the accidental meeting

a long time ago i was actively looking for jobs in virginia. a co-worker convinced me that i should tell the old man, so i did. he was ambiguously supportive (the reason i was looking was because my wife's parents are out there), but also said that if i stuck around, he would make it worth my while.

at that point, telecommuting was permitted for a few of us if the weather conditions were sufficiently dangerous, and i was still under the impression that something formal was in the works. the weather policy came about because i spun out on the way to work one morning, and it was providence that there were no cars in the oncoming lane when i got there. i talked to the boss and he was okay with telecommuting when the weather was like that.

the job search wasn't really panning out anyway -- i interviewed for two different staff positions at a university, and they both took their sweet time turning me down. i wound up sticking around.

the employee handbook was revised. it now says that telecommuting is only available on a pre-approved basis, and that 'modern weather forecasting technology' is good enough for employees to plan ahead and still get to work on time. i wasn't clear on whether an employee was allowed to get pre-approval if the weather was looking bad, so i asked -- there was supposed to be ice the next day. no one got back to me in time. there wasn't ice the next day, but the roads in my city are horribly engineered, so you tend to hydroplane when they are wet. i stayed home and learned the hard way that no, that doesn't count as pre-approval.

two days later i hit a patch of black ice and rear-ended a guy.

that led to a meeting. the old man, the accounting guy, jim, tom, and me. we wanted to try and fix the telecommuting policy. this is how the old man opened the meeting:

'i am confident that this will be a good meeting, but i'm not confident that it will be resolved in the way that you hope it will. in fact, i can guarantee that it won't, but i'm open to discussion.'

awesome, right? he then launched into a story about this factory he used to own, because that is analogous to a software company.

he started going off on how there needs to be an objective standard of 'bad weather' and 'unsafe', at which point my rage boiled over and i started shouting -- 'why does it have to be objective? if someone gets in their car and says, holy crap these roads are dangerous, why isn't that good enough?'

he kept interjecting 'not to me' (referring to things being dangerous), and i flipped out. 'it happened. last year i spun out. today i rear-ended someone. it happened.'

he yelled, 'then move to virginia.'

classy.

the meeting was a huge waste of time in which three people tried to convince an old man that technology made it possible to keep people accountable if they were working from home. he used horrible logic to keep his blinders on. whatever works.