Don't FUCK with the babysitter!
So there's this fellow that we let go when we closed a branch office, and we found him another firm to work for. He and a few others are wrapping up our company business while working there, so occasionally we have to do work for them. Fine. In fact, because they have their own engineer seals, we usually pack everything off to them once assembled, they sign and seal it and send our file copies back. They have our letterhead (small supply) with the caveat that I MUST approve all correspondence first or shit will ROLL.
So late afternoon Nov. 30th, this guy DD sends me an email telling me (no please or thanks) that he needs 10 copies of XX Specifications as soon as possible. Nothing else. He cc:s a VP on it as per usual dealings with him (he's an ass, everyone knows). I say "Hey, VP, wtf is this guy talking about?" VP tells me, I go to find it, server is down, Help Desk is working on it, late afternoon December 3 we get the files, we start working on them.
They. Are. A. Mess.
It's like that branch office didn't have a Style Guide because the formatting is wrong (they don't even have the company NAME at the top of the page - we'd have no idea whose project it was!), I had to read them all because I found spelling errors and blank spots, etc. K. was working on them then was off sick for two days. With being down one admin, I put this project aside and worked on other stuff... she wasn't there to make my corrections anyway.
So DD is like "OMG WHERE IS MY STUFF" a few times. VP comes to see me. Hell no I can't get it to him sooner than Dec. X. Fine, VP will take care of it with DD. More time passes, we're WORKING ON IT (fourth revision, K isn't the swiftest in correcting everything i mark the FIRST time around) and we start an email chain today that is behind the cut.
Note, we agreed to ship this to him for arrival Wednesday.
From: m3
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:16 PM
To: DD
Subject: Specs Questions
A few things that need answered:
On the TOC, Division 1 lists Section 01500 - Pennsylvania Department of Transporation Inspection. We don’t have this. Do we need it or can we remove it from the TOC? It’s referenced a few times in the specs themselves.
Within the Manholes Spec (02310) it cites a spec 4001. We don’t seem to have that spec. Action?
thanks
M3
_____________________________
From: DD
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:41 PM
To: M3
Subject: RE: Specs Questions
On the copy of the spec that I have, the TOC lists Section 1410 as the PaDOT inpection and it is in the spec. Just remove the statement that refers to section 4001 for dewatering in section 2310.
I have attached a copy of the TOC in the specs that I have to make sure that we are talking about the same specs.
_____________________________
Note: He had the same listing on the Table of Contents (TOC) TWICE with two different numbers... So, obvious fuck up #1...
_____________________________
From: M3
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:04 PM
To: DD
Subject: RE: Specs Questions
Let me send you what we’ve conformed to standard and see what you’d like to change.
_____________________________
From: DD
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:21 PM
To: M3
Cc: VP
Subject: RE: Specs Questions
I'd like to leave it the way it was. The B. Group, the DEP, the Somerset Township Municipal Authority and the EADS Group have reviewed and approved this spec.
_____________________________
Note: I'm SORRY, since when did something that's gone out before not require editing?!?!? What fucking planet is he on that he's never heard of Draft!? Also note he's admitting he sent this really ugly shit out under our name to clients... asshole.
_____________________________
From: M3
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:34 PM
To: DD
Cc: VP; K
Subject: RE: Specs Questions
I think the revised TOC (per our established standards) looks more professional. The contents haven’t changed, just the aesthetics. Technically anything that goes out of the office under the PCR cover needs to be in PCR format - I don’t know why these went out originally in the format they did!
_____________________________
Note: I politely tell him his stuff is wrong and ugly. I explain what "standard formating" means and explain, again, our policy of formatting and basically what my job is about. Also, I mention, admitting I should probably have not used the exclamation point, that I realize these went to a client WRONG.
Up next, dude flips his lid over nothing and throws a hissy. It was awesome.
_____________________________
From: DD
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:58 PM
To: M3
Cc: VP; K
Subject: RE: Specs Questions
Fine. that's great! I'm glad you think it looks more professional and in the mean time I'm trying to explain to The B. Company why they don't have their specs that were approved more than a year ago. why are you asking me questions when I can't change anything anyhow.
VP - here is the contact at B. - you can now call and apologize. Bill D - 412-422-xxxx ext. xxx.
_____________________________
Note: OH NOES!!! So, first, sarcasm, secondly WHY have these people been waiting a year, what the FUCK have you been sitting on you stupid cunt?! And now is not the time to get all hysterical on me, I mean, jesus, take a fucking midol. I'm asking you because you CAN CHANGE THINGS because ITS NOT FINAL UNTIL I SEND IT YOU STUPID WHORE. I mean, fucking christ, I was like wtf!?
