Yuku free message boards

bendmeover2: Well, after reading most peoples opinions of you on here, I chose to make my own and you didn't help your case any...LOL.

What case? I reiterate, I don't care if you respect my opinion, OR what your opinion of me is.

I do have one question for you - where did I say this "Neither the OP nor bendmeover2 alluded to "nudging" anyone. What they were referring to was castigation and public or private humiliation of people who basically amount to strangers." ? You don't know me and shouldn't presume to know me. I would never "castigate or humiliate" anybody - but I would tell them - there is a HUGE difference just in case you didn't know.

Is there a difference? Perhaps in your justifying brain, although perhaps not in the mind of the person on the receiving end of your univited and unauthorized "telling." How do you know they wouldn't feel humiliated to be told off by a peer (a fellow dealer)? How can you say that this "telling" doesn't amount to castigation? What is your goal in providing this"telling?" To punish in order to correct? Funny, my dictionary gives that exact definition for "castigation."

You say that I have "control" issues"? Now I find that extremely humorous. You don't know me so how could you come to that conclusion?

I base that conclusion on what you told me here. You told me that YOU feel justified in reprimanding people (you call it "telling them") regarding what YOU deem to be their poor customer service skills, off company property, off company time, even though that wasn't part of your job description on company time (i.e., even though you were a fellow dealer). That, to my mind, suggests that you have control issues. People in car parks should mace you.

In any event, I didn't say you HAD control issues, only that what you told me makes me SUSPECT you have control issues. Please don't misquote me or misrepresent what I wrote.

I don't have it in my personality to be mean to anyone - I do however have it in me to point out to someone that they way they are handling customers is not the correct way.

As a dealer, who told you that you were an authority on "the correct way?" Again, there is no one "correct way" to "handle" customers. Each customer is an individual, as is each dealer, and those facts along with the individual chemistry mix that results from their interaction will all play a part in how the dealer should tailor his "handling" of each customer. And I think you may be fooling yourself when you say you don't have it in your personality to be mean to anyone. You may not intend to be mean, but meanness is in the eye if the beholder. A good rule of thumb might be, for the most part, shut it and mind your own business (job responsibilities).

THEREFORE, we will agree to disagree on this one - respectfully (on my part anyway )

I never agree to disagree. You're wrong on this.

*********

Uhavenoaction: No, this would be like letting a dealer that doesn't know Roulette, deal Roulette. Therefore, the above point is irrelevant to the the discussion.

Which is the same as letting a dealer evaluate, critique and instruct another dealer's work performance. If it doesn't say in your job description that you should officially do those things, where do you get the idea that you should do them unofficially?

But, you DO see athletes (team mates) criticize each other on the field and/or in the media when a team mate messes up, or if they think a team mate is not putting out their best effort.

And it's wrong. Both scenarios involve an unauthorized person inputting unauthorized criticism. The result is chaos, bad feeling and future inefficiency. I don't believe professional ball players are authorized to criticize each other's performance. And does it follow that one floor supervisor should critique another (peer) floor supervisor's performance (as in, "Hey, looking from my station, you didn't handle that dispute right.")? If not, why not? Because there is no joint tips involved?

In a workplace environment this can/should be done off the casino floor, of course.

No, it shouldn't. It shouldn't be done by peers at all. Look at it this way. Suppose one or other of your peers (fellow dealers) decides to tell you that your attitude stinks and that everyone would be better off if you just quit. What are you going to do with that information? I'm guessing 1) dispute it, followed by 2) ignore it. So, what will be the sum outcome of the incident of unauthorized criticism? Bad feeling. Job performance evaluations should only ever by delivered by a person who has authority to do something about the recipient's failure to respond and improve. The only way a ealer could directly make another dealer change his attitude would be through bullying and some form of threat.

OK, NSB, I realize that I will never win this argument, or ANY argument with you. I figure that you have NEVER lost an argument, well, because I'm good a "figgurin"......

Well, you'll never win with such a defeatist attitude. Perhaps you're used to bullying lumps at work. Well, we're not at your workplace and I'm not a lump. And I don't allow bullying. Why DID you come here if not to "argue?" If you came to "argue", why do you appear to want to squirm out of supporting your very weak case here?

It really is amazing just how much you can discover about a person's personality and attitude (and personal history) just by engaging them on one of these threads for a short while.