http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyKbyCQR_XQ "and there's nothing wrong with me/this is how i'm supposed to be/in a land of make believe/that don't believe in me...oh therapy, can you please fill the void?"
i had worked for SA for just shy of 2 years when i departed to write my book. it had a significant impact on me, and i it. my goodbye circle was pretty special. long. with lots of love given out. mr hayward noted to me afterwards that it was unusually special, as far as guide goodbye circles go. i'd participated in enough by then; i knew that.
i can be pretty romantic at times. b steel noted that in the comment section to the "no accounting for emotion" blog. however, he may have misconstrued the type of romanticism he was seeing, likely because there was a girl and boy involved. almost immediately after starting to work for SA in Jan '08, after doing despicable work for years as a salesman, the romantic in me sprang forth from the inner locked cell i tucked it away in. and i was romantic - fanciful, imaginative, idealistic, impractical - in my vision of SA after i retreated to my hermitage in New Mexico. in my book, i champion a non-violent revolution against the world order, and a democratic-communism to take its place. when thinking back on SA, i twisted it into a communal living ideal, where people had voices that counted within the scheme. after being back at SA for just over 2 months, i was laid off of work.
i had to laugh at my 35 year old naivety that SA had any real communistic comparison other than most of the people live together. on the heels of a guide hiring spree, putting both guide shifts at full capacity, 17 guides were let go. 0 management were laid off. 0 therapists. 0 teachers. 0 medical staff. 0 shift directors. 1 teacher was actually hired. and, again, 17 guides laid off. add in factors like wage differences and power within the system, and reality was clear - capitalism ran this for-profit system; always had, always will.
around this time, i began to feel like a union representative. i spent a lot of my time writing, some of it in exercise and spiritual pursuits, some working (through SA -transport jobs and a few days at a time working with suspended students that were not wanted on their school's campus), and a decent amount conversing. i'd hear numerous thoughts from the lips of guides, laid off and currently working. and the thoughts i deemed important, i'd pass on to my special friend, who happened to be the program director.
in this capacity, the guides were being heard, at least by 2 people. otherwise, i'm not convinced the guides, whom make up the majority of the staff, are heard. or maybe they are heard, sometimes, but when the only real means of having their voices heard is through an "open door policy," it's very easy for their individual and collective voices to be discounted.
at SA, the "planning committee" (PC) makes many of the decisions that become rules and guidelines, and there are 0 guides involved in the PC decision making. sure, there are former guides currently holding other positions that are part of this power structure, but no current guides. it's probably time for a guide to be there...or for some other measure.
a guide rotation into this meeting, where they could weigh in, would be okay. perhaps an idea that many guides have voiced - that the shift director position (new job created after i left SA in November '09) is rather inconsequential and definitely not understood - could be heard. how? roll both shift directors into 1 full-time position, perhaps a 12-8 work time, 5 days a week, with time set aside for this person to hear guide concerns and wants. let this person have voting rights in the planning committee. jami and andrew - i have love for each of y'all, but if something like this were to happen, greg is the person for this job, were he to want it. and this 1 person would make less money than both shift directors combined, so it makes sense financially as well as philosophically.
if the reigning powers that be are not willing to further their relationship with their #1 asset - the cheap labor that is all their guides, perhaps the guides need to unionize. hell, even if SA were to do this, perhaps the guides would still want to unionize. 17 lay-off's in 1 day would be a thing of the past, and not a regular concern. ditto questionable firings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzCjGgrewYY
Revolutionary, perhaps. but something like this is probably necessary if this business wants to positively grow. otherwise, the power and the money will continue to be held firmly and consolidated by the capitalistic power structure, the owners and management. and the guides will continue to put in a full week's work for approximately $4/hour.
i'm not arguing that my firing was questionable within the current guidelines. my firing was probably the easiest of the recent firings because i was so blatant (intentional) with my action. there was a different firing that is still discussed, usually off-campus, occasionally behind closed doors, and maybe in a whisper - unless you're talking with the person whom was fired about why he was fired. i did a couple weeks back.
i'm not going to reveal too much on that story. because i did not seek out permission from that person to do so. i'll just say it was probably the most highly suspect firing to ever take place within the circles i've traveled. and again, i was a salesman. dirtbag stockbroker. i've seen lots of people get fired in the 20 years i've worked various jobs, and this last was was probably the most suspect.
