Graduation Stories

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 03:24 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: 1. Then you should talk to the moderators about removing the time date stamp from your posts so people can't tell when you post during business hours.


2. Yes, I asked for a name because I want to know who the owner is.  Because I don't think there is an "owner" so here is another opportunity for you to make me "look like" a "dumbass."



3. So now it's ownerssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss?  Did the staff walk out on the owners or Pence?

4. I have this sneaky suspicion if dozens of staff members decided to call out sick on the same day you would have the same complaint they were disrespectful and insolent to their employer and Pence.


5. Is this based upon your military business experience? Or your HR experience?

6. If they didn't show up for work then their employer would have a valid reason to discipline them or even dismiss them.  If they took a sick day when they weren't sick that would involve lying which is immoral and unethical.  If they took paid sick leave that is fraud.  What is the Army's position when a soldier fakes an injury or illness to avoid work?  That is malingering which is punishable under the UCMJ.

Taking a sick day would be even worse than what they did because at the very least they didn't lie to their employer or get paid to stay home sick when they weren't.

And if dozens of staff members weren't there because they were all suddenly sick on the same day you would still complain about them publicly defying their employer.

1. Or folks could just stop stalking; it's creepy.

2-3. Owner-Owners; Damn those semantics. They walked out on their employer's decision. Pence hadn't even uttered a word. Now who was the other employee that made the decision to invite Pence?

4. How would I know as audience member even know? Hell I'm not even suppose to notice they walked off the stage

5-6. Actually most private businesses use a the term PTO (paid time off). I just used sick day because is more widely used and understood. Emotional health is important too. They needed to take the day, so Pence's speech didn't cause them emotional pain.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 03:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Or folks could just stop stalking; it's creepy.

2-3. Boss-Bosses; Damn those semantics. They walked out on their employer's decision. Pence hadn't even uttered a word.

4. How would I know as audience member even know? Hell I'm not even suppose to notice they walked off the stage

5-6. Actually most private businesses use a the term PTO (paid time off). I just used sick day because is more widely used and understood. Emotional health is important too. They needed to take the day, so Pence's speech didn't cause them emotional pain.

More widely used and understood?  LMAO! I've worked for five different civilian health organizations and every one had separate leave buckets for PTO and paid sick leave.  PTO (paid time off) is your vacation time.  Sick leave is for when you are sick.  PTO has to be scheduled and approved in advance.  Most employers require a doctor's note when taking a sick day, also.  I doubt an HR expert with your business background would suggest someone take a sick day when they really meant take a personal day.

Hell, even the Army has leave, convalescent leave, quarters, or a pass.  You're fooling no one, not even yourself.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 03:49 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: More widely used and understood?  LMAO! I've worked for five different civilian health organizations and every one had separate leave buckets for PTO and paid sick leave.  PTO (paid time off) is your vacation time.  Sick leave is for when you are sick.  PTO has to be scheduled and approved in advance.  Most employers require a doctor's note when taking a sick day, also.  I doubt an HR expert with your business background would suggest someone take a sick day when they really meant take a personal day.

Hell, even the Army has leave, convalescent leave, quarters, or a pass.  You're fooling no one, not even yourself.

You have a good Holiday Weekend.

[Dill]

(05-24-2019, 03:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do we have to imagine, why can't we use what actually happened?

What happened was not in the confines of the classroom, it was not a "walkout" when the decision was made to invite Pence,  it was insolence toward your employer at a public-facing event.

It's great you, Pat, and others know the inner working of the classroom and the educational dynamic in general. The only thing anyone learned on that day is that it is OK (at best) supported (at worst) to defy your organization during a time of celebration because of your personal views

If one partner in a law firm takes on a controversial client prompting another partner to walk out of the room--is the one who walked out "showing insolence to his employer" while "on the clock"?
If an Army E-8 disciplines an E-2 in his unit, how is that framed in military law? Is the E-2 an employee? 

The answer to both questions can be "yes" only when someone cannot view organizations in anything other than the most limited business terms of employer/employee.  Someone answering "yes" would see the same wherever he looked at "what actually happened," though what actually happened cannot be defined independently of institutional mission and regulations.

