Whining Thread #2

Lioness

Well-Known Member
I think it just comes down to individual styles of getting through things...I like to have the comfort of a close friend or SO, he prefers to get through most things by himself. That's fine by me...just a little hard to understand initially.
 

pygmalion

Well-Known Member
You're very smart. :)

That's the important part -- your willingness to allow him to get through things his way coupled with his willingness to allow you to get through things your way. Makes the world go round. :)
 

Peaches

Well-Known Member
Nope...just an ordinary spin class.

I don't think it's a case of not wanting me to know something. It's more likely that he just doesn't want anyone to see something he regards as a really dumb mistake. He's pretty embarrassed about it all.
I think you've it the nail on the head. Regardless of if you're the type to want friends for support or prefer to get through things on your own, there is a lot of shame involved. A lot. I can totally understand not wanting anyone else to witness that. DH went through something extremely similar this time last year, and he was the same as your BF. He asked me not to be around. He was having a hard enough time facing himself and the people he had to face; he didn't want to have to face me as well. It's not easy, and it won't be easy for either you or him.
 

pygmalion

Well-Known Member
Any word on sequestration? (Is that a word?) I heard on the radio today that, if the cuts go into effect, thousands of military personnel will get automatic pay cuts and may be furloughed up to twenty-two days in the coming year. Twenty-two days. That's basically a month's pay cut with no warning. Not pretty. :( Yeah. I know. $5 billion won't come easy, but I'm thinking about those military families who really, really need to get paid. *sigh*
 

fascination

Site Moderator
Staff member
I hear you...but let's tread very lightly on issues which could become highly charged issues of a political nature....since this forum does not wish to engage in matters of that sort....(in the event that new members have not familiarized themselves with guidelines)
 

NURDRMS

Well-Known Member
Any word on sequestration? (Is that a word?) I heard on the radio today that, if the cuts go into effect, thousands of military personnel will get automatic pay cuts and may be furloughed up to twenty-two days in the coming year. Twenty-two days. That's basically a month's pay cut with no warning. Not pretty. :( Yeah. I know. $5 billion won't come easy, but I'm thinking about those military families who really, really need to get paid. *sigh*
It's the Government civilian employees who are threatened with 22 days of furlough, not uniformed service members. But it impacts us all since those of us not furloughed will have to do their work as well as our own. Because our mission will still be there, money or not.
 

pygmalion

Well-Known Member
It's the Government civilian employees who are threatened with 22 days of furlough, not uniformed service members. But it impacts us all since those of us not furloughed will have to do their work as well as our own. Because our mission will still be there, money or not.

Oh. Thanks for clarifying. :cool: There goes DS's summer internship. *sigh* But not his child support. *evil grin*
 

Peaches

Well-Known Member
Oh. Thanks for clarifying. :cool: There goes DS's summer internship. *sigh* But not his child support. *evil grin*
Maybe, maybe not. Different agencies are handling things different ways. My uncle has gotten a furlough notice. I have not yet received one. It depends on the way each agency is handling things, and how they get classified. (We have brought on probably four new people in the last month, which goes to show that there is quite a lag between funding approval and what is happening now. Sometimes.)
 

Peaches

Well-Known Member
It's the Government civilian employees who are threatened with 22 days of furlough, not uniformed service members. But it impacts us all since those of us not furloughed will have to do their work as well as our own. Because our mission will still be there, money or not.
Also to note: last I read, the plan was to furlough one day a week for twenty-two weeks. Not good, but probably more easily absorbed than three weeks without pay all at once.
 

pygmalion

Well-Known Member
Maybe, maybe not. Different agencies are handling things different ways. My uncle has gotten a furlough notice. I have not yet received one. It depends on the way each agency is handling things, and how they get classified. (We have brought on probably four new people in the last month, which goes to show that there is quite a lag between funding approval and what is happening now. Sometimes.)

I hear ya, and you could be right. Heck. This whole sequester thingie might not even happen. But, even though DS's internship is technically an, "unpaid volunteer assignment," for the federal government, somebody has to be paid to coach and monitor him.

And if (as I hear may be true) major projects at the NIH are at risk of losing some funding, I can't see geeky guys who noodle around with high tech gadgets going on with business as usual.
 

Purr

Well-Known Member
It's the Government civilian employees who are threatened with 22 days of furlough, not uniformed service members. But it impacts us all since those of us not furloughed will have to do their work as well as our own. Because our mission will still be there, money or not.
And I'm one of the civilian employees threatened with a furlough. :eek:
 
I know I shouldn't complain. It beats the heck out of not getting a raise (let alone not being employed), but egads, do I despise the whole "self-evaluation" portion of the annual performance review.
 

Lioness

Well-Known Member
My manager is so unprofessional. We work in retail. This means you don't take a 3hr break in the middle of the day to go pick your relative up from the airport. It means you say "sorry, I'm working" if she complains. You can't leave a store short-staffed for 3 hours because you don't feel like bring there.
 

pygmalion

Well-Known Member
Hmm. I don't see it that way. Three hours away from work is about work. Not picking up your relative is about family. To me, family trumps work every time. To me, what your manager could have done was try to find someone to cover those three hours for her/him.
 

Lioness

Well-Known Member
Hmm. I don't see it that way. Three hours away from work is about work. Not picking up your relative is about family. To me, family trumps work every time. To me, what your manager could have done was try to find someone to cover those three hours for her/him.
I agree for medical situations, and emergency stuff, but our city has a good public transport network, and the airport is only 15 minutes from town.
As an ordinary employee, there'd be no way I'd be allowed to leave for 3 hours in the middle of my shift. I don't see how it should be any different for a manager
 

Dance Ads