[Annoy] What's something small that really annoys you?

Forums › Off topic › [Annoy] What's something small that really annoys you?

1 | ... | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | ... | 1944

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1653060 18-Oct-2016 16:39

Geektastic:

I know. I used to have to sign Helen Clark's mobile phone bills (along with all the Cabinet Minister's bills). I asked why.

"To authorise them for payment."

"Umm. So, if I refuse to sign, you won't pay the PM's phone bill and her mobile will be cut off?"

"Well, no. Of course not. That wouldn't happen."

"So why am I wasting time every month doing this again?"

"To authorise them for payment. It says you have to in the rules."

"Doh."

It helps prevent fraud, reference Otago Health

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

richms

29098 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10208

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1653082 18-Oct-2016 17:39

MikeB4:

It helps prevent fraud, reference Otago Health

Or mediaworks... That is a whopper of a failure in process there.

Richard rich.ms

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1653201 18-Oct-2016 22:59

MikeB4:

It helps prevent fraud, reference Otago Health

Given how many internal and external audits that one got through before the penny dropped, I'm not sure if it's in the same league. They probably had a process in place to do just that - check phone bills - as well.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1653208 18-Oct-2016 23:45

It helps prevent fraud...if your Prime Minister is the type of person who does that. I suppose...

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1653225 19-Oct-2016 07:02

Geektastic:
It helps prevent fraud...if your Prime Minister is the type of person who does that. I suppose...

No, it helps prevent others from defrauding by putting through false invoicing etc. Something as a senior manager in a Government department I was trained for and constantly vigilant for.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1653259 19-Oct-2016 07:54

MikeB4:
Geektastic:

It helps prevent fraud...if your Prime Minister is the type of person who does that. I suppose...

No, it helps prevent others from defrauding by putting through false invoicing etc. Something as a senior manager in a Government department I was trained for and constantly vigilant for.

But what if you were "in on it"?

I presume the Otago DHB thought they were vigilant, I think PWC were auditing them. On one hand there's perhaps an assumption that because they got away with it for so long, then it must have been a "sophisticated scheme" - but from what I see it was just a typical false invoicing scheme. Invoices for IT services quite a good idea with a large organisation using outside services. Then there's the flawed logic that goes along the lines of "they'll always get caught - in the end". Well... - actually only the ones that get caught get caught, the ones that don't get caught tend to keep quiet about it.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1653300 19-Oct-2016 08:49

Fred99:

But what if you were "in on it"?

I presume the Otago DHB thought they were vigilant, I think PWC were auditing them. On one hand there's perhaps an assumption that because they got away with it for so long, then it must have been a "sophisticated scheme" - but from what I see it was just a typical false invoicing scheme. Invoices for IT services quite a good idea with a large organisation using outside services. Then there's the flawed logic that goes along the lines of "they'll always get caught - in the end". Well... - actually only the ones that get caught get caught, the ones that don't get caught tend to keep quiet about it.

There are checks and multiple authentication in the process, however as I said it "helps" prevent fraud.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Lizard1977

2133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 624

ID Verified

#1653322 19-Oct-2016 09:20

Geektastic:

Behodar:

Geektastic: Possibly; idiot rules are found in most workplaces IME!

I had a good laugh the other day; the chief executive announced a project to reduce the number of policies by an order of magnitude, as many of them are outdated or simply common sense. Twenty minutes later she's talking about introducing a new policy for something else...

I know. I used to have to sign Helen Clark's mobile phone bills (along with all the Cabinet Minister's bills). I asked why.

"To authorise them for payment."

"Umm. So, if I refuse to sign, you won't pay the PM's phone bill and her mobile will be cut off?"

"Well, no. Of course not. That wouldn't happen."

"So why am I wasting time every month doing this again?"

"To authorise them for payment. It says you have to in the rules."

"Doh."

At a conference I went to last year someone offered up a quote (forgot who it was from), along the lines of "Policy is organisational scar tissue, a punishment for the transgressions of the past." As a person who writes policy professionally, I was a little affronted but also amused, as it's not completely wrong. A lot of policy is written as an overreaction to a past problem, or sometimes a perceived problem with an inflated risk assessment. Policy usually (but not always) starts out as a good idea, but the rationale and reasoning can often get lost over time, and people end up blindly following policy without understanding why.

