5 ms·

Maybe it’s not a big deal, unless you value honesty above all else. I am not always honest, especially when it’s obvious to me that the other party will only u

Maybe it’s not a big deal, unless you value honesty above all else. I am not always honest, especially when it’s obvious to me that the other party will only use my goodwill to their advantage. In the case of the parent, I can imagine many scenarios where it is difficult or untimely to get supervisor approval, but failure or delay in doing so results in the employee catching all the heat for it.

pugworthy 6y ago
Fair point, but the parent.parent says this was to "approve some minor thing" The risk is that the "minor thing" isn't so minor, especially when the bypassing of the review process becomes routine. I suppose put it this way. Imagine a software developer slipped in smaller code changes and circumvented procedures like QA or code review because they though it was "just some minor thing" Would you find that OK?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Somehow I don't think a bunch of retail employees processing returns without the manager's approval is gonna be a big deal. The manager will see the returns regardless of whether they approve them on an individual basis.
  - pugworthy 6y ago
    Unfortunately the parent up there never mentioned the type of job or any other context to help us understand if dishonesty could be an issue in their actions. In my code example, definitely an issue. In DanBC's comment below RE: regulated professionals? Definitely an issue. We all know there are bad or stupid rules out there. But honesty's not a rule, it's more of a moral principle. Gray areas for sure, but when dishonesty becomes a habit, or makes one lose trust, or actually breaks a rule meant to prevent an issue, it's a problem.
- withinboredom 6y ago
  Where I work, making code changes after an approved review is pretty normal. Particularly because we aren’t all awake at the same time (different time zones). It’s quite common to see “feel free to merge after fixing.” Otherwise it would take days to merge something.
DanBC 6y ago
> unless you value honesty above all else. . > I am not always honest, I work with regulated professionals. Honesty is a big deal. Dishonesty is seen as a fundamental personal flaw. Healthcare professionals who've been dishonest struggle to show remediation. It's really weird to me that I need to explain that forging someone else's name on documents is a bad idea.
- tomp 6y ago
  What is the probability that everyone you work with is 100% honest, vs them figuring out how to be dishonest (in a "for the grater good" kind of way, as the comment you originally commented on) without you (or anybody else) noticing?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Not the parent, and its probably close to 100% that someone there is dishonest, but lets put this in context: The police enforce laws against murder. What are the chances that a police officer has murdered someone? (100%). Does that mean our prohibition against murder is too strict?
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Now imagine that the name field is only relevant to your employer (so it's not like forging a signature on a real document), and that the same employer punishes you for working too slowly if you don't write someone else's name.
jameshart 6y ago
There’s a long history of accident, negligence, and criminal reports from various industries that have, somewhere in their narrative, some version of ‘X and Y worked the night shift and while the documented procedure mandated that whenever they did A they must also do B, they had gotten into the habit of doing C instead’. Not actually counting all the bolts after replacing the window on the plane; not checking in with the supervisor before administering that drug; not double checking that the name on the ID matches the name on the passenger list... And signing something off with someone else’s supervisor code goes well beyond cutting corners on a process, though - that’s falsifying records. At that point you’re subverting the process. Sure, some approval processes are BS, but... generally, any time you’re in a role where you need a supervisor to sign off on stuff, you do not know enough about what matters to your business to tell the difference between BS and critical safety or security guarantees.

pugworthy 6y ago

Fair point, but the parent.parent says this was to "approve some minor thing" The risk is that the "minor thing" isn't so minor, especially when the bypassing of the review process becomes routine. I suppose put it this way. Imagine a software developer slipped in smaller code changes and circumvented procedures like QA or code review because they though it was "just some minor thing" Would you find that OK?

throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Somehow I don't think a bunch of retail employees processing returns without the manager's approval is gonna be a big deal. The manager will see the returns regardless of whether they approve them on an individual basis.
- pugworthy 6y ago
  Unfortunately the parent up there never mentioned the type of job or any other context to help us understand if dishonesty could be an issue in their actions. In my code example, definitely an issue. In DanBC's comment below RE: regulated professionals? Definitely an issue. We all know there are bad or stupid rules out there. But honesty's not a rule, it's more of a moral principle. Gray areas for sure, but when dishonesty becomes a habit, or makes one lose trust, or actually breaks a rule meant to prevent an issue, it's a problem.
withinboredom 6y ago
Where I work, making code changes after an approved review is pretty normal. Particularly because we aren’t all awake at the same time (different time zones). It’s quite common to see “feel free to merge after fixing.” Otherwise it would take days to merge something.

DanBC 6y ago

> unless you value honesty above all else. . > I am not always honest, I work with regulated professionals. Honesty is a big deal. Dishonesty is seen as a fundamental personal flaw. Healthcare professionals who've been dishonest struggle to show remediation. It's really weird to me that I need to explain that forging someone else's name on documents is a bad idea.

tomp 6y ago
What is the probability that everyone you work with is 100% honest, vs them figuring out how to be dishonest (in a "for the grater good" kind of way, as the comment you originally commented on) without you (or anybody else) noticing?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Not the parent, and its probably close to 100% that someone there is dishonest, but lets put this in context: The police enforce laws against murder. What are the chances that a police officer has murdered someone? (100%). Does that mean our prohibition against murder is too strict?
Dylan16807 6y ago
Now imagine that the name field is only relevant to your employer (so it's not like forging a signature on a real document), and that the same employer punishes you for working too slowly if you don't write someone else's name.

jameshart 6y ago

There’s a long history of accident, negligence, and criminal reports from various industries that have, somewhere in their narrative, some version of ‘X and Y worked the night shift and while the documented procedure mandated that whenever they did A they must also do B, they had gotten into the habit of doing C instead’. Not actually counting all the bolts after replacing the window on the plane; not checking in with the supervisor before administering that drug; not double checking that the name on the ID matches the name on the passenger list... And signing something off with someone else’s supervisor code goes well beyond cutting corners on a process, though - that’s falsifying records. At that point you’re subverting the process. Sure, some approval processes are BS, but... generally, any time you’re in a role where you need a supervisor to sign off on stuff, you do not know enough about what matters to your business to tell the difference between BS and critical safety or security guarantees.