would you know that? did you? are you encouraged to openly question the company you work for? do you get the answers you seek? i know i did not get answers i sought, until i sought out the person whom was fired.
there is a perceived confidentiality clause at SA. probably closer to a, "we don't have a human resources dept, so everything is confidential until we find out what needn't be confidential, and it's not a priority to look at that right now." maybe i'm wrong there, but i do know past employers have been willing to speak openly about firings. this firing would probably have raised a lot of eyebrows. furthered discontent already felt by those with the short end of the straw - the guides. after all, management knows why the recent firings took place. why should the workers not know? furthermore, why should the workers not have the type of security a union could bring about? it'd save them from wondering if they'll be the next person to get fired for breaking a minor rule. or, in the case of e.e., saving them from being fired for, perhaps, not breaking any rule, and merely doing their job.
i know most people tend to love working at SA. i also see that most guides tend to plan their exit nearly as soon as they arrive. and some people would like to keep doing that kind of work for the long term. well, security is necessary to make that happen. be it a: new head guide job, a union, real open dialogue, and ideally, better sharing of the $. Making Tuesday's a full day's pay for off-going guides would go a long way to tackling the later issue.
it can be strange how a leads to b into c, etc. i merely wanted to continue a quality friendship with M, so i sent an email. i had plans to inform SA after i quit that i had sent the email. then i got a very suspect story from SA about how they knew i may have sent an email to M. so i forwarded them the email. and i was fired.
and yet, all was perceived to be okayish then. there was not yet an open discussion about these matters. the last words i heard coming thru to me from an SA telephone were something like, "we're gonna send you out a contract to sign, saying that you will not have any contact with M." excuse me!? did i not just get fired because of exactly opposite reasons?
so i wrote a blog. and in the midst of some strong emotions, put out what i thought might be a closing grace. and then it came back to me that: 1 - there were questions regarding my relationship with M; 2 - the powers that be at SA were not pleased that i wrote a blog. that i spoke up for and discussed the situation. granted, SA policy would be to not confirm the reason or reasons for my firing. i think they also would not deny questions. questions involving physicality. sexuality. they would have left me dangling from an accusatory branch that alan dershowitz would have had a difficult time freeing me from.
so i talked. openly. happily. and i was free, for a second. but there's so much more to say. after all, we are talking about relationship building. and destroying.
i had worked for SA for just shy of 2 years when i departed to write my book. it had a significant impact on me, and i it. my goodbye circle was pretty special. long. with lots of love given out. mr hayward noted to me afterwards that it was unusually special, as far as guide goodbye circles go. i'd participated in enough by then; i knew that.
i can be pretty romantic at times. b steel noted that in the comment section to the "no accounting for emotion" blog. however, he may have misconstrued the type of romanticism he was seeing, likely because there was a girl and boy involved. almost immediately after starting to work for SA in Jan '08, after doing despicable work for years as a salesman, the romantic in me sprang forth from the inner locked cell i tucked it away in. and i was romantic - fanciful, imaginative, idealistic, impractical - in my vision of SA after i retreated to my hermitage in New Mexico. in my book, i champion a non-violent revolution against the world order, and a democratic-communism to take its place. when thinking back on SA, i twisted it into a communal living ideal, where people had voices that counted within the scheme. after being back at SA for just over 2 months, i was laid off of work.
i had to laugh at my 35 year old naivety that SA had any real communistic comparison other than most of the people live together. on the heels of a guide hiring spree, putting both guide shifts at full capacity, 17 guides were let go. 0 management were laid off. 0 therapists. 0 teachers. 0 medical staff. 0 shift directors. 1 teacher was actually hired. and, again, 17 guides laid off. add in factors like wage differences and power within the system, and reality was clear - capitalism ran this for-profit system; always had, always will.
around this time, i began to feel like a union representative. i spent a lot of my time writing, some of it in exercise and spiritual pursuits, some working (through SA -transport jobs and a few days at a time working with suspended students that were not wanted on their school's campus), and a decent amount conversing. i'd hear numerous thoughts from the lips of guides, laid off and currently working. and the thoughts i deemed important, i'd pass on to my special friend, who happened to be the program director.
in this capacity, the guides were being heard, at least by 2 people. otherwise, i'm not convinced the guides, whom make up the majority of the staff, are heard. or maybe they are heard, sometimes, but when the only real means of having their voices heard is through an "open door policy," it's very easy for their individual and collective voices to be discounted.
