Happy Holidays

Two years ago while delivering UPS packages I said "Merry Christmas" to customers whom I encountered; until I ran into a "War on Christmas" guy. He thanked me for saying "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" and started on a rant about he says "Merry Christmas" to stick it to all those atheists and liberals who want to ruin Christmas. A few years before that I was treated to a similar "thank you" and accompanying rant by someone who was appreciative that my store's ads said "Christmas Savings" (they actually ran ads that said both "Christmas" and "Holiday Savings"). Every year I read Facebook posts from people who proudly proclaim that they're saying "Merry Christmas" whether anyone likes it or not, sometimes suggesting that "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings" are somehow subversive. And now we have a President who has vowed that we'll all be saying "Merry Christmas" as if it's been outlawed or something. (To be fair I had a pagan acquaintance of mine some years ago tell me that he would not respect me or any other pagan who said 'Merry Christmas", so it's not all one-sided, and be fair again, I greeted the Governor, a right-wing hyper-partisan if there ever was one, last year with a hearty "Happy Holidays", and he returned the salutation with a "Happy Holidays" of his own)

No one is trying to take the Christ out of Christmas, there is no War on Christmas.

We all should be free to use whatever greeting that pleases us without being "corrected". We also shouldn't use our choice of greeting as a weapon against those who employ different greetings, or observe different holidays.

If you run into me and say "Merry Christmas", I won't be offended, even though I'm not a Christian, and I don't expect you to be offended if I say "Happy Holidays". Or even "Snappy Saturnalia".

Shopping No-Nos (Don't Do These Things)

Some of the items on this list were annoyances when I worked in retail, some were born as I stood in line, all of them might get you killed some day. (Not all are holiday related)

• Expressing sympathy that a cashier or waiter has to work on a holiday is not cool. They either already know that it sucks to be there, in which case you are just rubbing salt in the wound, or they didn't have anything going on anyway and are happy to be getting time and a half for doing the same work as usual.
• Complaining that all the "good" turkeys are gone when you are shopping the night before Thanksgiving; all the Snickers are sold out Halloween afternoon; or basically that any seasonal item has sold out before the actual holiday. Most seasonally themed products won't sell once the holiday has come and gone. Retailers try to anticipate sales, but they aren't fortune-tellers. Buy your shit early.
• Pointing out that an item is cheaper at Walmart. Fuck you then, shop at Walmart. 
• Trying to make "deals" on items that are already on sale. Or any item for that matter. 
• Asking for custom cuts of meat. Do you really require your roast to be that exact weight? (I once had a guy like this; he couldn't ever buy meat from the case, it had to be custom cut. Once the meat cutters pre-cut his meat to his usual specifications, wrapped it and put it in the case; he still wanted them to custom cut it). 
• Be prepared to pay when all your items have been rung up. They will always ask you for money! Don't start digging for your wallet, card or checkbook after the order has been totaled. If you're writing a check, you know what store you're in and the date, surely you can fill that part out ahead of time.
• When paying in cash, don't throw your money down on the moving belt. The cashier is probably holding out her hand to accept payment, it's rude not to hand it to her - she doesn't have Ebola. Also, the moving belt can possibly whisk your money under the register, never to be found again. 
• Complaining about lines during a busy time. Hey knucklehead, everyone had the same idea as you did. They can only move so fast, and besides, someone is digging for their wallet up ahead of you. 
• And don't ever expect special treatment because you say you know the owner. The employees know him too and don't like him. 

Grammar: Commas

Several years ago I worked with someone who, though otherwise quite intelligent, had only a tenuous grasp of the rules of English grammar. Someone had told her that people didn't use commas enough, so she started inserted commas everywhere in her writing. The fist sentence in this post might look like this:
Several years ago, I worked with someone, who, though otherwise, quite intelligent, had only a tenuous grasp, of the rules of English grammar. 
While it's probably true that the comma is underutilized, it's also possible to overutilize it.

