Re: The Office season 5
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by WillG
Why? Nobody in their job in entitled to a corporate sponsored "personal milestone" party. I certainly can't think of any personal milestone parties I have ever been to at any job I had (not counting an out of pocket cake and card party to celebrate something) And even if a while back they said they would do it (and, unless I missed something, the whole thing was being initiated by Michael anyway), with the economy the way it is now, that would be one of the first things to go. Practically everyone is having to make more severe sacrifices in this climate (No one in my company got a merit increase this year for example). I actually thought in was somewhat magnanimous of Wallace to offer to find some money for his party.
|
I guess I didn't make my point very well; I need to remember to not respond to posts first thing in the morning! What I was trying to say was... it wasn't so much the party being canceled and whether or not he could have one, so much as it was the way it was handled. I agree that it's not unreasonable to make such cuts, particularly in this economy. And I also agree with you that Michael's branch being the only one to turn a profit and Dwight being the top salesman is more of a writer's thing to keep everyone in place than any sort of believable reality - so be it, it is television afterall. The issue is more about respect and just treating people with some level of decency. Now I agree Michael should have been fired a long time ago -- but he wasn't. And after 15 years, at a certain point it becomes more than just Michael's responsibility that he behaves inappropriately, it's the responsibility of his supervisors who are fully aware of his shenanigans and lets them go on anyway. If Michael's behavior has been allowed for that long, it's almost unfair at this point for his boss to suddenly be a jerk to him. David Wallace should have had the decency, or the guts, or whatever you want to call it, to say "Hey Michael, listen, we appreciate the work you do for us, but the fact of the matter is that I'm the president (?) of this company and I have a lot of things to oversee, and that V.P. position is one that needs to be filled, because I don't have the time to directly oversee individual branches." And he should have told him directly, hey, you're taking marching orders from this guy who does have authority over you, and I'm fully aware of and approving of his decisions. Michael bothers David way too much, and I agree that a person in David's position can't be bothered to deal with that stuff on a daily basis. But as someone who's enabled or allowed Michael's behavior to continue over the years, as much as it would have made Wallace come off as a jerk, it really should have been up to Wallace to say, hey, don't bug me anymore. Sending someone else to say "the boss doesn't want to talk to you" considering the nature of their relationship, as we've seen it in the show, is just a crappy thing to do.
That doesn't, in my opinion, let Michael off the hook for his outrageous behavior. I'm sure we've all had problems with supervisors before, but especially if you're a management-type person and your boss comes in, you can't contradict or be insubordinate to that new person, particularly in front of the people you're supposed to be managing. It's just that in my opinion, David Wallace obviously knew there was going to be a reaction like that, which is why he didn't want to be there or be part of those conversations, and as a high management person, not wanting to deal with it isn't a good enough excuse not to. In this particular instance based on the history we've seen, not as an across the board rule. More people were out of line than were not in this situation, I think. Michael most egregiously so, but by no means the only one.