So THIS is when SOMEHOW the VP of FINANCE gets involved. I get a call on my line from him and HE wants to know what's up with these Specs, I exclaim "Did DD email you TOO!?!? GOD!" and no no, VP went to see VP FIN or vice versa. Apparently The B. Group ain't paying us till they get specs, it's been a year, whats the hold up. I explain the same thing to VP FIN as to VP. Fucking waste of time.
I hear later from VP that when he explained to VP FIN what was going on the VP FIN didn't believe him that I'd set a deadline and how could I know to do that, how long would this take, blah blah. So VP FIN was going to call me and confirm and "light a fire." You can't light a fire that's already burning, duh. Anyway.
My coup de grace follows.
_____________________________
From: M3
Sent: Mon 12/17/2007 4:09 PM
To: DD
Cc: VP; K
Bcc: VP Finance
Subject: RE: Specs Questions
I really have nothing to do with the upline of the Project, nor the planning, nor the time management. However, I have everything to do with how documents leave the office, especially when they are bound as a PCR Report. I affect change where I can, when I can, hopefully for the better.
I also deal with many people every day with many projects, and about half of them are considered “emergencies” by the time they reach my hands. We all do the best we can with the skills and resources we have.
If you’d like to change the content of the TOC or Specs, just let me know - it’s our goal to have our best product going out the door.
________________________________
CHECK and MATE, bitches.
Follow what I said...
1. It's not MY fault you sat on this for a year.
2. You did it wrong in the first place.
3. Your errors are causing delays.
4. You're not getting around me.
5. I'm trying to fix these errors so the client doesn't think we're retarded.
6. You aren't the only dog sniffing my ass.
7. Failure to plan on your part does not constitute emergency on my part.
8. I understand you're stupid. We're working around you.
9. I'm doing the best I can with the two helpers I have and only one set of eyes.
10. I'm still willing to work with you even though you are being an absolute prick.
11. Once again your work sucked on several levels and I refuse to let it leave the office with your stink all over it.
12. Have a nice day!
I had sent him an email at some point in this exchange reminding him I needed a transmittal letter asap to approve for this package to go out.
The final email of the day, in response to all this, was a terse list of who I can send the packages to directly, implying that he's not going to sign or seal them.
To sum up...
1. I win.
2. You look like a DOUCHE.
3. I still win.
4. I don't care if I send direct or not.
5. Oh I have to cry now, you hurt my FEELINGS.
6. Don't pull VPs into a fight you can't be mature enough not to whine through.
7. Never go against a proofing admin when her reputation is on the line.
8. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
9. Oh and I still win, you giant aching douche.
This was my day. I RULE!
So late afternoon Nov. 30th, this guy DD sends me an email telling me (no please or thanks) that he needs 10 copies of XX Specifications as soon as possible. Nothing else. He cc:s a VP on it as per usual dealings with him (he's an ass, everyone knows). I say "Hey, VP, wtf is this guy talking about?" VP tells me, I go to find it, server is down, Help Desk is working on it, late afternoon December 3 we get the files, we start working on them.
They. Are. A. Mess.
It's like that branch office didn't have a Style Guide because the formatting is wrong (they don't even have the company NAME at the top of the page - we'd have no idea whose project it was!), I had to read them all because I found spelling errors and blank spots, etc. K. was working on them then was off sick for two days. With being down one admin, I put this project aside and worked on other stuff... she wasn't there to make my corrections anyway.
So DD is like "OMG WHERE IS MY STUFF" a few times. VP comes to see me. Hell no I can't get it to him sooner than Dec. X. Fine, VP will take care of it with DD. More time passes, we're WORKING ON IT (fourth revision, K isn't the swiftest in correcting everything i mark the FIRST time around) and we start an email chain today that is behind the cut.
Note, we agreed to ship this to him for arrival Wednesday.
From: m3
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 1:16 PM
To: DD
Subject: Specs Questions
A few things that need answered:
On the TOC, Division 1 lists Section 01500 - Pennsylvania Department of Transporation Inspection. We don’t have this. Do we need it or can we remove it from the TOC? It’s referenced a few times in the specs themselves.
Within the Manholes Spec (02310) it cites a spec 4001. We don’t seem to have that spec. Action?
thanks
M3
_____________________________
From: DD
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 2:41 PM
To: M3
Subject: RE: Specs Questions
On the copy of the spec that I have, the TOC lists Section 1410 as the PaDOT inpection and it is in the spec. Just remove the statement that refers to section 4001 for dewatering in section 2310.
I have attached a copy of the TOC in the specs that I have to make sure that we are talking about the same specs.
_____________________________
Note: He had the same listing on the Table of Contents (TOC) TWICE with two different numbers... So, obvious fuck up #1...
_____________________________
From: M3
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:04 PM
To: DD
Subject: RE: Specs Questions
Let me send you what we’ve conformed to standard and see what you’d like to change.
