Yesterday I felt an 'ick' of one sort.  Today I feel an ick of a totally different sort.

   First off, I worked an 11 to close shift.  It wasn't really bad, although I was very tired halfway through.  But coffee and sprite got me through.

   And the job today didn't ruin my week, either.  True, today I did get many new enemies of G.W.H.E. to be added to the lists, but that wasn't even so bad.

   In fact, I had loads of fun today.  Despite being at work all day, we were not so busy that I ran myself haggard serving the customers, yet never so dead that I had nothing to do.  The perfect mix.  Everyone was kind.  No mistakes.  No disasters.
 

   Then disaster struck.
 
 

   Good.  Now that's over.

   Here's the story according to the write-up that individuals named 'icholas' and 'olleen' received.

   First, we start with the exact wording of the write-up (as best that I can remember it).  Remember that any Inappropriate Behavior Write-Up form starts with the same standard 'at such and such a date something against the policy manual has occurred'.  I want to read that policy manual, now that I remember.  Anyway, the real heart of the matter is described in a series of three accusations presented in short, choppy, incomplete and vague sentences.  I regret not recalling the exact sentences for the second and third accusations.  However, I paraphrased the basic idea of the accusation for you, the uninformed readers.  Also, I might be mincing words with verbalized accusations.  I'll get the specific details for you later, although I'm sure the rumor mill will churn this one out before tomorrow anyway.

   - "used multiple DQ cups."

   - 'said that it was ok to use DQ cups and argued/refused to listen when I/we told him otherwise.

   - 'made a shake, changed a shake to a malt and drank it, despite me/us trying to take it from his hand and stop him.'
 

   So, let me tell you a story that occurred according to the interpretation available on the write-up form that 'icholas' received.

   Furthermore, this 'icholas' both totally ignored the words of his superiors but then ignored the customer, took time out of his work to make a shake which he then decided to make into a malt (a pricier item) and then drank it.

   Apparently, this was the 'straw that broke the camel's back' and something had to be done!  So 'icholas' was immediately written up and the appropriate actions were taken.

   All was dealt with fairly.

   Whoa!  Now, I bet some of you are thinking 'Wow, that's the same icholas that is my friend, that speaks respectfully, never talks back and argues, and pretty much conducts himself with decency, honor, and respect.  Now, all of a sudden, he's lying, stealing, disrespecting the very same authority he respected hours beforehand, and is stealing!'

   Yeah, sounds absolutely ludicrous, right?

   It is.

   The whole scheme is a crock.  Bologna.  Bull.  A fictional account of the real events.  I don't claim to absolute and complete innocence and a saintly life, but I did not fall to the depths described by the vague accusations against me.

    Here are some facts to help enlighten you to the truth.
 

   Fact: 'olleen' claimed a line of logic that goes like this.

   "You're not supposed to use DQ plastic cups.  You need to wash out one in the back or bring your own.  But!  If you have a customer order water, you give him water.  In a cup.  They pay zero cents.  If I came in and *I* were a customer wanting water, I'd pay zero cents.  Therefore, if I were to desire water while at work, you could theoretically use a DQ cup without breaking any rules.  And, if I were to put Coca-Cola into the 'free' cup, I could do that as well, since an employee is entitled to free soft drinks while on duty."

   Fact: I never agreed with this nor disagreed.  ( I mean 'icholas' never agreed or disagreed.)

   Fact: I did not argue about using cups.  If anything, I agree with Butch's no cup rule.  I think it's wasteful to use plastic cups when you can use reusable ones which cost no extra money.  'olleen' and her 'theory', while interesting, are not an attack on that rule.  Neither was the statement of this humorous yet totally unserious theory an 'argument' by any sorts, but merely a funny story similar to the ones that Nick (a coworker of mine different from 'icholas') sometimes tells that isn't quite true, and we all know it's not quite true, but it's hilarious anyway.

    Fact: There was an extra shake but I did not make it.  Furthermore, Colleen did not make the shake in question.  In fact, a certain coordinator was the one who made the fateful shake!

   Fact: I did not 'drink the shake' as the write-up form claims, nor did I 'fight to drink it' as was insinuated of me.  I will admit to taking a sip while said shake was on its way to the trash can.  There was no malicious intent to theft as is implied by the vague words on a write-up paper.

