Like A Boss

How do you motivate a team to do good work for you?  Do you be nice to your coworkers and expect that they'll do good work for you in kind, or do you yell at your employees and expect that they'll work hard because they feel their job is in jeopardy if they fail?

Which is the best approach?

I have been in those shoes before.  I have been in a position where I was in charge of a staff of employees, so I have some first-hand knowledge on this topic.  As a supervisor, you still have bosses who demand a lot from you.  And you, in turn, have to expect a lot from your employees.  If you employees fail, you fail.  So, there is a lot of pressure for a supervisor to get his/her team to perform at a satisfactory level.  But what is the best approach to get employees to work?

If a boss has a tendency to be nice with their employees, then the work place environment becomes casual.  Casual work environments have pros and cons associated with them.  The good thing with a positive work environment is that morale is high.  Workers who are happy at their jobs want to stick around so retention is high.  They'll enjoy their job and usually leave work in a good mood.  They'll get work done, and the employees will feel open to voice any concerns that they have with their boss.  After all, their boss is their friend too! :) [All smiles and wonderful things here]!! :D :D :D

However, this does create other problems.  In a casual work environment, the employees are shielded from the reality of what is really going on.  Employees usually do not realize that despite getting work done, they aren't getting enough work done.  Because it is a casual, friendly environment with a friend as a supervisor, the supervisor never takes any initiative to motivate his/her employees to work harder.  Therefore, they constantly fail to meet deadlines, and they fall behind as a result.  While this is happening, the supervisor gets yelled at, and shields his/her team from it. Employees, therefore, do not realize that stress that their supervisor is under.  Two things happen then:

1. The supervisor ends up "taking one for the team" and doing the extra work.
2. The supervisor ends up losing his/her job due to incompetence to lead.

In either case, having a too casual work environment usually ends badly for the supervisor.  It doesn't negatively affect the coworkers, until they get yelled at by upper-management.  A lot of them may even leave when their supervisor gets let go.  Those who stick around lose morale as soon as a different supervisor takes over who isn't buddies with them. 

Now, another option is for the supervisor to be a "drill sergeant"  and ride their employee's asses to get the job done.  This is what I refer to as a "concentration camp." This leads to a lower morale with the employees.  The employees become afraid of discussing issues with their boss because they fear being yelled at.  The employees dread going to work everyday, so they tend to either A) come up with excuses to not go to work, B) work despite their issues and get extremely stressed out, or C) quit.

Having a boss yell all of the time hurts employee retention.  And this isn't just a small deal.  Those people who dealt with this boss, tell other people.  And soon word of your notoriety spreads.  Now, people won't even apply for the job because they know they'd have to deal with you.

On top of that, it doesn't change the fact that you are still getting your ass ridden by upper-management.  Your employees that DO work for you yet, have so little morale, they do not care if they get fired.  Therefore, they will work slowly, regardless of how much you yell or scream.  You could threaten their job, and they'd cower down and work, but be definitely considering their options.  Other employees that work hard for you, despite getting their asses ridden all of the time, start to stress out.  They tend to drink when off work, and are constantly stressed even at home.  This also leads to the condition where employees that work their asses off, feel all of the pressure is on them to do the extra work of the employees who don't work as hard.  Results are all that matter.  More than likely, the employees good deeds will not be noticed, nor complimented, and they'll just feel both emotionally and physically drained as a result.

One of the things I had learned at my previous job is that you don't yell at your employees.  You want to be firm and direct with them.  You want to make sure they know you are in charge and what you say goes.  But they also need to know that it is okay for them to talk to you about any issues they may have.  Keep your conversations direct and to the point.

As a supervisor, it is not your job to be friends with your employees.  You can be on friendly terms with them, but it is NOT recommended to be friends with them.  Employees will respect you more, if you seem authoritative and to the point.  Treat your employees with the same respect you would have them expect of you.  An employee with a good morale, and a good structured work environment will always be more productive.

As a shift lead, I had a staff of only 4 people at maximum.  We were horribly understaffed and unable to keep employee retention where it needed to be.  This was due to the fact that our shift was a weekend shift that ran during the summer, AND was overnight.  Being understaffed lead to a lot of stress, and we all felt it.  I had developed a motto at this point, "If you work for me, I will work with you."  This meant that as long as you were doing your job and putting forth effort at doing it, I would be right there next to you, busting my ass with you.  If you failed, I'd be right there with you.  We failed together.  But if you were a slacker, who didn't want to do the job or just didn't want to be there, then I would have you fired.  And, unfortunately, that did come up with an employee I had who just didn't care at all about the job or whether he even showed up to work on time.

Now, I work a job where I'm no longer a supervisor of any kind.  I had to step down and go back to square one with a completely different industry and job.  I have a boss who towards the beginning would yell at me for making mistakes.  I admit that I tend to make more mistakes when I'm overwhelmed by new information.  I work in a retail job and rules change from day to day.  I've heard it implied that you are not an adult if you don't like being yelled at.  That is simply not true.  Morale affects everyone equally, regardless of age.  The only difference is, the more qualified you are, the less you are likely to put up with it.  I don't get yelled at as much, and I feel more motivated to give it my all.  Getting yelled at destroys my morale, and my will to work.  The firm but friendly supervisor who acknowledges the good work I do, is the supervisor I want to work under.

Thanks for reading this!!  If you have any comments that you would like to add, feel free to share them below. :) 

Sodastream... GRRR

In a previous post, I made mention that I complained about Sodastream for about two months solid.  That sounds like something that should have been blogged about.  At the time, I didn't really have time to create a long blog post about it.  Now, I do. :)

For those, not in the know, allow me to explain what happened.  Sodastream has been a company that has provided the convenience of "DIY pop at home since 1998 with the Sodastream device.  You could carbonate your own water, and add a syrup to it to turn sparkling water into pop.  It was great!!  I bought a Sodastream back in about 2010 and loved using it.  Sodastream was pretty popular too.  It had a following of customers that kept coming back and buying syrups.  Then something happened...

They changed the syrup.

In lieu of smart business strategy, they completely removed the product line that made them successful and put out new formulations of syrup.  This, understandably, left a lot of long-time Sodastream users upset (including me).  The old Sodastream bottles allowed for 50 servings.  The new syrup allows for only 29.  Also, the amount of syrup in each bottle has changed:  500 mL for the old bottles vs. 440 mL for the new.  The syrup in the new bottles has been known to not taste as good as the old syrup either.  This becomes a major problem.

Sodastream's market strategy previously focused on trying to be better than pop in every way.

1.  Less plastic in the landfills.
2. Less expensive than pop.
3. Better tasting than pop.

Now, Sodastream has removed all 3 of those points.  Now that the bottles are smaller, this means more of Sodastream's bottles will end up in the landfill vs. before.  True, using recyclable and reusable Sodastream bottles to carbonate your "sparkling water" does reduce waste in the landfills, the old bottles were more effective at that, because those still get thrown away.

Sodastream is now more expensive than pop.  And now, by a larger margin than before.  For the most part, Sodastream WAS cheaper than pop, (unless you bought two-liter bottles of generic pop, in which case, there was no comparison.  Sodastream was supposed to provide great tasting soda for less than regular pop.  Now, the new syrup costs the same as the old syrup.  So, you are paying more per serving than before.  The increased rate in which you have to buy syrup means that now, Sodastream is more expensive than pop.  I'm better off buying regular, unhealthy pop, than drink Sodastream now.  Sodastream is still a better alternative to regular pop, health-wise, but definitely more expensive.

And the last point leaves itself up to opinion.  A lot of the people who drink the new syrups have stated that they do not taste as good as they used to.  In fact, a lot of people have even suggested the new syrups are "watered down."  On top of that, the new syrups have to be refrigerated and do not keep as long as the old syrups.

Apparently, Sodastream's strategy was to appeal to a new crowd.  They wanted to appeal to people who were more about health and not about pop.  Basically, the sparkling water movement.  The problem is, the new crowd didn't make Sodastream big.  They turned their backs on the customers that made them big in the first place to appeal to a new crowd.  That was their big screw up.  They should have kept both product lines going to appeal to both old, and new customers.  Sodastream, in my opnion, has been a soda company.  It even has soda in the name.  But now, they are tailoring themselves to sparkling water, and not so much soda.  I can buy a large bottle of flavored sparkling water at Walmart, right now, for less than a dollar, so they have their work cut out for them trying to jump into an established market.

