No Management Lessons at Justice

Posted on April 19, 2007
Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment

For an Administration that’s supposed to have special identity with corporate interests, there are no management lessons in the appearances of Attorney General Gonzales before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

An example: The Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. Attorney for San Diego, Carol Lam, was fired supposedly because of problems with her approach to immigration enforcement. Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked in today’s resumed hearing whether Ms. Lam had ever been told there were problems with her immigration performance. (Both Ms. Lam and former Gonzales aide Kyle Sampson had earlier testified that she wasn’t so informed.)

“Mr. Gonzales said,” The Journal reports, “that Ms. Lam ‘was aware that there was concern’ and that members of Congress had complained, but said that perhaps she hadn’t been told that if she didn’t beef up her immigration cases, ‘there will be a change.’ Mr. Gonzales said that he didn’t remember the reasons for firing Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas and Margaret Chiara of Michigan.”

One of the most elementary tennets of good employee-management relationships, and simple fairness, is that if there are “performance problems,” an employee is advised of them (with specific instances) and given a chance to respond and correct them, if correction is called for.

This is an example of inept management technique, however the attorney general seeks to justify the firings. No one would want to work for a boss like this. There are no management lessons here, except dire ones – how not to relate to employees, of whatever level, in whatever capacity. Corporate America has come much further than this, one hopes.

Long-Term-Care Hassles

Posted on April 18, 2007
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment

Long-term care insurance is purchased by people acting prudently in anticipation of the time when they might no longer be able to care for themselves in their own homes, but could have someone else help them stay in their homes. A perfectly reasonable, responsible – and expensive – purchase to make.

Yet The New York Times reports that, often, the insurance companies create hassles over long-term care policies rather than make good on them when they are needed.

“Thousands of policyholders say they have received only excuses about why insurers will not pay. Interviews by The New York Times and confidential dispositions indicate that some long-term-care insurers have developed procedures that make it difficult – if not impossible – for policyholders to get paid. A review of more than 400 of the thousands of grievances and lawsuits filed in recent years shows elderly policyholders confronting unnecessary delays and overwhelming bureaucracies…”

Then, in a totally appalling comment, Mary Beth Senkewicz, who resigned last year as a senior executive at the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, is quoted as saying, “The bottom line is that insurance companies make money when they don’t pay claims. They’ll do anything to avoid paying, because if they wait long enough, they know the policyholders will die.”

As could be expected, the insurance companies quoted in response righteously say they are “committed to the highest standards, fairness and accountability” and strive to pay claims promptly.

So where do all the complaints and lawsuits come from? Prudent people don’t complain or hire lawyers when there is no need for redress. The allegations against the insurers have a tragic ring of authenticity in a society that, too often, pits corporate power against aggrieved individuals. This time, it’s people who acted prudently and now, in their infirm years, are hassled instead of helped.

Some ethics, insurance guys.

Guns for ‘Loners’

Posted on April 18, 2007
Filed Under Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Gun control in action:

In the Virginia Tech massacre, a lengthy AP story recounts all the ways in which the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, displayed hostility and aroused uneasiness, was even referred to counselling, acting as a classic troubled “loner.”

Then, toward the end, the story advises:

“Roanoke Firearms owner John Markell said his shop sold the Glock (9 mm pistol) and a b ox of practice ammo to Cho 36 days ago for $571.

“‘He was a nice, clean-cut college kid. We don’t sell a gun if we have any idea at all that a purchase is suspicious,’ Markell said.”

This is gun control? That’s a “background check?” A troubled kid walks into a gun shop, makes nice during the purchase, and walks out with a killing tool. The owner uses his intuition to collect $571 from “a nice, clean-cut college kid” who went on to shoot more than 40 people, killing 32 of them and, finally, himself.

When will the U.S. quit kidding itself about handguns?

Recently


Categories


Archives