The basic mistake that many people make with respect to commas is that you don't use them every time there would be a pause if what you are writing is being spoken aloud. In short, a comma is used to separate parts of a sentence from one another. Here are a few ways that a comma should be used correctly:

• Before a coordinating conjunction (and, but, or so, yet) that links two independent clauses (an independent clause has both a subject and a verb and can stand on its own as a sentence). For example "I went running, and I saw a duck". If the sentence is changed to "I went running and saw a duck" no comma is needed because the second half is not an independent clause. 
• After a dependent clause that starts a sentence (a dependent clause has a subject and a verb, but cannot stand on its own), as in the sentence "When I went running, I saw a duck". If the dependent clause is at the end of the sentence a comma is not needed, but can be added for emphasis. 
• Use commas to offset explanatory, but unnecessary, information in the middle of a sentence. "When I went running I saw a mallard, a type of duck". "A type of duck is explanatory, but the sentence can stand without it.
• To set off items in a series. There is some disagreement about whether a comma follows the last item in the series (called an Oxford Comma) is necessary, however, more often than not it clarifies the situation. "When I went running I saw some ducks, Charlie, and Bill." This obviously tells us that I saw some ducks, but also saw Charlie and Bill. "When I went running I saw some ducks, Charlie and Bill." This version of sentence could mean that the ducks that I saw were named Charlie & Bill. 

The following link gives nine more examples of the proper use of commas. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-guide-to-proper-comma-use-2013-9

And this link simplifies it all into three rules.

http://www.writewithjean.com/usage-and-grammar/commas-made-simple/

That's a lot of rules. I try to narrow it down to:

1. Use a comma in a list of items
2. Use a comma to separate different ideas or thoughts within a sentence. 
3. Don't use it to indicate a pause or a breath. 

Grammar: Writing Like You Speak

Why are there rules of grammar? It's not to make people feel stupid, it's not to give some people a sense of superiority, it's a road map that facilitates communication. There's nothing wrong with jargon, colloquialisms, slang and the like, but if you're communicating to a broad, mixed audience, there has to be a common language if our words are to be understood.

One of the mistakes many people make when writing is to write the same way that they speak, complete with tangents, stops & starts, and lack of structure or direction. When you are speaking, especially when you're speaking in person, face-to-face, you have the benefit of tone of voice, volume, facial expression and body language to help clarify any ambiguities. You also have the advantage of reading the other person's facial expressions and body language to determine whether you are being understood. You have the option of repeating, rephrasing or or explaining what you meant. None of this is possible when writing, so it is critical that the words used when writing be as clear and unambiguous as possible. Proper use of punctuation is just as important. Periods, commas, exclamation points and other punctuation marks can stand in for pauses and points of emphasis that might occur in speech, but also help identify changes in subject and categorization of ideas.

This is not to suggest that you should never use your own vocabulary, native idiom or jargon when writing; a lot depends on your intended audience. What I am suggesting is that you refrain from simply putting down words as they pop into your head, rather thinking through the point that you wish to make and how to make that point clearly.

Managers Part XVI - The Monkeys

The class and book Managing Management Time described the responsibility to take some kind of action as a "monkey". If it was your responsibility to get something done, then "the monkey" was on your back. Before we get deep into the jungle, let define some terms. Most people define "delegate" as any action that someone else has to do so that you don't. We, however, are going to define "delegate" in conjunction with "assign". When you assign a task to someone, you have told them what to do, and when to do it. Sometimes you even tell them how to do it. (Rarely do you tell them why it's being done.) For example you tell your janitor to clean the bathroom, when he is done you tell him to sweep the sidewalk, when that is done you tell him to organize the storage closet. Or you can give him a list at the beginning of his shift:

1. Clean the bathroom
2. Sweep the sidewalk
3. Organize the storage closet

Or...you can give him the responsibility to keep the store clean and organized. 

