I made a schoolboy error and watched the News the other day, courtesy of the UK's favourite Auntie. An error, because I try to subscribe to the 'keep calm and carry on' attitude to life. I find the news agenda gets in the way of this overall strategic plan. So, ostrich-like, I tend to ignore the incessant call for us to panic. After a sombre assessment of the latest Gaza developments and some grim pictures, the announcer removed her serious-news-face and pasted on her now-time-for-light-hearted-news-face. No matter how well that change of emotions is done, it always seems flippant and inappropriate. The media equivalent, I suppose, of nailing someone's head to the wall and then pointing out some puppies.
She highlighted the 'furore' over a recent TV ad by a pharmaceutical company for anti-flu product. The furore was so 'outrageous' - as everything always is these days - that it had been given priority over say, Mugabe's continued persecution of political opponents in Zimbabwe or even a feature on the deaths of millions in Africa from the Aids virus. But of course. The ad, as I recall, showed a sick woman taking a day off work because she was ill. A Terribly Important spokesperson from The Organisation That Wants Some Attention rolled up to 'protest at the cost' etc, 'encouraging this irresponsible behaviour' etc, etc, 'economy' etc, 'productivity' etc, 'laziness' etc 'and don't get me started on traffic wardens' etc, etc. That the Beeb had lazily chosen to dress a limp and cheap advertising / PR stunt up as news was bad enough. But it was this protest that most irked. The spokesperson simply appeared to be a rather joyless figure representing a organisation who's only concern is to protect the narrow self-interest of their members. Which, of course, come to think of it, is his job after all. A few minutes of fame and an organisational name check on the national media. True. But the viewer is left with a general impression that a lesson in humanity for his organisation wouldn't go amiss.
Me? I'm well aware that some people take sick days when they could technically still work but I'm hardly of the mind that having a mucus emitting employee in the office is good for the rest of the team - or for the external people that they have to deal with or speak to. My father is broadly unsympathetic to any form of absence. He runs his own business and holds a PHD in unjustified sweeping statements. He remains convinced that that anyone working in Local Government is required by law to be off sick at least five days a week. And Mrs Man in a Suit claims that men don't get ill, they just get pathetic.
All different, valid, if not slightly psychotic, viewpoints. But in this corporate organisation, we all work longer than our contractual hours and the lunchbreak is a distant memory. Despite the economic situation, however, my personal relationship with my employer is strongest where there is trust and a bit of give and take.
