I don't know about bipolar disorder or the grandparent's boss specifically, but I've learned never to discuss mental disorders with bosses or coworkers. There simply is no upside and every imaginable downside. Best case: you get labeled as someone who uses a mental disorder as an excuse for not doing your job. Worst case: you become "that crazy person" that nobody wants to associate with.
I'm currently supervising an 37year old rookie. He had some absence issues, so I confronted him.
Tuns out he is an ex-addict (that's why he's rookie at 37). I don't have a problem with people trying to straighten themselves out. He doesn't get any preferential treatment from me - because it won't do him any good. As long as he does the expected work of expected quality he is fine with me.
Knowing that he is an ex addict is valuable to me so I can put our relationship in right context.
Addict is never really cured. Once you're through with addiction, the cravings are there for life. Whenever you need to release your steam the craving for drug kicks back in.
My mentee is coping with that through writing, so sometimes he will not come to work on time - because he's setting his mind straight. So our agreement is that I don't care about his schedule - as long as his work is done according to specified parameters.
I didn't say I don't act differently towards him. I said he doesn't get preferential treatment in a sense that I won't be commiserating him for being an ex-addict. Instead I raised his tempo of learning while gently guiding him through the finer intricacies. But I demand highest quality of him. I also look out that nobody (especially superiors) will pick on him since he is pretty introvert - and I don't want him to slip back due to some extrovert having a bad day.
This guy needs to build character, courage and ultimately self-confidence. And not making it hard for him, plus helping along the way if possible is one of my goals.
I'm 100% with you on your goal, it's a noble act to mentor someone with the spirit that you appear to be applying.
However, it sounds like you are giving them preferential treatment. You say it's just different, but then if those differences aren't available to others they might also advantage it is a preferential treatment.
I guess one could argue it's not preferential in that you'd give the same assistance to another ex-addict.
Personally I don't think you have to help everyone just because you're helping someone, ie preferential treatment doesn't seem wrong to me a priori.
Will you quit arguing over such petty differences?! Jesus Christ! People view the world differently, so of course they'll apply different meanings to the same words, and even to the same concepts.
You said he's not wrong, and you're just arguing over semantics. Why argue? Why?
Sorry for not keeping my post cold and logical and HNish, but that's the problem: you're being robotic here and arguing just to argue.
>Will you quit arguing over such petty differences?! Jesus Christ! People view the world differently
Off topic but WRT your response - "people see the world differently" but apparently my fixation on truth isn't allowed?
On topic, why argue? He says that he's not discriminating but he describes discrimination. I simply wanted to point out that apparent contradiction.
Discrimination is some sort of bete noire of corporate society but I find it quite silly to suggest that we should not discriminate for people because of the peculiarities of their personal situations. If you find that robotic I find your response curious but I suspect you won't meet an enquiry about it well so feel free to move on to one of the other 10 million or so comment threads of the day.
>of course they'll apply different meanings to the same words, and even to the same concepts
If you use the same words to mean something else then we need to converse more to establish that which you are trying to communicate.
I'd like to apologize, since I am not a native speaker. So when faced with subtleties I might not perceive them properly. That said I'm aware of what I wrote and how it doesn't make sense.
And now for the record to just rehash what I am doing:
1. The person is obviously being treated differently from others (he is being given a chance),
2. I will not treat his work differently due to his condition. I want him to get up to speed and I'm helping along,
3. He doesn't need blanket pats on the back. He needs them when they're due and he also needs a proverbial kick in the arse when due.
Also, discrimination is a term used when we act negatively towards someone. I'd be discriminating against my mentee if I were telling him that he's no good dimwit. Or are you suggesting that I'm discriminating towards others?
He is differentiating that the past was a problem rather than the present. See, if the guy was a 37yo rookie because of current, actively on-going problems, then the past would still not matter, but there would be good reason to be wary. So finding out that the thing is in the past is an exercise in finding out enough to dismiss qualms.
You are being disingenuous btw -- this is not like the gender question at all.
>You are being disingenuous btw -- this is not like the gender question at all.
I beg to differ. Could you provide some reasoning?
>but there would be good reason to be wary
If you're not discriminating then it doesn't matter if they're a current drug addict, a past drug addict, partner of a drug addict - you judge them solely on their performance at work.
You are disingenuous because you are trying to change the discussion from "does not get preferential treatment" to "is not the subject of discrimination". You realize these are different right? (First clue: there are different words with different definitions and connotations involved).
As for why it is not like the gender question: asking why a 37yo is doing entry level work is asking about things which it can reasonably assumed to be direct consequences of the applicants choices in life. Preselecting on gender is selection based on something the applicant has almost no control over (excluding the extremely tiny portion of post-op transgenders).
Edit: also I'm not blanket saying discrimination is bad, some types of discrimination are OK some aren't. For instance, discriminating based on "this applicant doesn't have the required skills" is perfectly reasonable. Any attempt to claim an all or nothing approach on a vague notion such as discrimination is nearly the definition of disingenuous, so please don't try and play stupid games with that either.
>(First clue: there are different words with different definitions and connotations involved).
Haha, condescending ever.
The connotations are different, that's the slant someone is trying to put on whether their discrimination is good or bad. We change how we act towards one person such that they benefit relative to another's detriment. Whether it be preferential treatment by omission of detriment or preferential treatment by application of benefit if the treatment alters according to the characteristics of the subject then we have discriminated.
discrimination - "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit" (Random House Dictionary)
preference - "a practical advantage given to one over others" (ibid)
>As for why it is not like the gender question: asking why a 37yo is doing entry level work is asking about things which it can reasonably assumed to be direct consequences of the applicants choices in life. Preselecting on gender is selection based on something the applicant has almost no control over (excluding the extremely tiny portion of post-op transgenders).
The question doesn't bother me. I don't think your assumption stands to much inspection - I'm sure you can imagine many scenarios that would leave someone in an "entry level" position against their will. Why does it matter how old the person is, can they do the job, will they do the job? One can change one's age no more easily than one can change one's sex.
>Any attempt to claim an all or nothing approach on a vague notion such as discrimination is nearly the definition of disingenuous, so please don't try and play stupid games with that either.
I love these sorts of closing statements, they must be the thinking man's ad hominem "anything that disagrees with my stated position would be idiocy", that's almost the definition of tiny-minded simpleton. </sarc>
Not sure what you are saying here. Please use grown up sentences.
> The connotations are different, that's the slant someone is trying to put on whether their discrimination is good or bad. We change how we act towards one person such that they benefit relative to another's detriment. Whether it be preferential treatment by omission of detriment or preferential treatment by application of benefit if the treatment alters according to the characteristics of the subject then we have discriminated.
You are a one trick pony -- once again you try to deflect. The guy declared he was not giving someone preferential treatment. It does not matter whether this is by lack of advantage or by taking away disadvantage, non-preferential treatment by definition is not preferential -- therefore no one is getting advantage to another's relative detriment.
> The question doesn't bother me. I don't think your assumption stands to much inspection - I'm sure you can imagine many scenarios that would leave someone in an "entry level" position against their will. Why does it matter how old the person is, can they do the job, will they do the job? One can change one's age no more easily than one can change one's sex.
Hrm.... deflection again! The fact that a reasonable assumption can be made does not eliminate other possibilities. Yes, a person's age is strictly a product of forces outside his control, however getting an entry level position at that age is certainly within his control. Why choose that route? There are other options. Why not choose them. In these cases of choice, it is worthwhile to examine the candidate. See by examining one's choices, you can maybe learn about their ability and willingness to do the job. (remember, these are the things you claim to care about, and now we can learn about them!)
> I love these sorts of closing statements, they must be the thinking man's ad hominem "anything that disagrees with my stated position would be idiocy", that's almost the definition of tiny-minded simpleton. </sarc>
Ohh, man out of nowhere-- deflection! I never saw it coming-- honest. It's not really ad hominem. Not even kind of. Im not even declaring you to be idiotic, in fact, since disingenuous is pretending to know less, I sort of did the opposite. I have no problem even with you disagreeing with my position. I was merely preempting a disingenuous position of moral absolutes being attached to a word that has vague boundaries on its applicability (rendering absolutes impossible). You have clearly demonstrated your understanding of the vague edges of the word discrimination by using it in two different senses already, so any claims of not knowing at this point would be false. Looking up the definition of disingenuous will get you the rest of the way to my statement.