The first is assigning; you give your subordinate tasks. Think back a few lessons to the Five Levels - this sounds a lot like Level 2 or even Level 1. But when you give someone responsibility, then you have delegated. This is more like Level 3 or 4. But in order for delegation to be effective, i.e. you get the results that you desire without a lot of hands-on involvement, you have to train your subordinate to the point where they completely understand the responsibility that you have given them and you have to give them the authority to carry out their delegated tasks. What this means is that you have to be confident enough to let go of the responsibility and let your delegated subordinate handle it without unnecessary interference from you. In the case of our janitorial example, you don't even want the janitor checking with you before cleaning or organizing, you want Level 4 freedom! Now, when you have passed this responsibility on, taking away any but routine involvement, then the metaphorical monkey has been transferred from your back to his.  

Unfortunately, it's not always clear who a monkey belongs to, and your subordinates and your bosses alike will attempt to get you to take ownership of monkeys that aren't yours. So how can you reliably determine who a monkey belongs to? It's all tied int to the Five Levels of Freedom, which we will look at in the next installment. 

Managers Part XV - The Holidays

When you're in management the holidays can be a joyful time, or they can be hell, it all depends on the kind of business that you're in. Currently I work in an office for a government agency and get most holidays off; the nature of the work is such that holidays aren't any busier than any other time of year. However, for almost two decades I worked in a retail grocery store - every holiday is busy when you work in a grocery store. In general it can be more than twice as busy in the days leading up to a holiday, but no matter how clearly you communicate, there will always be people who want to take off during the busiest times. There are several types of managers, each handling the situation differently:

1. The nice guys who approve every time-off request. These are the managers who don't know how to say no and find that instead of "all hands on deck" they are actually shorthanded when they can least afford it. While the people who take off believe that these are "good" managers, somebody still has to work, and there is much irritation and low morale with those who get stuck working. 
2. The managers who believe that seniority or position entitles them to take off and leave the work to subordinates.  When the holiday, Christmas Eve, Thanksgiving, Fourth of July etc comes up, the managers and senior (i.e. most experienced) people all take off, leaving the store at its busiest to assistants, newbies and high school kids.
3. Some managers make no changes at all. In the company that I worked for, there were stores where there were no extra people scheduled on the day before Thanksgiving (one of the top three busiest days of the year) and no senior management in the store past 6:00PM, their normal quitting time. 
4. Those who demand "all hands on deck" and work the busy shifts themselves. No vacations, nobody leaves early, especially the managers.

I was always a #4 manager. I learned this gradually. My first holiday as an assistant store director I was scheduled until 5:00PM, but couldn't ever leave on time and ended up working 13-14 hour days due to poor planning. My boss was a #1 manager, so a lot of the work fell on a select few of us who were serious about getting the store in tip-top shape. I was able to put my #4 management plan into shape after getting transferred to another store where the store director was open to changing things up for holiday scheduling. Managers were required to work at least a half day on their weekend day off leading up to the holiday and were required to work later shifts. No one got the day before the holiday off or the holiday itself, depending on which as the busiest day. No vacations were approved during the busy times. We would allow occasional exceptions for employees who had unique situations, but it was definitely an exception and not the rule. The store director and I, however, scheduled ourselves for weekend and late night shifts, putting ourselves in the same boat as everyone else. Of course, not every one liked this method of scheduling: one manager ended up getting fired because she took out her frustration at not getting the December 22 - January 4 off at other employees, verbally abusing them until we had to let her go. Occasionally employees would seek transfers to other stores so that they could take half of the month of December off. 

As a retail manager, I didn't necessarily enjoy having to work every holiday, but I understood that it was part of the job, and didn't allow subordinates to act as if they didn't work in retail. One of the jobs of a manager is to communicate the expectations to his or her subordinates and require compliance with those expectations. Jobs, despite what some politicians believe, do not exists because business owners altruistically want to provide a living to those in the community; they exist because there is a need for people to carry out specific tasks at a specific place and a specific time; and there's more of those tasks at certain times. It is understandable that an employee would want to put family gatherings or personal needs first, but if that means that the job for which they were hired goes undone, perhaps they are in the wrong business. 

When Will Sexual Harassment Be BAD, Not Just Bad for Business?