My counterpoint to the "organisational scar tissue" quote would be that policy is a substitute for independent thinking. Many organisations develop policy to avoid giving employees too much discretion or control ("just follow the policy"), or to absolve them of responsibility in the face of tricky situations ("I'm just following policy"). I make a point of following through any project I'm working on to explain to those people who have to enact a policy why it's there (they don't have to agree with the reason, but they do need to understand it), why it's important, and what would happen if it wasn't there. The problem is, over time, people move on and a lot of that information gets lost or muddled, and that's generally how policy gets a bad rap when people find themselves confronted with yet another "dumb" policy.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1653349 19-Oct-2016 10:15

Lizard1977:

At a conference I went to last year someone offered up a quote (forgot who it was from), along the lines of "Policy is organisational scar tissue, a punishment for the transgressions of the past." As a person who writes policy professionally, I was a little affronted but also amused, as it's not completely wrong. A lot of policy is written as an overreaction to a past problem, or sometimes a perceived problem with an inflated risk assessment. Policy usually (but not always) starts out as a good idea, but the rationale and reasoning can often get lost over time, and people end up blindly following policy without understanding why.

My counterpoint to the "organisational scar tissue" quote would be that policy is a substitute for independent thinking. Many organisations develop policy to avoid giving employees too much discretion or control ("just follow the policy"), or to absolve them of responsibility in the face of tricky situations ("I'm just following policy"). I make a point of following through any project I'm working on to explain to those people who have to enact a policy why it's there (they don't have to agree with the reason, but they do need to understand it), why it's important, and what would happen if it wasn't there. The problem is, over time, people move on and a lot of that information gets lost or muddled, and that's generally how policy gets a bad rap when people find themselves confronted with yet another "dumb" policy.

One of the last organisations I worked for, we stored food and food grade product in warehouses around the country, poo from assorted vermin a potentially serious contamination issue. Documenting policy however, the end result was a 100 page thesis within the mountain of warehousing policy. It went in to great detail, the person with the policy document on his desk would be able to identify if the poo was pigeon, starling, or sparrow, mouse, rattus or norwegicus depending on the gloss on the turd. Then intricate detail about lifestyle, habits, zoonotic diseases transmitted and their consequence, down to descriptions of arthropod vectors of diseases that nobody has ever heard of for hundreds of years. There were photos of the bloody things in the internal policy document. As a regional manager, I was affronted by this huge waste of time and effort, especially as it had taken the national distribution manager half his career to write - during which time maintaining normal operation seemed to have been an afterthought. It made absolutely no difference at all to operations - the whole thing could have been avoided and summed up in a few short lines:

Employ standards approved experts to inspect warehouse, implement preventative measures, check at recognised standard intervals, and deal with any problem if found.
If problem is observed or reported in between checks - call in experts as above.

Too much policy IMO turns what should be simple - in to rocket science.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1653351 19-Oct-2016 10:19

MikeB4:

There are checks and multiple authentication in the process, however as I said it "helps" prevent fraud.

In the example @Geektastic gave - serious mobile telephone account fraud by politicians.

Trump would stamp out that kind of thing - put them in prison, you betcha, make the place great again.

vexxxboy

4336 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2072

#1653353 19-Oct-2016 10:21

people who park facing the traffic, not only illegal but how lazy are you that you cant walk across the road like normal people.

Common sense is not as common as you think.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1653363 19-Oct-2016 10:33

vexxxboy:

people who park facing the traffic, not only illegal but how lazy are you that you cant walk across the road like normal people.

As a point of general knowledge, doing that is not illegal in many places - UK for example - and I can't really see the point of the rule.

Better to prevent people parking as close to junctions as they currently can - it really obscures vision for other drivers.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19062 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16302

Lifetime subscriber

#1653393 19-Oct-2016 11:02

New Zealand is the only place I know of that has this parking rule. I also don't see the point of it. If traffic is light there is nothing dangerous about parking on the other side.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1653424 19-Oct-2016 11:21

Rikkitic:

New Zealand is the only place I know of that has this parking rule. I also don't see the point of it. If traffic is light there is nothing dangerous about parking on the other side.

I prefer our system as opposed to the mess overseas. To park and exit you are driving against traffic flow which is dangerous. It is safer if parking is only done on the side you are travelling, U turns to park should be illegal.

One thing I would like changed is with angle parking it would make more sense the angle the parks so that reversing into the park is done. Sighting traffic would be easier when parking and exiting.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1653425 19-Oct-2016 11:22

Teams of consultants working on details of new OSH policy document:

1 | ... | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | ... | 1944