Skip to main content

"Working" in a HR gibberish environment - or face the sack!

There is just no doubting what gibberish (aka rubbish!) and absolute nonsense the HR people will come up with.....

"It may be a new low in human resources gibberish.

But the fun crowd at retailer Cotton On have told staff they need to "keep it real" or face the sack.


A leaked copy of Cotton On's code of conduct tells its staff it is "unacceptable" when working with colleagues or customers, to be anything but "fun" and "keeping it real". No ifs or buts. Failure to do so can result in being fired on the spot.


Less well defined in the document is what "keeping it real" means. The Online Slang Dictionary tells us that to "keep it real" is to "stay true to one's self; to resist the temptation to be fake". One claim is that the origins of the phrase emerged out of hip-hop culture in New York in the late 1970s and early 1980s.


Employment lawyers, no doubt, would enjoy an unfair dismissal case in the Fair Work Commission for a worker sacked for not being real or fun.


But executives at Cotton On, a multinational headquartered in Geelong, are clearly serious.
Under a section titled headed "unacceptable conduct" it warns "any team member found engaging in any of the below acts will be subject to disciplinary action which may include counselling, warnings, or instant dismissal".


That includes not following Cotton On Group's values such as "Fun, Entrepreneurial, Keeping it real, Family, Ethical and Engaged."



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...