If asked directly, few people will say, out loud, that sexual harassment isn't a bad thing. However we've seen from recent events, that a lot of rationalizing goes on in the minds of people who sexually harass others. The rationalizing is done not only by individuals, but by corporations, even those that have clear sexual harassment policies. Why do many companies have written polices stating a zero tolerance for sexual harassment? Because it's wrong? Perhaps for some, but for many it's simply because allowing sexual harassment at work will get them sued. You simply have to look at how a lot of the high profile cases are handled: the offenders are kept on while the accusers are payed off; since there's no lawsuit, the offender stays on. In the case of companies like Fox News, it's only when advertisers start to go away that the offender is finally fired.

And lest you think that this kind of negotiable outrage only happens at huge corporations, I witnessed this syndrome at a company for which I worked.

I was an assistant manager at a locally-owned grocery store. A technician for our HVAC company was regularly making lewd comments to a sixteen year old employee. She went to the store manager and the complaint made its way to the technician's employer, which immediately fired him. But this wasn't the end of the story. Shortly thereafter, the fired technician started his own HVAC company. An assistant manager at one of the stores, friends with this man, provided him with a quantity of bills from his old company, which he used to underbid his old company for a contract with the grocery chain. (Yes, that's some unethical stuff, but not the subject of this blog). Despite the executive committee of the grocery chain knowing about this man's history, they contracted with him to be the main HVAC company for half the company's stores. At least two of us within the company regularly pointed out to the company's leaders the hypocrisy of claiming to have a zero tolerance policy with regards to sexual harassment, yet doing business with this man, yet he continued to receive the company's business until a completely unrelated series of incidents ended his contract. A consultant with whom the company did regular business made sexually explicit comments to female employees on several occasions, but was never confronted. Why were these men given business despite actions that would have resulted in termination if they had been employees? Because there was no legal liability to the grocery company for the words or actions of contractors. There was no chance that it would cost the company money, so it wasn't a problem for them.

Therein lies the problem: whether it's Fox News, or a local grocery chain, businesses take action when it costs them more money to maintain the status quo than to take action. Fox News didn't see it as a problem until advertisers started leaving en masse. My old company didn't see it as a problem at all. The people who run businesses in this country have to decide that sexual harassment is wrong and take action, not because their action prevents a lawsuit, but because it's wrong. Until then, nothing really changes.

Grammar: Quotation Marks

Why are there rules of grammar? It's not to make people feel stupid, it's not to give some people a sense of superiority, it's a road map that facilitates communication. There's nothing wrong with jargon, colloquialisms, slang and the like, but if you're communicating to a broad, mixed audience, there has to be a common language if our words are to be understood.

One of the most commonly misused parts of standard American English is the quotation mark. A certain national elected official misuses them on a regular basis, here are a few guidelines for using quotation marks:

1. They are used when quoting someone. Well, that seems obvious! A quote is not a summary or a paraphrase, it is repeating exactly what was said or written. There are rules for inserting clarifying words within a quote which I won't get into, but if you change the wording, it's not a quote and doesn't take equation marks. 
2. Quotation marks can indicate sarcasm or irony. For example: Bart was out with his "girlfriend" last night on O Street. Putting "girlfriend" in quotes tells us that we should doubt whether this person was actually Bart's girlfriend. Another example is: Our "leader", Mayor Smith, is on the ballot again this year. The use of quotation marks here clearly says that Mayor Smith is anything but a leader. 
3. When you are writing about a specific word, that word can be enclosed in quotes, like the second use of the word "best" in the previous example (and the use of the same word in this example)
4. In a book, the chapters can be identified using quotes while the book title is italicized; similarly, a story in a newspaper should be in quotes while the name of the newspaper is italicized. Use quotes when what is being described is a part of something larger. 
5. They are not used for emphasis. Underlining, bolding, italicizing, highlighting are all ways to emphasize a word or a phrase. Our football team is the "best" in the state. This sentence does not emphasize the word "best", in fact it indicates that the writer is using the word sarcastically. 

#5 is by far the most egregious misuse of quotation marks. Usually it's fairly obvious from the context what the writer is trying to say, but sometimes it muddies the waters and causes confusion.