Dilbert received a resignation letter. (OT)

thomastem · #1 08-23-2004, 09:32 AM

Dear Dilbert,

As a graduate of an institution of higher education, I have a few very basic expectations. Chief among these is that my direct superiors have an intellect that ranges above the common ground squirrel. After your consistent and annoying harassment of my co-workers and me during the commission of our duties, I can only surmise that you are one of the few true genetic wastes of our time.

Asking me, a network administrator, to explain every little nuance of everything I do each time you happen to stroll into my office is not only a waste of time, but also a waste of precious oxygen. I was hired because I know how to network computer systems, and you were apparently hired to provide amusement to myself and other employees, who watch you vainly attempt to understand the concept of "cut and paste" for the hundredth time.

You will never understand computers. Something as incredibly simple as binary still gives you too many options. You will also never understand why people hate you, but I am going to try and explain it to you, even though I am sure this will be just as effective as telling you what an IP is. Your shiny new iMac has more personality than you ever will.

You walk around the building all day, shiftlessly looking for fault in others. You have a sharp dressed useless look about you that may have worked for your interview, but now that you actually have responsibility, you pawn it off on overworked staff, hoping their talent will cover for your glaring ineptitude. In a world of managerial evolution, you are the blue-green algae that everyone else eats and laughs at. Managers like you are a sad proof of the Dilbert principle. Since this situation is unlikely to change without you getting a full frontal lobotomy reversal, I am forced to tender my resignation, however I have a few parting thoughts.

1. When someone calls you in reference to employment, it is illegal for you to give me a bad recommendation. The most you can say to hurt me is "I prefer not to comment." I will have friends randomly call you over the next couple of years to keep you honest, because I know you would be unable to do it on your own.

2. I have all the passwords to every account on the system, and I know every password you have used for the last five years. If you decide to get cute, I am going to publish your "favorites list", which I conveniently saved when you made me "back up" your useless files. I do believe that terms like "Lolita" are not usually viewed favorably by the administration.

3. When you borrowed the digital camera to "take pictures of your Mother's birthday," you neglected to mention that you were going to take pictures of yourself in the mirror nude. Then you forgot to erase them like the techno-moron you really are. Suffice it to say I have never seen such odd acts with a sauce bottle, but I assure you that those have been copied and kept in safe places pending the authoring of a glowing letter of recommendation. (Try to use a spell check please; I hate having to correct your mistakes.)

Thank you for your time, and I expect the letter of recommendation on my desk by 8:00 am tomorrow. One word of this to anybody, and all of your little twisted repugnant obsessions will be open to the public. Never f*** with your systems administrator. Why? Because they know what you do with all that free time!

Wishing you a grand and glorious day,

Cecelia

elwoodblues · #2 08-23-2004, 10:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
When someone calls you in reference to employment, it is illegal for you to give me a bad recommendation

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Do people actually believe this to be true?

The once and future king · #3 08-23-2004, 10:21 AM

Whats your next move?

thomastem · #4 08-23-2004, 10:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Whats your next move?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not quite sure. What would you suggest?

Or were you asking what Cecilia's next move is?

B Dids · #5 08-23-2004, 10:46 AM

In a "right to work" state, it's very, very true.

The once and future king · #6 08-23-2004, 10:57 AM

Would not the content of the letter be blackmail?

Raise the stakes then bluff her down.

Your first move should be to show her you are unphased by her having possesion of the sauce bottle photos by using those said same photos as your avatar in this forum.

That is the tight aggresive move.

elwoodblues · #7 08-23-2004, 10:59 AM

It's only defamation if it is false. Further, mere opinions (as opposed to a statement of fact) fall under a qualified privilege. Finally, there is a conditional privilege in the following circumstances:

Under many circumstances, a former employer of a servant is conditionally privileged to make a defamatory communication about the character or conduct of the servant to a present or prospective employer. The defamatory imputations, however, must be made for the purpose of enabling that person to protect his own interest, and they must be reasonably calculated to do so. Accordingly, only information that is likely to affect the honesty and efficiency of the servant's work comes within the privilege . . . . Imputations that have no connection with the work that the servant is to perform, or with the position that he will occupy in the third person's employment, are outside the scope of the privilege.

Oski · #8 08-23-2004, 11:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When someone calls you in reference to employment, it is illegal for you to give me a bad recommendation

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Do people actually believe this to be true?

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't bore you with the whole story:

1. I worked in a law office;
2. Lunatic temp, male-secretary hired;
3. Office Manager not sure how to fire him;
4. He gets gradually weirder, talks about having a hit list;
5. One Friday afternoon (I was on vacation) he is confronted by police as he is making his way to the office. He was just outside by a public lake (Lake Merrit in Oakland). He had been waving a pistol around and swearing at people.
6. Police "take him down" with a shot to the leg. He had on hemself 3k and a bag of dope. If anyone cares, this happened in December, 2000, Oakland, CA.

7. The next week the lawyers and staff had to meet to figure out how to deal with "recommendations" and what to say if another prospective employer called. The consensus was they should not reference the incident (makes no sense to me).
8. The guy calls from jail, tells our administrator he will be out on bond, and that he wants a letter of rec.
9. From what I understand, it was given to him.

If it was up to me, I would have put in the letter of rec. Mr. "X" was a good employee, etc., etc. ... if you want to know more about him, read the Front Page of the S.F. Chronicle on December 2?, 2000.

elwoodblues · #9 08-23-2004, 11:18 AM

Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. If it's true, they have NOTHING to worry about.

I can understand why companies would choose, as a matter of policy, to never give a reference. However, to say that it is illegal to give a bad reference is just plain wrong.

Oski · #10 08-23-2004, 11:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Truth is an absolute defense to a defamation claim. If it's true, they have NOTHING to worry about.

I can understand why companies would choose, as a matter of policy, to never give a reference. However, to say that it is illegal to give a bad reference is just plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you Elwood. I don't know what the law is on this matter. However, if such law prevents a former employer from giving a truthful account of an employee's tenure, I don't think its right, either.