However, complaining about the problem isn't the only thing I did.  I wanted to be able to justify using my Sodastream system.  Kraft foods and Sodastream used to have a contract deal.  They made syrups together.  Kool-Aid had 3 flavors of syrup available with Sodastream before Sodastream changed everything up: Cherry, Grape, and Tropical Punch.  I have actually gone through the trouble to invent my own syrup using Kool-Aid.  I initially tried to replicate as closely as I could the flavor of Sodastream's Kool-Aid line.  And then I one-upped it.  Now, I make my own syrups, they are caffeinated, and taste great.  If you want the recipe, click "Recipe for Kool Aid Pop" link at the top of the page.

Thanks for reading!!!  Feel free to comment.

Meet Me Ousside - Fake TV

What is our world coming to???  For some reason, "reality" TV is popular.  I do not know why.  I do not understand this.  Am I stupid to not be able to discern reality from fiction???  Because the last time I checked, reality is what is happening, right now, in the "real world."

Cause last time I checked... reality wasn't scripted.

 For those completely glued to "reality" TV, allow me to burst your bubble by saying, "That stuff isn't real."  It's scripted.  (To an extent).  Some of the dialogue and some (not all) of the language is unscripted.  But the scenarios and the drama that plays out in the show... most of the time, that is scripted.  Scripted events are created in a ploy to draw more ratings to the show.

But wait!!! This goes against the very definition of "reality!!!"  I sniff fraud.

But wait... there's something about it.  It has a drawing power that actually seems to attract viewers.  It defines the current trends.  People are actually INFLUENCED by it.  Too many people actually care about what is going on in the lives of the Kardashians.  Me?? I don't care!!  But style trends are influenced.  Women are getting their butts enhanced because of people like Kim Kardashian.  Me??? Not a woman!!! :p  The point is... these shows, as much as I hate to say it, have an influence that changes attitudes and actions in the real world.  Those scripted shows, and that drama, actually boils over into the real world, in ways that are somewhat disturbing.  People have altered their bodies, altered their personality, and changed their hobbies due to "reality" TV.  In a way, it becomes real to them.

Now, we have this girl named Danielle Bregoli.  She went on the Dr. Phil show, and pretty much made an ass out of herself.  It went viral on the Internet, and she got her own show.  This GIRL, who sleeps around, does drugs, and picks fights, gets her own TV show.  I have to ask... what do you want for our future?

Remember, "reality" TV influences the real world, regardless of how fake it is.  There is two major problems here:

1. Teenagers and kids who watch this show, will be influenced by her behavior.  
2. Danielle is still just a girl, herself.

With point number 1, as previously stated, her actions on this show, will influence other young people to act the way she does, because it is the "in-thing."  It is what she's doing, and it got her fame.  The sheep will follow.  You'll see more rebellious youth doing drugs, disrespecting their parents, and picking fights.  Why?  Because if someone they watch did that stuff, and get rewarded for it, then it must be all right for them to do it too.  Remember, as parents, the goal is to reward good behavior, and to discipline bad behavior.  That is conditional training.  Something that is done with pets as well.  Allowing a girl to get rewarded for doing bad behavior is just bad conditioning.  And with the influence of "reality" TV in the real world, this could spell big problems for society's future.

With point number 2, she is still just a girl.  She has a life to live.  She could improve her life, and actually be successful for good reasons.  Now, this is what really gets me.  "Reality" TV is not real in the way people think.  What will happen is this:  the producers, writers, and directors behind that show will script it.  Danielle will be expected and forced to act the way she does, even if she doesn't want to any more.  They will encourage it, because the show can't maintain ratings if she decides to clean up her act.  She'll essentially get paid to destroy her life.  Eventually like every other trend or fad, people will stop watching.  It always happens.  Either that, or she'll get old enough to no longer appeal to the demographic the network needs.  In both cases, the network will drop her.  Now, she'll have no concept of how to live.  She'll have nothing to fall back on.  Yeah, she'll have money, but because she turned to those bad behaviors at such a young age, that's all she'll know.  And that money won't last, or she'll end up killing herself cause of it.  In either case, it doesn't end well.

