Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Aspen Education Group

Focus on aftercare - article about former Wellspring client

<< < (2/3) > >>

Oscar:
I would like to see a how child who is denying the food served by her school and her parents would be described by the school administration and the parents.

I would guess that she would be labeled as a troubled teenager.

This girl is fat because she is a pleaser who willingly eat what her parents and the school have served to her for 10 years at least. I don't deny that it is her fault that she is a pleaser.

But when should a child start denying to eat the unhealthy food the school and her parents serve her? When does it stop being the parents/schools problem and her problem instead? Age 8, 10, 15, 17,18?

Che Gookin:

--- Quote from: "Oscar" ---When I hire some people for a job here, I do some background check. Do they have family etc.

.
--- End quote ---

Wow, that's fucking nosy as hell. Since when is an employee's family your business?

Oscar:

--- Quote from: "Che Gookin" ---Wow, that's fucking nosy as hell. Since when is an employee's family your business?
--- End quote ---

It is my business, because every person can only function 100 % if their foundation is in order.

If the spouse or the children of an employee is ill, I cannot expect 100% performance and it is too costly to fire and hire all the time. The job-functions we do is not learned over night. I want problems put on the table and I want to know if they stay away form the job because they don't like me, the customers, the suppliers, if they are ill or if their family is ill. Something I can change, other things not.

I have no problem creating a work place in their home if they need to be home to watch somebody. I have no problem if they do their work in the middle of the night because they have spent their entire day in the hospital with their family. I had cancer patients working for me until their last day and dispite their illness they were happy to come in and do just 10 % of their normal work instead of being kicked out. Every business decision is a gamble. The cancer patient I lost could have survived and I could have gotten a employee which would have gone through fire for the firm.

However in order to make profit I need to know as much as possible about the things going on in the firm. If that includes invasion of privacy I have no problem with that. What I learn about my employees, stays with me. What my boss learn about me, stays with him. We are not sitting in a group sharing our problems. That is something we leave to the threatment industry.

Oz girl:
I think there is a bit of a cultural difference here. I am all for a family friendly workplace but it crosses a line to expect people to have to give information about their family or their health. I think criminal back ground checks when working with kids should be mandatory though. I think countries like the US and Australia are far bigger on the concept of personal privacy and individuality.

Antigen:
I never had a problem telling an employer or customer if something was going to effect my performance. When my daughter became seriously ill, I contacted my customers to talk about future implications and to decide whether to farm each one out or to keep them depending on the demands of each project. I've never had any trouble taking up the slack for other employees when they had things to deal with either.

I can't quite wrap my mind around this concept. You trust these people with so much responsibility. You have a huge investment in each one. But you don't trust them to fill you in on things that effect your business relationship? And these people don't take umbrage at the implicit accusation of withholding pertinent information?

So far, I have refused to work for any company that does drug screening. Not that I couldn't pass it. There are many ways to do that. It's three things.

I don't want to begin a business relationship with an implied accusation of criminal activity and I don't want to invest my time, energy and talent in an enterprise run by people who conduct themselves in such a rude manner.

The other issue is just one of common sense and logic as opposed to blind, stupid groupthink. You simply cannot determine someone's future productivity based on which substances they use. Time and again employers complain that they had to let such a good employee go behind a dirty drug screen. The screening programs never deliver on increased productivity, reduced sick leave, increased safety or overall profit. The only way in which they turn a profit is in the government mandated insurance and tax breaks to companies that do this police work.

All these screening programs do for the companies is eliminate perfectly good employees, making room for mediocre employees who haven't got the sack to take offense at this kind of insult and take their business elsewhere. But government gets a pretty low cost scorched earth maneuver against anyone who dissents in the drug war.

I don't really want to work for people who can't figure that one out. I want to support commerce and trade among people who can.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page