Civil discussion: Troubled Teen Industry

[Froderik]

Actually it has plenty more mileage.

[DannyB II]

Actually it has plenty more mileage.

Your part of it aren't you, The SICCO Operation. Well I am here to tell you your mileage is running out....lol.

[Paul St. John]

Yep. And I imagine that a good number of Lifers amongst the former staff went on to other programs, be they other WWASP facilities or some new hybrids... I'm sure you'll want the readers to know this, Whooter.

I think anyone who has been in an industry and has changed jobs (or has done any hiring) knows this.  If a guy has 10 – 15 years working in a program and then it gets shut down their marketability is whatever they have done for the past 10 – 15 years and can attain the best salary by staying with what they are experienced in.  If the new program has lifesteps then they will do life steps, if it doesn’t then they wont do it.  Employees cannot redesign the model.  

Why does this continue to be a big deal for you Ursus?  You can walk into say Aetna Insurance Company in Hartford today and talk to 100 employees who had previous jobs before taking a job at Aetna and you would find that the lions share or close to 90% (I would be willing to bet) would have come from John Hancock, Prudential, Allstate etc or other insurance companies…. people stick with what they know and what they have experience with.  This is not just unique to programs.



...

Who, help me understand something...

You are all about differentiating between good and bad programs.  I mean, isn't that kinda like your thing?  
- Yes abuse has happened, and that is bad, but today's kinder, gentler programs are lifesavers. -

How come in this story about job-transition that you keep trying to illustrate, you completely neglect to factor in the reality of some programs being bad.  You re point, is that the new system, will force these people to do the right thing.... but if in the past, all they did was the wrong thing, then what are their qualifications to begin with?  If the current position that they are going to fill, isn t somewhat in alignment with the new position, then why would these other programs hire them?  Why not just hire someone off the street?

Also, you are somewhat wrong about the company setting the culture.  It is not a completely black and white issue.  Generally speaking, the employees are, in big part, the company.  People do effect the company culture. Personally, I have never had a job, where, I, personally, did not have a major impact on the business. I have also seen what can happen to a company, when it hires a bunch of the wrong people.  Even one bad seed, can often have a huge impact on the overall philosophy of a company, productivity levels, systems, and morale.

A company culture is often defined with a few words, or slogans, but they don t always have to mean anything.  Sometimes, they are nothing more then just that- words, and slogans. It is up to the company to seek to hire those who will live up to, and even progress the company culture..

So why of these new programs, hiring people, who do not represent their values, culture, etc.

It is enough to raise curiosity ... Maybe they do represent their values.  It's a pretty shitty economy still.  Companies get to pick and choose who they hire these days, usually.  If it odes not at least raise thought in your mind, then you are choosing not to think.

I'll tell ya right now, I would not invest my money, with a company that has been hiring up all Bernie Madoff's old employees.  Is their a chance it is on the up and up?  Sure..

But would I risk my money on it?  Fuck no!

And I don t think people should risk their kids on those odds either.

Paul St. John

[Paul St. John]

Your part of it aren't you, The SICCO Operation. Well I am here to tell you your mileage is running out....

Holy Therapeutic Community, Batman!!!

This Bennison means business!

[DannyB II]

Yep. And I imagine that a good number of Lifers amongst the former staff went on to other programs, be they other WWASP facilities or some new hybrids... I'm sure you'll want the readers to know this, Whooter.

I think anyone who has been in an industry and has changed jobs (or has done any hiring) knows this.  If a guy has 10 – 15 years working in a program and then it gets shut down their marketability is whatever they have done for the past 10 – 15 years and can attain the best salary by staying with what they are experienced in.  If the new program has lifesteps then they will do life steps, if it doesn’t then they wont do it.  Employees cannot redesign the model.  

Why does this continue to be a big deal for you Ursus?  You can walk into say Aetna Insurance Company in Hartford today and talk to 100 employees who had previous jobs before taking a job at Aetna and you would find that the lions share or close to 90% (I would be willing to bet) would have come from John Hancock, Prudential, Allstate etc or other insurance companies…. people stick with what they know and what they have experience with.  This is not just unique to programs.



...

Who, help me understand something...