_____________________________
From: DD
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:21 PM
To: M3
Cc: VP
Subject: RE: Specs Questions
I'd like to leave it the way it was. The B. Group, the DEP, the Somerset Township Municipal Authority and the EADS Group have reviewed and approved this spec.
_____________________________
Note: I'm SORRY, since when did something that's gone out before not require editing?!?!? What fucking planet is he on that he's never heard of Draft!? Also note he's admitting he sent this really ugly shit out under our name to clients... asshole.
_____________________________
From: M3
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:34 PM
To: DD
Cc: VP; K
Subject: RE: Specs Questions
I think the revised TOC (per our established standards) looks more professional. The contents haven’t changed, just the aesthetics. Technically anything that goes out of the office under the PCR cover needs to be in PCR format - I don’t know why these went out originally in the format they did!
_____________________________
Note: I politely tell him his stuff is wrong and ugly. I explain what "standard formating" means and explain, again, our policy of formatting and basically what my job is about. Also, I mention, admitting I should probably have not used the exclamation point, that I realize these went to a client WRONG.
Up next, dude flips his lid over nothing and throws a hissy. It was awesome.
_____________________________
From: DD
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 3:58 PM
To: M3
Cc: VP; K
Subject: RE: Specs Questions
Fine. that's great! I'm glad you think it looks more professional and in the mean time I'm trying to explain to The B. Company why they don't have their specs that were approved more than a year ago. why are you asking me questions when I can't change anything anyhow.
VP - here is the contact at B. - you can now call and apologize. Bill D - 412-422-xxxx ext. xxx.
_____________________________
Note: OH NOES!!! So, first, sarcasm, secondly WHY have these people been waiting a year, what the FUCK have you been sitting on you stupid cunt?! And now is not the time to get all hysterical on me, I mean, jesus, take a fucking midol. I'm asking you because you CAN CHANGE THINGS because ITS NOT FINAL UNTIL I SEND IT YOU STUPID WHORE. I mean, fucking christ, I was like wtf!?
So THIS is when SOMEHOW the VP of FINANCE gets involved. I get a call on my line from him and HE wants to know what's up with these Specs, I exclaim "Did DD email you TOO!?!? GOD!" and no no, VP went to see VP FIN or vice versa. Apparently The B. Group ain't paying us till they get specs, it's been a year, whats the hold up. I explain the same thing to VP FIN as to VP. Fucking waste of time.
I hear later from VP that when he explained to VP FIN what was going on the VP FIN didn't believe him that I'd set a deadline and how could I know to do that, how long would this take, blah blah. So VP FIN was going to call me and confirm and "light a fire." You can't light a fire that's already burning, duh. Anyway.
My coup de grace follows.
_____________________________
From: M3
Sent: Mon 12/17/2007 4:09 PM
To: DD
Cc: VP; K
Bcc: VP Finance
Subject: RE: Specs Questions
I really have nothing to do with the upline of the Project, nor the planning, nor the time management. However, I have everything to do with how documents leave the office, especially when they are bound as a PCR Report. I affect change where I can, when I can, hopefully for the better.
I also deal with many people every day with many projects, and about half of them are considered “emergencies” by the time they reach my hands. We all do the best we can with the skills and resources we have.
If you’d like to change the content of the TOC or Specs, just let me know - it’s our goal to have our best product going out the door.
________________________________
CHECK and MATE, bitches.
Follow what I said...
1. It's not MY fault you sat on this for a year.
2. You did it wrong in the first place.
3. Your errors are causing delays.
4. You're not getting around me.
5. I'm trying to fix these errors so the client doesn't think we're retarded.
6. You aren't the only dog sniffing my ass.
7. Failure to plan on your part does not constitute emergency on my part.
8. I understand you're stupid. We're working around you.
9. I'm doing the best I can with the two helpers I have and only one set of eyes.
10. I'm still willing to work with you even though you are being an absolute prick.
11. Once again your work sucked on several levels and I refuse to let it leave the office with your stink all over it.
12. Have a nice day!
I had sent him an email at some point in this exchange reminding him I needed a transmittal letter asap to approve for this package to go out.
The final email of the day, in response to all this, was a terse list of who I can send the packages to directly, implying that he's not going to sign or seal them.
To sum up...
1. I win.
2. You look like a DOUCHE.
3. I still win.
4. I don't care if I send direct or not.
5. Oh I have to cry now, you hurt my FEELINGS.
6. Don't pull VPs into a fight you can't be mature enough not to whine through.
7. Never go against a proofing admin when her reputation is on the line.
8. Never get involved in a land war in Asia.
9. Oh and I still win, you giant aching douche.
This was my day. I RULE!