What "actually happened" in this case happened at a university with shared governance.

What students learned is that one set of university employees can protest bad decisions made by another set of university employees, not "employers," at their own institution. In what you have said so far there is no evidence you value, or even acknowledge/understand, the university's mission to teach engaged critical thinking towards authority--a quality employers generally do not desire in employees.

As point 3 of Taylor's statement on shared governance makes clear, faculty are not simply "employees" who obey "employers,"
Participation of faculty in the governance of the University is a Board of Trustees-delegated right and a responsibility of a scholarly community. Shared governance is essential to sustain and nurture Taylor’s Christian liberal arts academic culture.
Faculty further serve as checks and balances to the board and administration. https://jobs.taylor.edu/faculty/shared-governance.

Great that Pat, I and others know this. Why can't it be great that you know it too? What is blocking the explanation?

[GMDino]

(05-22-2019, 12:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The title of the thread is Graduate Stories so I think where it happened mattered in my scenario. But you did solve the mystery whether you were ignoring here it happened on purpose or accidentally. You're changing the whole issue to I'm upset they criticized their employer, while I've constantly said nothing wrong with it in the proper forum. My view would be unchanged if the walked out on a Clinton. 

So in synapse: You are arguing a point not made. Something that is very prevalent around here. 

(05-23-2019, 05:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And failing to treat them as a business has been the demise of a few. If if I recall from an earlier conversation you are very involved in the business side of higher education. And if you remember from that same conversation, so am I.

To state there's not a difference in the way a public and private institution are funded is absurd and it is the biggest difference. If I am a big endower at a private institution and I have heartburn with staff faculty walking out on my school, a fellow christian, my former Governor, and current VP. It has a tremendous greater impact than if I'm that same person at a public university.  And the private institution may be much more motivated to give me satisfaction.

(05-23-2019, 05:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I ignoring nothing and Disagree all you want, but if you work at a private institution; I'd recommend you be prepared to reap the consequences of your actions and what exactly your job duties may entail. It's all in the wording: You say they walked out on a political speech and I say they walked out on a school function.

(05-23-2019, 05:46 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course HR is business in the traditional sense. I don't know if they violated their contract; however, at a private Christian institution I wouldn't be surprised if they were required to sign some sort of morality agreement.  Does failing to support; moreover, showing insolence toward your organization at one of their public-facing functions violate that agreement? IDK. But if it does not whomever wrote it is an idiot.

(05-23-2019, 06:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't think political protest is immoral. But that's not what happened here; they protested their institution. 

But you're entitled to your opinion.

(05-24-2019, 10:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. I get phrasing that way makes it seem better for those that left the school function. Do you have a list of other events these professor have protested Pence. If the answer is no; then my point is made.

2. I blame me for the confusion

3. You have no idea what affect it had on the ceremony.

4. That's because you're a Liberal and I'm a Conservative. My assertion is "express" all you want, but be prepared to accept the consequences if your "expression" shows insolence toward your employer. 

(05-24-2019, 10:39 AM)bfine32 Wrote: As I told Matt: You view it from an ideological Liberal view. I view it as a business decision. It's good to be able to keep your head in the clouds.

(05-24-2019, 11:33 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. They protested the part of the ceremony of which they disagreed with their employer's decision. They used this school function to do so.

2. I've already stated it beats booing and staying

3. As I said Liberal/Conservative.

(05-24-2019, 01:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually Wednesday was my Birthday, I took the day off. This whole thing is getting kind of creepy.

Your the one that said another employee but ask me for a name when I said most likely the owner.

The Board does not own the University but they definitely speak for and execute the wishes of the owners. That's if they want to remain in business.

(05-24-2019, 03:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why do we have to imagine, why can't we use what actually happened?

What happened was not in the confines of the classroom, it was not a "walkout" when the decision was made to invite Pence,  it was insolence toward your employer at a public-facing event.

It's great you, Pat, and others know the inner working of the classroom and the educational dynamic in general. The only thing anyone learned on that day is that it is OK (at best) supported (at worst) to defy your organization during a time of celebration because of your personal views

(05-24-2019, 03:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. Or folks could just stop stalking; it's creepy.