I feel this show is a bad idea.  There is "reality" TV out there that does send a positive message, but that is rare.  Shows like this make me very worried for the future.  If or when I have kids of my own, how will I not worry about things like this?  Shows like this are capable of corrupting youth, but they should be used to send a positive message instead.

What are your thoughts?  What are your opinions on this?  Let me know in the comments!!! I love getting feedback.

Life...

If there are people who have followed this little blog in the past, firstly, I will apologize that I haven't posted on this blog in quite a while.  Life got in the way and this took a back seat.  I feel that this would be an opportune time to explain myself.

1) I got married.  This doesn't mean that my wife doesn't allow me to do this.  During the whole planning for the marriage, the designing of cards for the ceremony, and the plan, I didn't really have the time to blog on this.

2) I moved.  (Moving is a pain in the ass.) This one doesn't really quite require much of an explanation.  The only thing to add is... I'm lazy.  We still aren't completely unpacked, and this was in November, 2016, that we moved. (March 30th, 2017, now, so yeah...)

3) Lack of content.  For a while there, there was a dry spell where I really didn't have much to rant about.  Now, I have a lot to rant about.  So, I might try to keep up with this on a more regular basis.

4) Not a large audience.  This could tie in to number 3.  If I had more content, more people would find this.

5) There is way too much of this type of thing going on.  In the age of social media, everyone is already sharing their opinions about everything.  It isn't a rare occasion where I'll go onto a social post and voice my opinions about something that annoys me.  (For instance, Sodastream's business strategy, [which I spent a good two months solid complaining to them]). 

So, this is what I'm going to do.  This will still be editorialistic.  As I like to voice my opinions on things (of course, with backed up facts to support my beliefs), that will not change.  I will add more random content (for instance, instead of "current events," I'll voice my opinions about stuff that doesn't really matter as well.  We'll see how long I can keep it going.  :)

To those who read, thanks for reading this. :)  If you have ideas of things for me to vocalize an opinion about, feel free to suggest something. I'm sure I'll have an opinion.

Video games good or bad???

Well, I saw an interesting article put out by the American Psychological Association talking about how video games are the opposite of depression in terms of neurologically speaking. (I will post the article below).  It talks about how playing video games is a good way to fight depression (or manage it at least).  It talks about how playing video games hyperstimulates the areas of the brain that depression causes to become understimulated (the hippocampus and the reward pathways).  It also mentions that playing games to just escape reality in the long-term is bad because it causes people to not deal with their problems (causing social isolation, etc).

Now, personally, I am a gamer.  I play A LOT of video games.  And I will admit that when I was younger, I DID play with that escapist attitude.  I hated my life back then.  When I was a kid, I was abused at home (phyiscally and emotionally).  There was also neglect (be denied food, toilet paper, showers, etc).  I had been called worthless so many times, I believed it.

Now, my parents were divorced.  So, on the weekends, my dad, would pick us up to go to his house.  We had a NES there, and eventually a SNES.  And I played video games whenever I could there.  It was my escape from reality.  My only time I really cared about anything at all.  Games were a way to get away from everything that was going wrong.  I didn't think about how I would have to go back home... I didn't think about how I was going to have to face the bullies Monday morning... all I thought about was the game on the screen and the controller in my hands.  That was happiness for me back then.

Fast forward to the present.  I still play video games, and I still love doing it. :)  But, the reasoning behind it has changed.  I no longer feel the need to escape my life, because I'm working and living as well.  Video games have settled into the role they are supposed to be... a hobby.

However, there are people who think video games are bad.  Well, with the proper mind set, video games are GOOD, but with the wrong mind set, yes they can be bad.

People claim that video games cause irresponsible and violent behavior in kids.  Again, I must disagree.  Video games in the hands of the young and impressionable are something that DOES need to be moderated.  There are games that shouldn't be played by the young, and there are games that really SHOULDN'T be played AT ALL.  But most games are good games.  For instance:

• Ace Attorney series - These games really boost your logic and deductive reasoning skills.  You find contractions in witness testimonies.
• Any game that requires dodging bullets (Gradius series, Metal Slug series, Contra series to name a few) - These games really emphasize quick reaction times.  Games like this test your ability to think quickly and helps with making split decisions.  Games like this also boost reaction times (meaning you'll slam on the brakes quicker if a deer jumps in front of you).
• Platforming games boost memorization skills (as you remember how you made that jump or got past that area).
• Tetris, Dr. Mario, etc boost spatial reasoning, as you are dealing with falling patterns and must fit them appropriately to keep playing.  You have to recognize what the pattern looks like flipped, etc.
• Brain Age series tests your "executive functions."

