A confused commenter who wanted to take the side of that potty-mouthed TV broadcaster fired for making his first words on the job “…fucking shit” has argued that A. J. Clemente should be re-hired because “it could happen to anyone.” Wrong. It could not “happen to anyone,” I explained to her, because civil professionals don’t say “fucking shit” in public or on the job. A.J. is further displaying his cluelessness and gray matter deficit by trying to exploit his 15 minutes of infamy, appearing on Letterman and thus bidding to be known forever as “the guy who said ‘fucking shit’ in his first seconds on TV.” Why would he think this is the way to start anew and make potential employers believe in his professionalism? Is he bidding to be a reality show cast member?
Who is advising this poor guy? Politicians, like Texas governor Rick Perry, go on shows like Letterman after a well-publicized gaffe to show they are good sports and that they understand that they messed up, but these are celebrities who are already famous for the mistake. For them,the tactic is designed to remove the sting by laughing along with everyone else. For an unknown like Clemente to do this is self-destructive: it makes far more people aware of the embarrassing incident, it looks like he is exploiting his incompetence, and suggests that he doesn’t understand how serious his conduct was. Letterman doesn’t care if A.J. wrecks his future on the show; Dave just wants some cheap laughs. Not only is A.J. not professional or bright, he apparently has no friends or family members who are, either.
Well, enough of A. J. He has offered a vivid example of one kind of career-killing job conduct, and Salary.com has some more, in a feature it calls “Crimes in the Cubicle.” The list by Heather Dugan suggests 15 varieties of conduct to eschew at one’s desk, and it is all about professionalism, as well as etiquette, civility, decorm, dignity, office demeanor, respect for others…ethics, in short. It is a good collection: send the link to the young man or woman of your acquaintance who is starting their first office job. Or send it to A. J. Clemente.
Perhaps he should start here.
_______________________________
Source and Graphic: Salary.com
Ethics Alarms 
I wonder who’s the biggest ethics dunce here; Clements or Letterman? The foul mouthed jerk or the mealy mouth who exploited his jerkiness? As for Professionalism 101… isn’t that just another rendering of what our mommies told us were just good manners- after she’d wacked our little bottoms for acting up in Sunday School?!
Letterman is a thoroughly loathsome individual: I’d trust A.J. before David, any day, any time.
I explained to her, because civil professionals don’t say “fucking shit” in public or on the job.
I’d argue with that. Civil professionals don’t say that in large groups or early on, but swearing in small groups is a common (and I dare say necessary) outlet for the rage that comes from absolutely ridiculous management and customer decisions.
You’re overall point holds, I just think you overstated this piece.
It’s still unprofessional behavior, tgt. I’d reprimand a subordinate for doing it.
It does not meet the ideal of professionalism, no. That does not mean that civil professionals don’t do it.
Should I say that ethical individuals don’t trivialize sexual assault and victim blame? Uh oh, it looks like you’re not an ethical individual anymore. Yes, your trivialization and blaming were unintentional, but they still occurred.
You’re still an ethical individual despite some of your missteps. Someone can still be a civil professional even though they curse at work occasionally.
When one says, as I did, “Professionals don’t curse in the office,” I could mean “ever” or I could mean “as a matter of course.” The situation under discussion was a TV anchor man saying “fucking shit” on the air, and in that case, I would say “never” is the appropriate meaning. A manager exclaiming, “Oh shit!” when he has learned that the hotel’s room just fell in? Yes, that happens, yes, it is excusable, yes, it is not significant.
Since I did not trivialize sexual assault and victim blame, and don’t know any ethicist who did, I can’t comment on your analogy.
The statement clearly looks like “ever” to me. Since you didn’t agree with my comment that while this swearing was wrong, some swearing could be okay, I think “ever” is the appropriate qualifier for your original comment and defense, and with no situational qualifiers.
Now that you’ve added situational qualifiers, we’re in agreement.
Since I did not trivialize sexual assault and victim blame, and don’t know any ethicist who did, I can’t comment on your analogy.