You are all about differentiating between good and bad programs.  I mean, isn't that kinda like your thing?  
- Yes abuse has happened, and that is bad, but today's kinder, gentler programs are lifesavers. -

How come in this story about job-transition that you keep trying to illustrate, you completely neglect to factor in the reality of some programs being bad.  You re point, is that the new system, will force these people to do the right thing.... but if in the past, all they did was the wrong thing, then what are their qualifications to begin with?  If the current position that they are going to fill, isn t somewhat in alignment with the new position, then why would these other programs hire them?  Why not just hire someone off the street?

Also, you are somewhat wrong about the company setting the culture.  It is not a completely black and white issue.  Generally speaking, the employees are, in big part, the company.  People do effect the company culture. Personally, I have never had a job, where, I, personally, did not have a major impact on the business. I have also seen what can happen to a company, when it hires a bunch of the wrong people.  Even one bad seed, can often have a huge impact on the overall philosophy of a company, productivity levels, systems, and morale.

A company culture is often defined with a few words, or slogans, but they don t always have to mean anything.  Sometimes, they are nothing more then just that- words, and slogans. It is up to the company to seek to hire those who will live up to, and even progress the company culture..

So why of these new programs, hiring people, who do not represent their values, culture, etc.

It is enough to raise curiosity ... Maybe they do represent their values.  It's a pretty shitty economy still.  Companies get to pick and choose who they hire these days, usually.  If it odes not at least raise thought in your mind, then you are choosing not to think.

I'll tell ya right now, I would not invest my money, with a company that has been hiring up all Bernie Madoff's old employees.  Is their a chance it is on the up and up?  Sure..

But would I risk my money on it?  Fuck no!

And I don t think people should risk their kids on those odds either.

Paul St. John

John what your defining here is a big if, you don't know how many transferred and if the company (Aspen) did  weed out the bad. You are assuming the worse because you think the worse about Aspen.
Companies have a vision and they pass this on to employees, they also have levels to thwart anyone particular person having the ability to take the company down with a bad act. I don't believe Aspen would be any different considering it is a large wealthy company. Why would they want to keep doing the same thing over and over that is detrimental to there company.

[Paul St. John]

This isn t really about Aspen.  It is about Whooter's cognitive dissonance.

Paul

PS Which Danny are you?  My name is Paul, BTW.  Hence, it appears before the "St.", and the "John"

[Froderik]

Actually it has plenty more mileage.

Your part of it aren't you, The SICCO Operation. Well I am here to tell you your mileage is running out....lol.

No, I'm part of the non-isolated incident (NII) operation, as well as a proud member of the Village Green Preservation Society.

[Joel]

Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010

[Whooter]

Who, help me understand something...

You are all about differentiating between good and bad programs. I mean, isn't that kinda like your thing?
- Yes abuse has happened, and that is bad, but today's kinder, gentler programs are lifesavers. –

No I think there are still some bad programs around today.  But for the most part they are much better.

How come in this story about job-transition that you keep trying to illustrate, you completely neglect to factor in the reality of some programs being bad. You re point, is that the new system, will force these people to do the right thing.... but if in the past, all they did was the wrong thing, then what are their qualifications to begin with? If the current position that they are going to fill, isn t somewhat in alignment with the new position, then why would these other programs hire them? Why not just hire someone off the street?

No, Paul , my point is that the new employee will not force the program to be bad (if it is good).
Companies want to hire people with experience.  They want people who are compassionate and educated but also people who have worked with troubled teens before and wont get freaked out and quit if a kid calls them a C*nt or screams at them.  They want someone who knows what to expect.

Also, you are somewhat wrong about the company setting the culture. It is not a completely black and white issue. Generally speaking, the employees are, in big part, the company. People do effect the company culture. Personally, I have never had a job, where, I, personally, did not have a major impact on the business. I have also seen what can happen to a company, when it hires a bunch of the wrong people. Even one bad seed, can often have a huge impact on the overall philosophy of a company, productivity levels, systems, and morale.

I have been in business a long time and this is just not true.  The culture is defined from the top down (not the other way around).  If you truly believe this then all Spring Creek Lodge needed to do is accidently hire one good seed and he would influence everyone and they would all burn down the Hobbit and the kids would run around the campus smoking pot, suffer from the munchies and sleeping in late.  

A company culture is often defined with a few words, or slogans, but they don t always have to mean anything. Sometimes, they are nothing more then just that- words, and slogans. It is up to the company to seek to hire those who will live up to, and even progress the company culture..

