in the past. Would I give up my family's livelihood to help them out, nope. My family comes first. If I have two jobs to make ends meet and I need both the jobs to do so then I'm not going to give anything up since jobs are so tight right now. It's not my responsibility to make sure that my colleagues or co-workers are making enough money to feed themselves or make a honest living. I have a hierarchy that I look at when I think about giving up financial or personal things. 1. Is it good for my families bottom line? Can we afford to do it? For this scenario - if it directly affected my financial security then I would NOT give it up. If we could afford the cut in pay, then yes I probably would. 2. Is this good for my families emotional or mental well being - again the above is used. If it directly affects my families emotional or physician well being then no I won't give it up. If it doesnt have a big effect then I'll consider it. 3. Does it go against my morals? same thing My current job, Non-ems, I'm making a pretty good living. I get a hourly bonus of 22.50 per hour of each time I'm on site with the client and it's tied to how many hours I bill. I get 22.50 per billable hour. If the client were to ask me to take a leave of absence so some of their people could get more hours, I'd be hard pressed to say "sure, I'll take a leave of absence" unless there were some assurances that I would get the bonus. But I would be very distressed as would my financial house be stressed if we lost that bonus. The bonus is about 30-35% of my yearly salary if you take it all into account. Is it my responsibility and my duty to help the clients people out? No it is not. Would I take a vacation instead, probably. I'm not sure if this relates to the original post but I tried to relate it to my current circumstances and look at it that way. But seriously, if I'm top in seniority and I can get a 24 hour shift, but I'm working a 2nd job to make ends meet then why should I have to sacrifice to allow for others to make more money? I don't see it as a equitable request.
DwayneEMTP Posted April 11, 2011 Posted April 11, 2011 Yeah, this decision really isn't all about money for me, and there is no cut and dried answer in a merit based world. Why would I give up shifts when others are stuck at home? Because I'm a Christian and that's what 'we' do? No, I am not a follower of Christianity. Because I think, just in general that it's a nice thing to do? Not really...but kind of.. Because I want those folks to owe me a favor? Nah... It's not about money, but about positive energy for me. (I'm afraid I may be about to lose any small measure of respect I may have gained here...but this is my perspective..so there you have it.) I truly love being a husband and a father. I think that I do about a half assed decent job at both..but it's not always been that way. I spent much of my life angry and bitter. That was bad for me and everyone around me...Since I've grown up I've decided not to live that way any more. I laugh a lot, love even more, and try and do what keeps me strong and healthy and 'good' for my family. Working my second shift while someone else goes without would not only make me feel like a shithead, but would also poison the environment that I have to spend so much time in. See? I would maybe succeed financially, but would then have to live in the environment of those that are not doing so. Some by their own design, others because they simply don't know better. Making the single minded decision to care for me while ignoring my team means that I have to spend my days in that poisoned (unhappy) environment, and I just simply won't do that any more. I love the safety and security that comes from being part of a really good team. When I was overseas I did, I believe, some really good medicine. But it was easier there because there was a core group of people that watched out for each other. I never gave a moments thought to falling on my face...because my team would have never allowed that, the same that I would not have allowed it for them. A single minded 'me' focus disallows that environment to form and flourish. Any medic that's every been on an Oh Shit call with a bunch of people that they knew and had worked well with before knows exactly what I'm talking about. Will I risk my families financial health to help others? I depends on the size of the risk and who the 'others' are. Will I change my shift so that the drunk, single, shithead can get more hours? No...he's got hard lessons to lean yet and I'm not going to act as his buffer, preventing him from learning them. Will I change to help the single mom so that she doesn't need another job at a different service? Yeah, if she's a good person, and I'm able, I would love to do that. That is good 'juju' in my world. Makes me feel good, makes my days better. So for me this isn't a strictly financial decision. It's more based on good energy, and staying in the good energy seems to keep me in a place where I rarely, if ever, am concerned about my financial health. So giving up my shift, though it may sound generous, is really still a selfish, as it's still my attempt to try and build a world to live in that is good for me, and Babs, and Dylan. Ok, enough of the bullshit Yoda stuff...but it's my thought on the subject so thought I'd throw it out. Dwayne 2
HellsBells Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Lets not fool ourselves here... This specific scenario never actually occured. Its purely a construct of crotchity's imagination, designed to showcase the superiority of his moral position. Its a lecture, not a discussion. 1
Just Plain Ruff Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) I am not sure who said it, but the above quote is true, and it is why there are many 18 year old adults in the world, as well as many 50 year old children. Nothing defines you more "than what YOU DO". So are you doing the right thing when no one is looking ? A friend of mine just told me about the selfish children he works with. He works for a service who recently had to cut some 24 hour shifts due to budget concerns. The county has a "policy" that seniority rules in this scenario, so remaining 24s were awarded solely on date of hire. Management asked that employees who had a second full-time job, to opt for the 12 hour shifts and leave the 24s for those who this job was their sole employment. Not one of those people did so, so many employees whose sole EMS job was at that county just took a huge paycut, due to the selfishness of others. What would you do in the same situation ? But wouldn't taking the 12 hour shift even if you had a 2nd job be a huge paycut also? What about the person who works for another service, they relied on the 24 hour shifts because that might be the only way they can work for the said service. If they gave up the 24's and then couldn't work the 12 hour shifts required, wouldn't they be in financial jeopardy. I'm sure this hasn't happened but I have no problem with the selfishness of the ones in question. If I was one of them, I'd be keeping the 24 hour shift. Gotta support me and my family first. Edited April 12, 2011 by Ruffems
Happiness Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Lets not fool ourselves here... This specific scenario never actually occured. Its purely a construct of crotchity's imagination, designed to showcase the superiority of his moral position. Its a lecture, not a discussion. I couldn't agree more. Now to a different subject I guess maybe someone can clarify for me. What the hell are you americans doing 24 hr shifts in the first place. Is that not bad for you, if your in a busy centre dont you get tired and burnt out. We have 12 hr shifts here and some stations have 16 hr with a 8 hr shift. Just asking
DwayneEMTP Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 Lets not fool ourselves here... This specific scenario never actually occured. Its purely a construct of crotchity's imagination, designed to showcase the superiority of his moral position. Its a lecture, not a discussion. Agreed. But it is still a healthy thing for most to think about..the why's and why not's of what they do and why they do it, in my opinion. Dwayne ...centre ... Like I told emtcutie..I refuse to answer any more of your questions until you learn how to spell... Dwayne
BAYAMedic Posted April 12, 2011 Posted April 12, 2011 If there are EMT's and Medics choosing to work double time and make sacrifices to the amount of time they have off the job, they should be punished by having to work less desireable shifts because of their own initiative? It just doesn't sound like logical thinking. The management is out of line to ask you to make a hard decision that they are paid to make. To give up something you have worked hard and long for to benefit someone who has not, seems a little to socialist for my liking. Just my thoughts. Fireman1037 1
Recommended Posts