The Bonnie Situation

That's right, folks, it's time to rant about work! Here's a little background info on the situation:

I am CONSTANTLY being audited by several government agencies and by my own company. Once a year, it's the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Once every two years it's the Board of Pharmacy. Twice a year it's Department of Health and Human Services. And once every trimester it's my own company. My own company is the most critical audit we go through. They nit-pick EVERYTHING with the idea that if we catch it ourselves, an outside agency won't get the opportunity to. It's a pretty sound philosophy and works out well, but it's a really gruelling experience.

I was audited late last month by my company. My company employs a team of 6 people who do nothing but travel around to all the various labs and perform these audits. . . we call them "Auditors" (clever, huh?). Anyhow, there's a new addition to the auditing team, i'll call him "Joe". Most new auditors are really tough. I don't know if they're trying to impress their boss or what, but my lab drew the unlucky straw and we got Joe.

Now, for the situation itself:

He spent two days turning my lab upside down, and he found violations a-plenty. I was able to find documentation to negate some of them, but at the end of the day, there were four i couldn't talk him out of, one of which was the daily machinery checks the first run (midnight shift) people are supposed to take care of.

Now, it is the general feeling of the first run folk that since it's the busiest shift, they should be excused from being responsible for the more fluffy chores. To a degree, they're right, but opinion over what constitutes "fluff" is always the subject of heated debate. Machine checks is something they'd rather not be responsible for, but they know they can't use the machines until they've been checked for accuracy and proper function. So there's been a silent, passive-aggressive battle over machine checks since. . . well, ever since i can remember. The usual tactic: "forget" to "enter the data into the computer". Everyone knows this is code for "fuck you, i was 30 minutes late today and i didn't wanna be bothered with it", but because the other technicians will vouch for the fact that the machine was checked and functioning properly, but due to the lack of time the data was not entered, it's hard to discipline.

Up till now, the usual procedure is i'll document the days the checks were missed on my monthly audit (did i mention that i have to audit myself once a month?). Once the audit is complete, i hold a staff meeting to let people know what they need to work on. Every month, machine checks are on that list. I give the techs a stern talking-to, and the checks aren't missed for a few weeks. Then the passive aggression sets back in.

Joe The Auditor, being a pretty clever guy, saw the pattern almost immediately, and suggested that i assign each machine check to a specific person, in order to better track the errant employee. From there, he suggested, i could administer "counseling" as i saw fit. A "suggestion" from an auditor, of course, is just a polite way to say "directive". "Counseling", of course means "write them up". So, under orders of the auditor, i gathered the techs together and divided machine checks up among them. They, of course, argued, harangued, complained, and made a general fuss about this new policy, as they could see exactly where it was going. Unfortunately, this came from over my head, so there was no help for them. I probably don't need to mention that they did not see this as the result of the half-assed way they generally do the checks in the first place (key idea here: consequences they brought upon themselves). They saw it as me picking on them.

Two days later, "Bonnie" missed her check on one of her machines. Bonnie was the most belligerent of the objectors to the new policy, and required the most convincing that the policy was not intended to be directed at her personally. My boss noticed Bonnie's omission and called me into her office where she told me in no uncertain terms that she expected me to make an example of Bonnie. Fantastic.

So i already know where this is going to go. Tomorrow, i'm going to go in with my "verbal-written warning" that i'm going to deliver to Bonnie. She's going to roll her eyes, call me a fascist (or some other dramatic, non-vulgar term she happens to come up with at the time), demand to know why i'm chastising her when [Insert name] does [insert transgression] every single day and gets away with it. After my many attempts to reign in her tantrum, i will have to bring my boss in, where she'll turn into the righteously indignant employee that i'm singling out for ill treatment, and demand some action be taken against me or she's calling human resources.

The whole business will take more effort and energy than the five minutes it would have taken Bonnie to just run the check on the machine in the first place. But somehow, it will become all my fault. She will be completely incapable of seeing that if she had just done the check in the first place, this conversation wouldn't be happening. I don't understand how it is adults can't take ownership of their own mistakes/misdeeds and take steps to correct them. I don't understand why the need to blame and pass the buck persists past childhood.