2-3. Owner-Owners; Damn those semantics. They walked out on their employer's decision. Pence hadn't even uttered a word. Now who was the other employee that made the decision to invite Pence?

4. How would I know as audience member even know? Hell I'm not even suppose to notice they walked off the stage

5-6. Actually most private businesses use a the term PTO (paid time off). I just used sick day because is more widely used and understood. Emotional health is important too. They needed to take the day, so Pence's speech didn't cause them emotional pain.

Are you SURE it's not about the employer?

'Cause it sure reads like your upset at their "insolence" at their employer.



Actually I'd understand your continuing this if you admitted said it was because you support Pence as a Republican and a Christian.  At least that would be more believable than you just can't stand the thought of someone quietly walking out before a guest speaker because it is "disrespectful" to the "employer".

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 03:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You have a good Holiday Weekend.

Thanks. I'm planning on calling out sick on Tuesday to extend my weekend.  Because it's pretty widely understood in the business community employers don't frown on absenteeism and they generally lack a policy on progressive discipline in the workplace.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 04:27 PM)GMDino Wrote:











Are you SURE it's not about the employer?

'Cause it sure reads like your upset at their "insolence" at their employer.



Actually I'd understand your continuing this if you admitted said it was because you support Pence as a Republican and a Christian.  At least that would be more believable than you just can't stand the thought of someone quietly walking out before a guest speaker because it is "disrespectful" to the "employer".

Think you're pretty much to only one that fails to understand that my issue is with the venue. Hell in my latest comment I told Dill it was different because it was not in the confines of the classroom or a walkout once the decision was made.

But we've already determined you are purposely doing so in an attempt at gotcha.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-24-2019, 04:25 PM)Dill Wrote: If one partner in a law firm takes on a controversial client prompting another partner to walk out of the room--is the one who walked out "showing insolence to his employer" while "on the clock"?
If an Army E-8 disciplines an E-2 in his unit, how is that framed in military law? Is the E-2 an employee? 

The answer to both questions can be "yes" only when someone cannot view organizations in anything other than the most limited business terms of employer/employee.  Someone answering "yes" would see the same wherever he looked at "what actually happened," though what actually happened cannot be defined independently of institutional mission and regulations.

What "actually happened" in this case happened at a university with shared governance.

What students learned is that one set of university employees can protest bad decisions made by another set of university employees, not "employers," at their own institution. In what you have said so far there is no evidence you value, or even acknowledge/understand, the university's mission to teach engaged critical thinking towards authority--a quality employers generally do not desire in employees.

As point 3 of Taylor's statement on shared governance makes clear, faculty are not simply "employees" who obey "employers,"
Participation of faculty in the governance of the University is a Board of Trustees-delegated right and a responsibility of a scholarly community. Shared governance is essential to sustain and nurture Taylor’s Christian liberal arts academic culture.
Faculty further serve as checks and balances to the board and administration. https://jobs.taylor.edu/faculty/shared-governance.

Great that Pat, I and others know this. Why can't it be great that you know it too? What is blocking the explanation?

What?!  I don't think that is how the chain of command works.  If someone decided Pence could talk at graduation then they must be signing the checks.  Or at least the boss of everyone at the graduation ceremony.

Mind. Blown.

[Dill]

(05-24-2019, 04:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Think you're pretty much to only one that fails to understand that my issue is with the venue. Hell in my latest comment I told Dill it was different because it was not in the confines of the classroom or a walkout once the decision was made.

But we've already determined you are purposely doing so in an attempt at gotcha.

And Dill explained why, classroom or no, "what actually happened" was not all about "employees" failing to "execute the wishes of their employers."

No evidence in any of your statements yet that you understand what shared governance is, that U administrators are "employees" too, or that this walkout has boosted and positively affirmed the reputation of Taylor.

[GMDino]

(05-24-2019, 04:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Think you're pretty much to only one that fails to understand that my issue is with the venue. Hell in my latest comment I told Dill it was different because it was not in the confines of the classroom or a walkout once the decision was made.

