biodork

A lot of you probably remember me complaining over the last year about the job here, and although I can't recall how much detail I ever gave about individual events, the short version is that the woman who was supposedly my supervisor was a terrible micromanager with a Napolean complex who generally made my life miserable. In June of this past year, my "real" boss (the one above both she and I) gave me the opportunity to transfer to another group under her direction, and I did. While the job itself is still boring and terribly unsatisfying, my new supervisor / coworker is a good guy who's generally pleasant to work with. We're currently working through all the details of what must be done on our end to get the lab clinically certified, which is tedious, but we have two resources here who've gone through a similar process and have been tasked to act as consultants. One of these people is doing so informally (just to help), and she's been great. The other is doing so in a formal capacity after having been non-responsive for the first several months and now realizing that she will need to be the lab's "director" because she holds a certification that neither myself nor the actual lab manager possess. This is supposed to be a title in name only, but apparently she's taken it as an excuse to jump in and take over everything. It started out as mildly annoying, but it's gotten worse over the last week, and today she and my supervisor butted heads in a big way. As he was describing the things she's said and done towards him, I realized it's EXACTLY how that horrible woman in my last position was treating me. He's understandably frustrated and upset about the whole thing, and he has no idea how much I sympathize. I came over here to get away from all the drama, and he's the same kind of person who just wants to do his work and be left alone, but it sounds like the drama is coming to us.

I'll be curious to hear how they respond (if they do).

:lol:

I think part of my objection is the fact that this is supposed to be an item auctioned off for charity, and he just eliminated half of the potential bidders. I also don't think his political preferences have any business being on his gear because it represents both he and the team.

Seriously... the IOC had an issue with "Miller Time", but the Sabres / NHL are okay with this? (HRC wouldn't have belonged on there, either.)

Fair point.

So sorry to hear about all of this. :( Here's hoping things improve all-around for you very soon. This is meant to be funny, but I keep hearing this when you've posted the last few days:

Not engaged, but you're right about the long-term / long-distance bit. Job opportunities have necessitated moves to different areas in the last few years, but we're working on a plan to get him to Denver. Unfortunately, nothing happens quickly where faculty research positions are concerned, and he's got his entire team there to consider either relocating with him or finding funds to keep them employed with someone else after he leaves. Surprised no one listed the obvious compliant for the week (for anyone other than the handful of happy folks like Hank).

Interesting. I never realized employer-sponsored health insurance could do this. I guess I've just worked for places large enough that they didn't bother. As for the ACA, I suspect it will be irrelevant in a few months, now.

But again, this only happens with an individual policy; no health screening is done for a new employee at a large company or University, because everyone is insured under a blanket group policy that's intended to average out the healthy folks with the unhealthy ones. Now this makes sense.

Right, but it seems like offering an incentive for a voluntary program where you choose to enroll and/or document your efforts to quit is much less problematic from a legal standpoint than one where they're essentially asking you to admit you're a smoker so they can charge you more money. With a group policy I don't see how they could verify whether someone smokes without violating the privacy of their medical records.

I'm not at all opposed to the idea that it should, but I've no idea how they expected to (legally) enforce it. Smokers are more likely to develop a whole host of health issues down the road, so they certainly should pay more for health insurance. I'd much rather see an employer offer cessation programs and incentives for quitting than a penalty for smoking, though. I get how that works if you purchased insurance as an individual, but how would that work under a group employer-sponsored policy?

Really? I've never been insured outside of an employer, but I figured they did. Huh. My former employer did it all backwards; they tried to re-vamp their health plan a while back (pre-ACA) by adding a $100/mo penalty for all smokers. Now I'm not a smoker and I generally don't feel sorry for them because it's a disgusting habit in which they chose to participate in spite of the well-known risks, but I don't think that's the way an employer/insurer should go about it at all. And just how did they expect to even verify that? Who would volunteer the information that they smoke knowing it would cost them money, and how could the employer know (particularly on a "smoke-free" campus where the behavior would not be observed) other than checking medical records, which would seem very much off-limits? Encourage people to turn others in? Just a terrible idea, all around. I missed your tribute from the other day since I haven't checked in here in a few, but my condolences, NS.

Thankfully, no! :P Spending a long weekend with my dad and stepmom in Delaware. Good to see them, and nice to have a few days away from the frustrating and boring job.

Lame complaint: why is it when I get to the airport super early for my flight, the flight is inevitably delayed? Legit complaint: both my stepmom and my brother have been unemployed for about a year now. Both had promising job interviews over the last two weeks, and neither one got the job. :( And my stepmom is officially uninsured now after they kicked her off Medicaid because she apparently makes too much money from her unemployment benefits to qualify, even though she has enormous student loan payments that would make her eligible as a single person.

100% agree, and I don't mean to trivialize the situation (I doubt Whedon did, either), but sometimes I need stuff like this to be able to laugh when the reality isn't the least bit funny to avoid going insane.

LOL this is great: Chris Pine Is a Tantrum-Throwing Boss in Joss Whedon’s Latest Voting PSA

Yowza. Glad at least it's not viral, but you take some time off work and feel better, man! Pneumonia is no joke.

:( Hopefully bacterial?

I've been debating on trying Sling, but I thought when I looked over the summer that they had two versions (Orange and Blue), and one includes NHLN and the other includes ESPN. I care more about NHLN, but ESPN would be nice for occasional football watching, and I thought it would've been $40 to get access to both. $25 isn't bad, though...

:thumbsup: Always better when you can do that sort of thing in your own time, when you're ready. Much more cathartic that way. Good news, 11.

Thai pumpkin soup. It's good, but it's also the fourth day in a row I've eaten it, so I'm glad it's the last serving, lol.

I didn't have any music, no.

Haha much appreciated, good sir!

Nicely done as always, Peppy. :thumbsup: