I have a mini fridge in my office. Because of the recent economic downturn, the higher ups came up with a way to save on energy costs...everyone has to remove their mini fridge.
OK, not a big deal, until one considers that with morale low all this is going to do is piss people off, so I came up with a suggestion. My fridge, according to the usage chart and cost of maintaining it, costs the company $34/year.
I suggested that everyone be given the option, pay $100/year for use of the mini fridge, or give it up entirely. OK, it wouldn't save energy, but if the real objective is to make up a $20,000 energy shortfall then my plan actually puts $66 into the company's pocket. The "luxury" of a fridge in my office is worth the $66. Plus, it gives people the option. The company would actually make money.
The response? No.
Let's go ahead and remove the fridges (thereby unnecessarily pissing people off), then, when people get upset they can collaborate and come up with a solution, perhaps the solution will be the $100. Perhaps it won't.
WTF? Really? When that decision is finally made a year or two from now people will still be pissed off because they lost their fridges in the first place. But we want the solution to be collaborative, so, let's piss everyone off for no reason when a solution already exists that benefits everybody. Don't we have better things to do than this? There is such a thing as common sense. Everything does not have to be a collaborative effort. Granted, I'm writing about it right now, but writing a $100 check would take a hell of a lot less time than sitting in a meeting to solve the "fridge problem."
Comments...
Click the button to