But we've already determined you are purposely doing so in an attempt at gotcha.

Absolutely not!

I am pointing out that your "problem" with the walkout is that they were "insolent" toward their employer.  That is what you have said over and over.  It should make no difference where and when it happened.  "Insolence" is the same whether in private or when St. Pence is preaching the good gospel of Trump any speaker is there. 

Rational people think that quietly walking out before the speaker ever takes the stage is fine. Some think it is a direct attack on the employers decisions worthy of discipline.

And they MAY be disciplined.  But your argument as to why is silly.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 04:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: Absolutely not!

I am pointing out that your "problem" with the walkout is that they were "insolent" toward their employer.  That is what you have said over and over.  It should make no difference where and when it happened.  "Insolence" is the same whether in private or when St. Pence is preaching the good gospel of Trump any speaker is there. 

Rational people think that quietly walking out before the speaker ever takes the stage is fine. Some think it is a direct attack on the employers decisions worthy of discipline.

And they MAY be disciplined.  But your argument as to why is silly.

Go back and see how many times I've said "in a public-facing event' and other terms describing the location and you might begin to see.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 04:47 PM)Dill Wrote: And Dill explained why, classroom or no, "what actually happened" was not all about "employees" failing to "execute the wishes of their employers."

No evidence in any of your statements yet that you understand what shared governance is, that U administrators are "employees" too, or that this walkout has boosted and positively affirmed the reputation of Taylor.

You've explain nothing more than your opinion.

No evidence that i understand shared governance, not even when asked to clarify bosses, in said it this case the Board of Governance?

Why would Taylor care if it boosts their reputation or not? It's not like they're a business that would like to increase revenue. It's simply a wear crocs and exchange ideas.

[GMDino]

(05-24-2019, 04:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Go back and see how many times I've said "in a public-facing event' and other terms describing the location and you might begin to see.

I know what you wrote.

Go back and see how many times you said they were insolent or disrespectful to their employer without saying where it happened.

It's silly.

But I won't stop you from trying to ague your way out of a corner.

Have a great weekend!

[Dill]

(05-24-2019, 04:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What?!  I don't think that is how the chain of command works.  If someone decided Pence could talk at graduation then they must be signing the checks.  Or at least the boss of everyone at the graduation ceremony.

Mind. Blown.

It's just like the military, where the colonel manages a brigade and hires the soldiers, signs their checks, and fires them if they don't "execute his wishes." 

If the brigade does not turn a profit for two quarters running, the colonel is demoted or fired by the owner or his board of directors.

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 04:54 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know what you wrote.

Go back and see how many times you said they were insolent or disrespectful to their employer without saying where it happened.

It's silly.

But I won't stop you from trying to ague your way out of a corner.

Have a great weekend!

Who knew you had to say it every time when you've already made the point clear?

It's beyond silly

I live in round rooms

You too. take time to remember the fallen.

[Dill]

(05-24-2019, 04:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote:
You've explain nothing more than your opinion.

No evidence that i understand shared governance, not even when asked to clarify bosses, in said it this case the Board of Governance?

Why would Taylor care if it boosts their reputation or not? It's not like they're a business that would like to increase revenue. It's simply a wear crocs and exchange ideas.

It's my "opinion" that universities, including Taylor, operate under shared governance? (link provided in post # 104 above.) Your claim that disgruntled employees dissed their "owners" is not opinion?

And yes, no evidence you understand shared governance when you continue to describe the employees who engaged Pence to speak as "employers" and faculty as THEIR disrespectful "employees."  All you've done now is move the Board to the "owners" position on your business organization chart, with no sense of their accountability in the checks and balances of governance.

Faculty voted 61-49 against the Pence invite, i.e., faculty voice was dissed in this case
https://www.theechonews.com/article/2019/04/commencement-stirs-controversy

As was the voice of students who mustered an online protest with 8,000 signatures.
Protest U.S. Vice President Pence Delivering Commencement Address at Taylor University
https://www.change.org/p/taylor-university-president-paul-lowell-haines-protest-vice-president-mike-pence-at-taylor-university-commencement-ceremony?recruiter=951596827&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&recruited_by_id=4db03280-5c76-11e9-b1eb-79afc2552f3f

"Employees" don't have a voice in what an OWNER does with his business. How is it that faculty have, by law, a voice in what administrators and board do with a university?

