"Best of Rule of Three"
The annual anniversary column intended to provide a much-needed day off for the hard-working, award-winning columnist.
In keeping with Rule of Three’s longstanding tradition (you know, initiated a year ago), we celebrate the 2nd anniversary of the weekly column by dusting-off a previously-published column, in this case, as was the case a year ago, a column which was initially published on the columnist’s previous column website location (thanksbs.wordpress.com), which has lately devolved into a home for tributes to those who have died, or celebrated a birthday, or received a promotion - noble efforts, all, I assure you, but hardly the hard-hitting, expository work for which Rule of Three has become known.
As you can see below, this column was originally published in May, 2014. Upon reading it now, I somewhat regret the gratuitous swipe I took at organized labor, and in the way I cloaked my own professional efforts in a high moral ground covering. Also, I’m disappointed in the artwork I attached to the column - a pretty small, black-and-white picture of an old guy pushing a lawn mower. I’m sure you would agree that the picture I have pasted above is a livelier depiction of an old guy pushing a lawn mower. In fairness to me, substack.com makes it a lot easier to post stolen artwork than wordpress.com does.
At least we can take solace in the fact that this column doesn’t lambaste the work ethic of millennials, an apparent favorite pastime of this column; no, it instead mocks the approach to work performed by the elderly, which, seems even more mean-spirited, if that’s possible.
With the impending Labor Day weekend upon us, perhaps it’s appropriate to feature a column which tackles the theme of work and entitlement; perhaps it’s not. I suppose more logical Labor Day themes to highlight might include: grilling, a day off from work, and organized labor parades. In order to enable me to check those three items off my Labor Day list, here you go. . .
Without further ado, please enjoy this “Best of. . .” offering, reprinted below in its entirety - the link to the original site is reflected below, in the event you’d like to view it, or any of its siblings, in its natural habitat.
Month: May 2014
The Royal Gardener
When we moved into our new home a couple of years ago, we inherited the guy who had been cutting the lawn for the previous owner. . .for seventeen years. As it was late fall when we moved in we allowed the guy, Joe, who was in his mid-60’s, to complete the lawn-cutting season, which amounted to three or four weekly visits. The next spring I researched lawn-cutting options, and engaged a service to perform the weekly lawn-mowing responsibilities. The cost was virtually the same as we had been paying the old guy, and I felt as if I wouldn’t have to worry about someone dying, in the course of having our lawn mowed.
My wife pointed out to me one afternoon that Joe was on the job, meaning he was perched on his riding mower, cutting our lawn. She said, “I thought you hired those other guys to cut the lawn.”
“I did,” I responded. So I trotted outside to explain to Joe that we had hired another company to provide lawn maintenance services for us, and pointed out that he hadn’t even bothered to provide us with a flyer detailing services he could provide, and, more importantly, the cost he would propose billing us for providing those services.
“But I’ve been cutting this lawn for seventeen years,” he protested.
I replied, “I don’t care. It’s not as if you’re the Queen; it’s not an appointment for life! Besides, the guy who hired you doesn’t own this house anymore.”
Joe groused about how the only thing that mattered to me was the cost, while he packed up his equipment. If he was truly interested in learning about the variables I examined when making my purchase decision, I would have highlighted for him the higher quality of the work that the new team was delivering: they edged the sidewalks and driveways every week, and tidied up the flower beds weekly – something Joe never bothered to do. I would also have pointed out the professionalism exhibited by the new team: they provided a written estimate, asked that I sign a contract with them, and mailed invoices to me, rather than randomly stuffing a handwritten invoice in my mailbox, as Joe did, which led to it blowing away in the wind on at least one occasion.
This experience caused me to consider the sense of entitlement which exists in many employment or contract situations. In my own business, we employ a number of workers who possess lifetime job guarantees, provided many years ago. These employees will no longer be required in the business, as we will be outsourcing certain functions, saving a tremendous amount of cost. These guarantees, and other entitlements provided in union contracts, as an example, completely ignore economic realities, and instead insist that companies owe their workers a living.
I disagree with that contention, believing throughout my professional career that I needed to “earn my keep”, and reinforce every day with my employer that I was providing value to the organization. In this way, my employer would feel good about the contributions I was making to the company’s success, and want to continue to employ me. If I was no longer providing value to the organization I would no longer wish to work for them; I would want to move along to work in a situation in which I was making a contribution, for which I was being fairly compensated.
Isn’t that the “American Way”, in which hard work and effort enables you to advance and improve your circumstances? I fear that the philosophy of entitlement has found a home in American business with its workforce, and that has a detrimental effect upon business innovation and growth.
Firing Joe may seem like a harsh remedy, after seventeen years of faithful service (to the other guy, not to me), but I would argue that termination was a far more compassionate solution than the fate suffered by other Royal appointees in history, some of whom were beheaded.
Thanks,
B.S.
Well. that’s our trip down memory lane. It’s been more than nine years since I last encountered Joe on my lawn, and nearly four years since we moved from that home. But, I have no doubt that Joe still surfaces from time to time, cutting that lawn; 17-year habits are hard to break.
Reader Interaction Opportunities
Do you feel compelled to offer your two cents on this column’s topic? Feel free, free, free to do just that right here.
Hey! If you enjoyed this column, why not subscribe now? That way, you’ll never miss the latest Rule of Three offering. And, it’s free, free, free!
Or, perhaps you’d like to share this column with a friend. Also, free, free, free!
Or, perhaps you’d like to provide a point of entry to that friend to the entire world of Rule of Three. Yep, you guessed it, free, free, free!
Bill, thank you for this. I had not realized you have been publishing for so long. Good for you.
I wonder if, now, eight years after first publishing, your definition of “old” has changed. Initially you wrote ….. “Joe, who was in his mid-60’s” ……..”paying the old guy” …….. even this latest version states ……..”picture of an old guy pushing a lawn mower” …….
I ask because we are now squarely in the mid-60’s and I know I still view others as “old” but not me, just yet.
MJP