With games like this, you'll find that as you play them, you get better and advance farther.  Most games test your memorization skills, and getting better each play through is proof of that.  Dedication and resiliance are tested when you lose and you try again.  (In fact, the more you try to beat a level that is just giving you a tough time, the more determined you prove yourself to be.)  A person is more likely to succeed in life in general with more dedication.

So, it is time to stop blaming video games on violent and irresponsible adolescents.  In today's world, parents spend less time with their kids.  The kids are either on social media, hanging out with the wrong crowds, etc.  Parents are now both working to make ends meet.  And yes, that makes for a very distance relationship between the kids and the parents.  THIS is a huge problem in terms of being a good influence on your kids.  Missed opportunities like this = more violent and irresponsible adolescents.  Parents who make their kids feel hated or worthless, or who aren't there when their kids need someone to talk to, are parents who have kids who begin to act out.  And acting out can include things like commiting suicide, fighting in school, committing crimes, etc.  A lot of it is a cry out for attention (even though it'll never be admitted).

Parents will need to figure out a way to connect with their kids.  Devise some way to ensure that the technology is turned off and there is time for actual communication.  Parents need to be attentive to their kids.  They should be able to figure out that something is wrong if something is different in the way they act or communicate.  Parents should be able to read their kids like a book.  Not in today's age.  In today's age, there is a decent chunk of parents who could admit that they don't really know their kid any more.  That is not a good thing.  If the kids don't know you any more, then who are they going to look up to?

So, video games are a good thing if played for the right reason, but it is important to actually spend time in reality as well.  If you have parents who love you, then put the tech away for a while and actually talk to them.  It would feel good to know that you have people who love you and want the best for you.  They may be annoying, but they are the only parents you'll ever have.  Parents, you need to pay attention to your kids (teens included).  They may be trying to find their independence, but you need to let them know that you have their back, no matter what.  Let them know that you still want to be there for them, and continuously communicate with them.  And yes, life will get in the way, but just don't let it get in the way too much.  Same with games.  Games are good, just don't let them get in the way of life.  Actually spend some time living, game responsibly, and talk to people.  Gaming can be a wonderful hobby to any active lifestyle. :)

Check out this link on this article I mentioned:
How Video Games Can Teach Your Brain to Fight Depression

Going to Work Sick (Restaurant Edition)

This is kind of a touchy topic.  It is hard to even begin to start with this one.  When is going to work sick necessary and when is going to sick not recommended.  This is a topic that just recently hit home with me in a bad way, and thus, I am going to blog about it.

For any of those who have followed me in the past, they would know that I also have a second blog titled "Gastroparesis Theories."  This blog was posted because I was diagnosed with Gastroparesis in March of 2012.  One of the potential causes of gastroparesis is viral infection (like a very bad norovirus or food poisoning).  My gastroparesis results in me having a slower than normal rate of digestion, ergo the food sits in my stomach about 3 times longer than in a normal person.  This results in more bloating with me and a few other annoying effects.  I, however, have managed to keep the condition managed pretty well by keeping tabs on my digestive health (as well as avoiding other people's digestive ailments to the best of my ability).  This brings me to recent.

I went to a buffet restaurant on 06/08/15.  I sat in a booth, drank my drinks, and proceeded to eat the food.  No big deal.  Towards the end of my visit there, I happened to see a woman busting tables and refilling drinks.  She proceeded to hold her gut looking very flushed and then ran off.  She had put my drink on the table.  Now, naturally as paranoid as I am about stuff like that, I had asked the manager if she was sick (to which he acknowledged that she was having stomach issues).  I immediately requested he take my drink back and get me a new drink.  However... the damage was done.