Your blindspot here is a mile wide. The Black Cat thread. The Audrie Potts shaming thread. I actually chose that example specifically because of your blind spot. The point was that singular flaws do not remove generally accurate general descriptors. (In the name of sanity, lets not get into debating your handling of those situations here. They already have homes, and the point I was making could work for lots of different people, flaws, and descriptors.)
I know you and others think it’s a blind spot, but it is in fact a willingness to see and properly assess what is there and not be muddied by destructive political correctness.
Yes, I agree that people, including you, don’t like to admit that irresponsible conduct by victims is a contributing factor to many worse abuses and crimes by third parties. I view it as sympathy blindness, and I am sympathetic to the impulse. But it is a national scourge…people who take out loans they can’t afford are never responsible, because the mean people who took advantage of them are the villains; law students who take out absurd loan amounts are pure victims, because they were “promised” the sky; prisoners who get sent to jail for violating drug laws they were aware of are blameless as can be, because the laws are excessive and archaic. It’s a cornerstone of the worst of liberal cant, I think…the ultimate loser in any unjust transaction must only be pitied, never admonished. Thus are lessons never learned.
Okay, now it’s on. I gave you an out, and you didn’t take it.
I know you and others think it’s a blind spot, but it is in fact a willingness to see and properly assess what is there and not be muddied by destructive political correctness.
Are you talking about eugenics? It sure looks like you’re talking about eugenics.
Yes, I agree that people, including you, don’t like to admit that irresponsible conduct by victims is a contributing factor to many worse abuses and crimes by third parties.
Most of us admit such. The issue is with what you consider irresponsible conduct and how you divvy up responsibility. For instance, you’ve suggested that dressing in a sexy costume at a comics convention is akin to taunting starving people. You’ve suggested that getting drinking to excess and getting sexually assaulted is a comparable base situation to being a dick to someone. You do not have the logical high ground here.
people who take out loans they can’t afford are never responsible, because the mean people who took advantage of them are the villains;
Intentional misrepresentation. Responsibilty applies to the people with knowledge. Until the subprime mess, if someone tried to get a loan through legitimate means, the banks and underwriters made damn sure they could afford it. The mess didn’t occur because people intentionally borrowed more than they could afford. The borrowers generally relied on the lenders, the people with actual actuarial knowledge, to tell them the truth about what they could afford. I’d say this was rational behavior. The buyers didn’t know that the game had changed…that lenders didn’t actual care if people could afford their loans any more and were willing to blatantly misinform them.
The lenders had the knowledge, represented themselves as having the knowledge, and lied. The borrowers did not have the knowledge, relied upon the supposed experts, and acted in good faith. Yes, there were some bad faith borrowers, and they rightly deserve scorn, but they were a drop in the bucket.
That was simple.
law students who take out absurd loan amounts are pure victims, because they were “promised” the sky
It comes down to knowledge again. The schools knew their numbers were lies, yet they pushed them anyway. If I go to bestbuy to buy a tv, and the box says 1080p and the sales person says 1080p, but the tv only does 720p, I’d damn right want my money back or an equivalent 1080p television. If someone’s going to build me a deck, and they say it holds 2500 lbs, and their paperwork says 2500 lbs, they sure as hell are responsible if it falls apart at 1500 lbs. They’re insuring would be paying for all the damage done, and for a properly done deck. Why should schools get a pass?
; prisoners who get sent to jail for violating drug laws they were aware of are blameless as can be, because the laws are excessive and archaic
This is just a strawman. I can’t even think of crazy pot advocates who argue that. Many argue that it’s a bad solution to punish someone for drugs and there are bad outcomes of this, but I don’t know of anyone who claims the drug law violators didn’t contribute to their going to jail.
It’s a cornerstone of the worst of liberal cant, I think…the ultimate loser in any unjust transaction must only be pitied, never admonished. Thus are lessons never learned.
And that would be horrible. Of course, it’s just a strawman.
Unfortunately, your logic is that if you aren’t optimally safe and knowledgeable and responsible at all times, then you’re partially to blame when others do bad things to you, no matter how incredible or unlikely they are.