Main Entry: mal·fea·sance
Pronunciation: "mal-'fE-z&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: mal- + obsolete feasance doing, execution
: wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official
i don't often make threads like this. hell. i don't often make threads. there is, however, a certain affectation i can manage at my workplace that might be construed as devious and underhanded. i will try to give the facts with as little bias as i can.
the particulars concern Albert. Albert is of puerto rican descent, and dates one of the daytime supervisor (Francesca)'s daughters. he works overnights in my department, and not in hers, so there's little actual conflict of intrest going on in that respect, though Albert likely would have been let go months ago were it not for the influence of Francesca.
a few other perceived facts about albert: he behaves in a superior manner, as if he were honestly a better person than i, or any other person in the department. he also wears not one, but two rosaries as necklaces. i was raised catholic. my grandmother beat the dogsh!t out of me the one time i decided to wear my rosary as a necklace. it was a cursory glance compared to the tanning my father gave my hide. a rosary is an artifact, something holy. it is not a piece of jewlery. the lack of respect for his own faith is offensive enough as it is. i've even challenged him on it and all he did was shrug as if i had no f*cking idea what i was talking about.
so now we get to the nuts and bolts of the root of the problem: i was within earshot of a conversation between Albert and another coworker Sven. Albert told Sven that Sven was not a 'Real Man' because Sven did not cheat on his wife. he went on to brag about how he cheated on his ex wife and signficant others.
ever since i made such a commitment, i've been fiercely committed to my wife. for anyone to suggest my being faithful to my wife, or a husband being faithful to his wife, as being a flaw, i find offensive at a basic level. should this conversation had happened with me as the subject, i may very well have hauled off and decked him and then kicked him in his bad kidney. how dare anyone who does not intimately know myself and my wife impune our honor.
i was flabbergasted. i later asked Sven if Albert was joking. i can accept just about anything were it a joke in some capacity. apparently, it wasn't. Albert was wholly serious in his statement. this makes my blood boil. he might have well said "god damn, i hate N!ggers."
where things begin to get sticky, is that should i see fit to press the matter, i have the capacity to go to human resources with a greivance. i could, in turn, ask that he be written up for harassment (technically sexual, given the explicitness of the discussion on his behalf). it gets stickier by the fact that if he gets written up, he cannot be considered for the shift leader position that he's applied for, and was all but promised.
it should be stated that there is not a soul amongst the grunts in our department, nor our current shift leader, that think Albert is an acceptable choice for a replacement. it could be seen as an underhanded and technical way for me to prevent him from getting the shift leader position. honestly, this is only a fringe benefit.
i don't do well with other people who consider themselves erroneously superior to me. especially, those people who base their superiority on their own wholesale lack of integrity and character. not to mention it would get back to Francesca just why her precious not-quite-son-in-law was written up. if i were to go through this, the filing of a grievance with Human Resources, it could likely ruin Albert's entire life. he's a bastard, i'll give him that, but does he deserve this? i'm offended to my core concerning his misogynistic statement of fact. but i can at least play connect the dots and see where this could possibly lead.
i have a conundrum. please help me solve it.
Pronunciation: "mal-'fE-z&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: mal- + obsolete feasance doing, execution
: wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official
i don't often make threads like this. hell. i don't often make threads. there is, however, a certain affectation i can manage at my workplace that might be construed as devious and underhanded. i will try to give the facts with as little bias as i can.
the particulars concern Albert. Albert is of puerto rican descent, and dates one of the daytime supervisor (Francesca)'s daughters. he works overnights in my department, and not in hers, so there's little actual conflict of intrest going on in that respect, though Albert likely would have been let go months ago were it not for the influence of Francesca.
a few other perceived facts about albert: he behaves in a superior manner, as if he were honestly a better person than i, or any other person in the department. he also wears not one, but two rosaries as necklaces. i was raised catholic. my grandmother beat the dogsh!t out of me the one time i decided to wear my rosary as a necklace. it was a cursory glance compared to the tanning my father gave my hide. a rosary is an artifact, something holy. it is not a piece of jewlery. the lack of respect for his own faith is offensive enough as it is. i've even challenged him on it and all he did was shrug as if i had no f*cking idea what i was talking about.
so now we get to the nuts and bolts of the root of the problem: i was within earshot of a conversation between Albert and another coworker Sven. Albert told Sven that Sven was not a 'Real Man' because Sven did not cheat on his wife. he went on to brag about how he cheated on his ex wife and signficant others.
ever since i made such a commitment, i've been fiercely committed to my wife. for anyone to suggest my being faithful to my wife, or a husband being faithful to his wife, as being a flaw, i find offensive at a basic level. should this conversation had happened with me as the subject, i may very well have hauled off and decked him and then kicked him in his bad kidney. how dare anyone who does not intimately know myself and my wife impune our honor.
i was flabbergasted. i later asked Sven if Albert was joking. i can accept just about anything were it a joke in some capacity. apparently, it wasn't. Albert was wholly serious in his statement. this makes my blood boil. he might have well said "god damn, i hate N!ggers."
where things begin to get sticky, is that should i see fit to press the matter, i have the capacity to go to human resources with a greivance. i could, in turn, ask that he be written up for harassment (technically sexual, given the explicitness of the discussion on his behalf). it gets stickier by the fact that if he gets written up, he cannot be considered for the shift leader position that he's applied for, and was all but promised.
it should be stated that there is not a soul amongst the grunts in our department, nor our current shift leader, that think Albert is an acceptable choice for a replacement. it could be seen as an underhanded and technical way for me to prevent him from getting the shift leader position. honestly, this is only a fringe benefit.
i don't do well with other people who consider themselves erroneously superior to me. especially, those people who base their superiority on their own wholesale lack of integrity and character. not to mention it would get back to Francesca just why her precious not-quite-son-in-law was written up. if i were to go through this, the filing of a grievance with Human Resources, it could likely ruin Albert's entire life. he's a bastard, i'll give him that, but does he deserve this? i'm offended to my core concerning his misogynistic statement of fact. but i can at least play connect the dots and see where this could possibly lead.
i have a conundrum. please help me solve it.
Comment