Foward to two days later.  I spend the whole entire day with diarrhea followed by a large episode of vomiting.  Every belch the whole entire day was sour.  (Sour stomach is a BAD sign for me, because the bacteria is already at full capacity at that point).  So, from the get-go, I knew I was in trouble.  My fiance had previously speculated that the woman was pregnant, but after the event of getting sick to my stomach, I ended up dismissing that notion.  She went to work sick.  And got me sick as a result.

Now, I understand that in this day and age, we need to work more than ever.  Some people can not afford to miss a day of work.  I am one of those people that prefer to not miss work due to illness, but I also understand that if the roles were reversed, I WOULD NOT WANT ANYONE SICK WORKING AROUND ME!!!  So, understandably, it would seem like an expectation that if someone is sick, they do not go to work.  (But call me slightly paranoid about that).

The problem is this.  In a food service industry, going to work IS NOT sanitary.  It is not healthy.  If you are sick to your stomach, you should NOT be working in an industry that exposes countless numbers of people to your illness.  Someone like me, who has this life-affecting condition, can not afford to be exposed to digestive issues like that due to risk of it throwing my maintained gastroparesis out of whack.  I can not afford to get sick, so why bring your illness to my table?  (Or to the tables of all of the people you served that day).   In fact, serving people at their table with a contagious illness IS a health code violation.  Health code states that if a waitress or a worker is sick, they must either be sent home or put on jobs that do not allow them to touch prepared foods (or beverages). If I were a health inspector and I saw that, the restaurant would have been FINED or shut down.  But no, I was a patron who caught on too late that the server around me was sick.

And after this spell of running off holding her gut, she was back to work and even handed us our fortune cookies.  I, obviously, refused to touch the accursed things and gave a very poor tip.

The moral of the story.  Restaurant owners:  if you have a sick employee DO NOT LET THEM NEAR THE FOOD OR THE GUESTS.  Patrons of this restaurants:  If you notice that your waitress or waiter is sick, notify the manager.  Let the manager know that by continuing to let them work, they are committing a health code violation and politely request a different waiter (or just pay for the meal and leave in disgust).

Wax In, Wax Out

Ear irrigation...  More like ear irritation.  For some reason, I've always had an issue with ear wax.  Most of the time, I had been able to get the wax out no problem and be just fine.  This time... not so lucky.  I ended up getting a cerumen impaction.  Yes.  I clogged my ear with ear wax... beautiful.

This meant being almost deaf in one ear.

So, after suffering a whole night of work with the inability to hear out of one ear, and the pressure building up in that ear, I did something I had never had to do in the past.

I got my ear irrigated.

Let's describe this process.  I went into the doctor's office and he took his oroscope (ear camera) and looked in both ears.  Ordered an irrigation for BOTH ears.  I only thought I needed the one.  Ended up getting both.  Now, I was slightly nervous.

So, now, the nurse comes back in with this huge metal looking syringe.  I asked, "Is this going to hurt?" (having never experienced the process before).  Her answer, "I hope not."  -{NOT VERY REASSURING!!!!}-

She got some really warm water and sucked a huge amount of water into this syringe and started shooting.

Let us pause for a minute to implant this image into your head.  This is what the actual process entails.  Go to an automatic car wash.  Sit inside of your car with the automated car wash going.  See the water shooting the side windows?  See that?  That is being done in the inside of your ear.  What it felt like???  Imagine a shower with enough power to sheer the skin off of your body.  Not dial it back a couple of notches, so it is just achy and painful but the skin still remains.  This is what it felt like.

The end result:  Clean ears, followed by a day or two of swelling inside the ear canals.  I could hear just fine again, but there was still some discomfort from pressure resulting from the high pressure wash.

Oh.  And the caveat of all of this.  I had to hold a white tray for the ear flush to fall into.  The nurse actually showed me the ear wax in the trays.  "I don't even know if this will go down the drain," she said.  Yeah...  the wax was BIG.  I would admit, even I, was a little grossed out by my own wax.

But I more enjoyed the fact I could hear again.

Now, would I do this again?  Despite the discomfort of the procedure, it may be a possibility.  It was a low cost procedure that did give a good result.  There may be a little pressure remaining in the ears after the procedure, but being blasted at high velocity would cause anyone some prolonged discomfort following the procedure.  I would not do it again unless it was a major necessity (affecting hearing, etc).  The method may seem primitive, but sometimes primitive is the best.