So why of these new programs, hiring people, who do not represent their values, culture, etc.

It is enough to raise curiosity ... Maybe they do represent their values. It's a pretty shitty economy still. Companies get to pick and choose who they hire these days, usually. If it odes not at least raise thought in your mind, then you are choosing not to think.

I'll tell ya right now, I would not invest my money, with a company that has been hiring up all Bernie Madoff's old employees. Is their a chance it is on the up and up? Sure..

But would I risk my money on it? Fuck no!

And I don t think people should risk their kids on those odds either.

Paul St. John

Paul, My thinking is actually a push back against some of the thinking that goes on here at fornits.  Lets say you have a program with 20 counselors and one leaves and you hire a counselor who worked at Spring Creek Lodge.  Most people would think nothing of it. But here on fornits all of a sudden the program is labeled CEDU based.

Lets flip it over and say that Spring Creek Lodge (if it were still operating) had 20 Counselors and lost one of their employees and hired a replacement right out of college.  Could we utilize the same logic and all breath a sigh of relief and say that’s the end of the Hobbit and the program is much better now?
Does the one employee define the culture? 2, 3 ,4?

I understand that it is not black and white.  In fact I fight against this type of thinking.  I believe that if an employee were abusive at one program and then moved to another program he would be abusive there also.  But there is the interview process that takes place and this helps to screen out this type of employee.  Each employee goes thru a brief orientation (sometimes training) to brief them on the companies values.

You have to understand that it is only the extremely narrow minded thinkers which would  conclude a that single employee can define or change a companies culture.  Bernie Madoff probably had many employees who were very honest.  I am sure the employees of Enron stayed within their original fields and were able to get jobs easily without being judged or bringing down every company they worked for.



...

[Paul St. John]

Who, help me understand something...

You are all about differentiating between good and bad programs. I mean, isn't that kinda like your thing?
- Yes abuse has happened, and that is bad, but today's kinder, gentler programs are lifesavers. –

No I think there are still some bad programs around today.  But for the most part they are much better.

How come in this story about job-transition that you keep trying to illustrate, you completely neglect to factor in the reality of some programs being bad. You re point, is that the new system, will force these people to do the right thing.... but if in the past, all they did was the wrong thing, then what are their qualifications to begin with? If the current position that they are going to fill, isn t somewhat in alignment with the new position, then why would these other programs hire them? Why not just hire someone off the street?

No, Paul , my point is that the new employee will not force the program to be bad (if it is good).
Companies want to hire people with experience.  They want people who are compassionate and educated but also people who have worked with troubled teens before and wont get freaked out and quit if a kid calls them a C*nt or screams at them.  They want someone who knows what to expect.


I am sorry, Whooter.  If I were starting a program tomorrow, I  would not hire anyone with associations with programs known for abuse.  It is very easy to bullshit your way through an interview, particularly when you are finding it difficult to find work.  If the philosophies opf these programs are known to lead to abuse and negative results, then if you really values a different sort of culture, you would start from the ground floor.  You would have to reinvent, not just tweak a few things.  It is my point of view, that the heart of these programs is flawed, not the extremities.

Also, you are somewhat wrong about the company setting the culture. It is not a completely black and white issue. Generally speaking, the employees are, in big part, the company. People do effect the company culture. Personally, I have never had a job, where, I, personally, did not have a major impact on the business. I have also seen what can happen to a company, when it hires a bunch of the wrong people. Even one bad seed, can often have a huge impact on the overall philosophy of a company, productivity levels, systems, and morale.

I have been in business a long time and this is just not true.


It just is true, Whooter.  It does not happen over night, but it does happen. And it happens in companies of all sizes.  A single person, with a strong enough personality, can have a massive effect on an environment, and if not effect a whole company, perhaps, at least a single facility.  It happens all the time.  I am not saying that it necessary will happen here.  I was just poking holes in your shield.  It is not black and white.


 The culture is defined from the top down (not the other way around).  If you truly believe this then all Spring Creek Lodge needed to do is accidently hire one good seed and he would influence everyone and they would all burn down the Hobbit and the kids would run around the campus smoking pot, suffer from the munchies and sleeping in late.  

This is just silly.