at SA, the "planning committee" (PC) makes many of the decisions that become rules and guidelines, and there are 0 guides involved in the PC decision making. sure, there are former guides currently holding other positions that are part of this power structure, but no current guides. it's probably time for a guide to be there...or for some other measure.
a guide rotation into this meeting, where they could weigh in, would be okay. perhaps an idea that many guides have voiced - that the shift director position (new job created after i left SA in November '09) is rather inconsequential and definitely not understood - could be heard. how? roll both shift directors into 1 full-time position, perhaps a 12-8 work time, 5 days a week, with time set aside for this person to hear guide concerns and wants. let this person have voting rights in the planning committee. jami and andrew - i have love for each of y'all, but if something like this were to happen, greg is the person for this job, were he to want it. and this 1 person would make less money than both shift directors combined, so it makes sense financially as well as philosophically.
if the reigning powers that be are not willing to further their relationship with their #1 asset - the cheap labor that is all their guides, perhaps the guides need to unionize. hell, even if SA were to do this, perhaps the guides would still want to unionize. 17 lay-off's in 1 day would be a thing of the past, and not a regular concern. ditto questionable firings.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzCjGgrewYY
Revolutionary, perhaps. but something like this is probably necessary if this business wants to positively grow. otherwise, the power and the money will continue to be held firmly and consolidated by the capitalistic power structure, the owners and management. and the guides will continue to put in a full week's work for approximately $4/hour.
i'm not arguing that my firing was questionable within the current guidelines. my firing was probably the easiest of the recent firings because i was so blatant (intentional) with my action. there was a different firing that is still discussed, usually off-campus, occasionally behind closed doors, and maybe in a whisper - unless you're talking with the person whom was fired about why he was fired. i did a couple weeks back.
i'm not going to reveal too much on that story. because i did not seek out permission from that person to do so. i'll just say it was probably the most highly suspect firing to ever take place within the circles i've traveled. and again, i was a salesman. dirtbag stockbroker. i've seen lots of people get fired in the 20 years i've worked various jobs, and this last was was probably the most suspect.
would you know that? did you? are you encouraged to openly question the company you work for? do you get the answers you seek? i know i did not get answers i sought, until i sought out the person whom was fired.
there is a perceived confidentiality clause at SA. probably closer to a, "we don't have a human resources dept, so everything is confidential until we find out what needn't be confidential, and it's not a priority to look at that right now." maybe i'm wrong there, but i do know past employers have been willing to speak openly about firings. this firing would probably have raised a lot of eyebrows. furthered discontent already felt by those with the short end of the straw - the guides. after all, management knows why the recent firings took place. why should the workers not know? furthermore, why should the workers not have the type of security a union could bring about? it'd save them from wondering if they'll be the next person to get fired for breaking a minor rule. or, in the case of e.e., saving them from being fired for, perhaps, not breaking any rule, and merely doing their job.
i know most people tend to love working at SA. i also see that most guides tend to plan their exit nearly as soon as they arrive. and some people would like to keep doing that kind of work for the long term. well, security is necessary to make that happen. be it a: new head guide job, a union, real open dialogue, and ideally, better sharing of the $. Making Tuesday's a full day's pay for off-going guides would go a long way to tackling the later issue.
it can be strange how a leads to b into c, etc. i merely wanted to continue a quality friendship with M, so i sent an email. i had plans to inform SA after i quit that i had sent the email. then i got a very suspect story from SA about how they knew i may have sent an email to M. so i forwarded them the email. and i was fired.
and yet, all was perceived to be okayish then. there was not yet an open discussion about these matters. the last words i heard coming thru to me from an SA telephone were something like, "we're gonna send you out a contract to sign, saying that you will not have any contact with M." excuse me!? did i not just get fired because of exactly opposite reasons?
so i wrote a blog. and in the midst of some strong emotions, put out what i thought might be a closing grace. and then it came back to me that: 1 - there were questions regarding my relationship with M; 2 - the powers that be at SA were not pleased that i wrote a blog. that i spoke up for and discussed the situation. granted, SA policy would be to not confirm the reason or reasons for my firing. i think they also would not deny questions. questions involving physicality. sexuality. they would have left me dangling from an accusatory branch that alan dershowitz would have had a difficult time freeing me from.
so i talked. openly. happily. and i was free, for a second. but there's so much more to say. after all, we are talking about relationship building. and destroying.
No comments:
Post a Comment