This is not Pence's first controversy, by the way. Students walked when he spoke at the Notre Dame graduation in 2017. That university broke its tradition of inviting newly inaugurated presidents to speak and refused to invite Trump. Politics before anyone spoke anywhere.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 05:20 PM)Dill Wrote: It's my "opinion" that universities, including Taylor, operate under shared governance? (link provided in post # 104 above.) Your claim that disgruntled employees dissed their "owners" is not opinion?

And yes, no evidence you understand shared governance when you continue to describe the employees who engaged Pence to speak as "employers" and faculty as THEIR disrespectful "employees."  All you've done now is move the Board to the "owners" position on your business organization chart, with no sense of their accountability in the checks and balances of governance.

Faculty voted 61-49 against the Pence invite, i.e., faculty voice was dissed in this case
https://www.theechonews.com/article/2019/04/commencement-stirs-controversy

As was the voice of students who mustered an online protest with 8,000 signatures.
Protest U.S. Vice President Pence Delivering Commencement Address at Taylor University
https://www.change.org/p/taylor-university-president-paul-lowell-haines-protest-vice-president-mike-pence-at-taylor-university-commencement-ceremony?recruiter=951596827&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=psf_combo_share_initial&recruited_by_id=4db03280-5c76-11e9-b1eb-79afc2552f3f

"Employees" don't have a voice in what an OWNER does with his business. How is it that faculty have, by law, a voice in what administrators and board do with a university?

This is not Pence's first controversy, by the way. Students walked when he spoke at the Notre Dame graduation in 2017. That university broke its tradition of inviting newly inaugurated presidents to speak and refused to invite Trump. Politics before anyone spoke anywhere.  

So if these "non-employees" had a voice in what the OWNER does, and the majority voted he not speak, why did he speak? 

But I will say kudos to the vast majority of faculty who didn't walk out given the majority vote. But of course they chose not to make the event about themselves.


EDIT: MY POINT IS THE PUBLIC-FACING EVENT AT WHICH IT HAPPEN.......whew dodged a bullet.

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2019, 05:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  But of course they chose not to make the event about themselves.

This broad brush portrayal of any type of protest being a selfish act is troubling.

I understand some people being sensitive about the people they support being protested, but to suggest that any type of protest at any time is improper is actually kind of scary.  Blind obedience to authority leads to a lot of problems.

This was actually one of the more respectful demonstrations.  They got up and left and allowed him to speak without interruption.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-24-2019, 06:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This broad brush portrayal of any type of protest being a selfish act is troubling.

I understand some people being sensitive about the people they support being protested, but to suggest that any type of protest at any time is improper is actually kind of scary.  Blind obedience to authority leads to a lot of problems.

This was actually one of the more respectful demonstrations.  They got up and left and allowed him to speak without interruption.  

Why did the majority of the staff vote against Pence speaking; yet the vast majority remained while he did?

Because they were adults. As I said I have 0 issue with the kids walking out (protesting) or audience members walking out; It's their ceremony. But a handful of faculty chose to make this graduation about them. 

[fredtoast]

(05-24-2019, 06:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why did the majority of the staff vote against Pence speaking; yet the vast majority remained while he did?

Because they were adults. As I said I have 0 issue with the kids walking out (protesting) or audience members walking out; It's their ceremony. But a handful of faculty chose to make this graduation about them. 

If you are just going to keep repeating yourself then I will just keep repeating myself.

(05-24-2019, 06:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This broad brush portrayal of any type of protest being a selfish act is troubling.

I understand some people being sensitive about the people they support being protested, but to suggest that any type of protest at any time is improper is actually kind of scary.  Blind obedience to authority leads to a lot of problems.

Maybe you need to brush up on American history before you accuse everyone who ever protests of not being an "adult".  In fact it is often the WEAK who are afraid to take a stand.

Blind obedience to authority can be a problem.