A company culture is often defined with a few words, or slogans, but they don t always have to mean anything. Sometimes, they are nothing more then just that- words, and slogans. It is up to the company to seek to hire those who will live up to, and even progress the company culture..

So why of these new programs, hiring people, who do not represent their values, culture, etc.

It is enough to raise curiosity ... Maybe they do represent their values. It's a pretty shitty economy still. Companies get to pick and choose who they hire these days, usually. If it odes not at least raise thought in your mind, then you are choosing not to think.

I'll tell ya right now, I would not invest my money, with a company that has been hiring up all Bernie Madoff's old employees. Is their a chance it is on the up and up? Sure..

But would I risk my money on it? Fuck no!

And I don t think people should risk their kids on those odds either.

Paul St. John

Paul, My thinking is actually a push back against some of the thinking that goes on here at fornits.  Lets say you have a program with 20 counselors and one leaves and you hire a counselor who worked at Spring Creek Lodge.  Most people would think nothing of it. But here on fornits all of a sudden the program is labeled CEDU based.


No one actually said that.  Ursus, explicitly said, that he was not saying that.. It's more that it is just something worth mentioning...

These programs have a long history of closing and popping up with new names, and a more well thought out image. This is indisputable fact.  It has happened so many time.


But hey.. let's take it a step further.. Should these fuckers who hurt people get to go on and start new jobs elsewhere, as those who help kids?  Why is this even discussed?



Lets flip it over and say that Spring Creek Lodge (if it were still operating) had 20 Counselors and lost one of their employees and hired a replacement right out of college.  Could we utilize the same logic and all breath a sigh of relief and say that’s the end of the Hobbit and the program is much better now?
Does the one employee define the culture? 2, 3 ,4?


A single good person could, in fact, raise the tone quite a bit.


I understand that it is not black and white.  In fact I fight against this type of thinking.  I believe that if an employee were abusive at one program and then moved to another program he would be abusive there also.  But there is the interview process that takes place and this helps to screen out this type of employee.  Each employee goes thru a brief orientation (sometimes training) to brief them on the companies values.

[b"]I believe that if an employee were abusive at one program and then moved to another program he would be abusive there also."

This is really all I wanted from you!!!!!! [/b]


You have to understand that it is only the extremely narrow minded thinkers which would  conclude a that single employee can define or change a companies culture.

Many of the greatest business leaders of all time, have said that a single bad influence in a company could massively effect an entire company for the worse.

  Bernie Madoff probably had many employees who were very honest.  I am sure the employees of Enron stayed within their original fields and were able to get jobs easily without being judged or bringing down every company they worked for.




...

[Paul St. John]

You just seem to keep talking as though people are simply components that you plug into a pre-laid system, and it bothers me, because that is just not even close to how things work.  People have their own values, and more times then not, they will find a way to assert them.

Paul

[Whooter]

You just seem to keep talking as though people are simply components that you plug into a pre-laid system, and it bothers me, because that is just not even close to how things work.  People have their own values, and more times then not, they will find a way to assert them.

Paul

So based on your thinking why close down Spring Creek Lodge?  Why not keep all the employees employed except one and replace that one with a person right out of school who has great moral values.  This way the whole culture will change at Spring Creek Lodge and the good of this one person will spread.
Would the average fornits poster then agree that Spring Creek Lodge would be free from abuse?



...

[Paul St. John]

Whooter, before, I respond to this..

Are you or are you not aware, that you are taking what I said out of context?

Paul

[DannyB II]

Actually it has plenty more mileage.

Your part of it aren't you, The SICCO Operation. Well I am here to tell you your mileage is running out....lol.

No, I'm part of the non-isolated incident (NII) operation, as well as a proud member of the Village Green Preservation Society.

Frodie,  I love the Kinks. I too am a member. I cannot be a part of your (NII) operation it goes against our charter rules for SICCO.

[Whooter]

No one actually said that. Ursus, explicitly said, that he was not saying that.. It's more that it is just something worth mentioning...

So what is the point, Paul?  If a person that is Jewish is hired does that mean it becomes a Jewish based program?  Why isn't this ever worth mentioning?  Should we point this out every-time?  There were thousands of accountants from Enron that left to get other jobs.  Are all those companies now tainted somehow because they employ ex-Enron employees?  Should this be pointed out to imply that their new company will follow the same path that Enron did?

It amazes me that you don't see this.

...