   Fact: While I'm always one for a good joke, even one at my own or another person's expense, I did not appreciate a certain manager at the time coming in after a long period of time had passed from the present moment in time and the event in question that had occurred (an event that had not even been brought to my own attention as having been one worthy of discussion, investigation, or punishment) holding an Inappropriate Behavior form in one hand, a Product Theft form in the other, and saying the very unfunny phrase "Which will it be; door number one or door number two?"  Trust me, mysterious manager, you are no Monty Haul.

   Fact: I had no part in the creation of the previous 'theory' stated above, nor did I argue its validity, neither for or against it.  Any statements as to such are totally erroneous.

   Fact: I did not use a single DQ plastic cup that day for personal consumption.  I will admit to making an uncounted number of soft drinks for customer consumption, and I did drop two cups totally by accident, but I did not use 'multiple DQ cups' for my own purposes.  I do admit to using washed cup in the back, as per regulations.

   Fact: I did not argue about anything.  In fact, considering the almost unconstitutional treatment of myself, I say that I am to be held as an example, a role model, for being so calm and level headed in the face of such unfairness.  However, in truth, perhaps not much of a role model, as I backed down cowardly to authority and meekly signed a paper admitting to sins far past that which I would ever do for the sole purpose of avoiding confrontation.
 
 

   Here's a more accurate portrayal of the events that occurred from my vantage point.  I swear that I tell the total truth and offer my own opinions.

   A humorous conversation enjoyed by all occurred involving a theory voiced by 'olleen' about the usage of cups to which I may have jokingly added a comment or two.  There was no argument.    During the course of the day, I drank the following items.

   -Coffee
   -Sprite
   -a little Coke at one point
   -Root beer (to see if it was dispensing soda mix or not; not as a personal refreshment)
   -Iced Tea (my beverage of choice when at work)
   -a sip of strawberry shake that was destined for the trash can.

   Whoa!  Strawberry shake!  I didn't pay for that.

   Well, there's a story there, too.  Basically, our DT Coordinator made a mistake and made an extraneous item.  Now, I don't believe I've actually read any rules anywhere.  I don't remember any rule books.  However, simple common logic dictates that you don't eat customer's food, you don't take 500$ from the cash register for your own use, you don't throw blizzards at customers, etc.  Simple common knowledge shows that making food to eat while working is malicious theft.

   I do not maliciously do anything.  I make no comments on the desires and actions of any of my fellow coworkers, although I would vouch for them as they would for me, but I don't think taking a sip of strawberry shake as it is enroute to its own death is a crime.  Especially when it was a mistakenly made food item that would be entirely wasted in the trash can but just one little sip or two made my night.  I did not make this mistake, either.  I did not go "Ooooooops!  Looks like I made ANOTHER strawberry shake by accident.  I'm getting fat."

   The truth was that the DT coordinator who blamed me for everything and claimed my guilty of all crimes under the sun was at fault for making this item.  Yes, the item that 'icholas made and drank' actually was made by herself.  The item that was 'made and [completely] drank' was practically full, only an errant few sips, really a mouthful, a drought, a wetting of the mouth, only that miniscule portion of the total was consumed.

   Now, the coordinator was the one angry at myself... I mean 'icholas' and 'olleen' for doing whatever they did.  They are both very sorry for accidentally insulting you in whatever manner they did, by the way.  But it turns out that the actual supervisor at the time, who had absolutely no part in the events described, who did not at any time actually speak to 'icholas' or 'olleen' about their alleged crimes was the one who signed the forms damning the criminals.  Why did she do it?  Did she notice the allegations to be totally erroneous and completely out of character?  Or were compelling events altering her knowledge?  I can speak that 'icholas' is a fine, upstanding young man, and 'olleen'.... well, she's not that bad.

   Now, I could drone on and on about the unfairness, about how the manager and the supervisor, for whatever reasons, put such erroneous information on a write-up form, and how the truth has been totally distorted, but it will become a big game of 'Who's telling the truth' and I don't want that.

   Consider just one more piece of information.  According to the 'rules', when someone is written up, they must sign the form and leave the store immediately.  It might seem like a foolish rule, but I see how it is a good idea.  You don't want angry and vindicative employees to do naughty things while 'working', and not everyone can be as mature about such things as 'icholas' was.  In fact, some people can be downright violent in such situations!  So it's best to send them home and let them cool down.

   But is this rule even considered by the people who soldier 'icholas' and 'olleen'?  Is that proper protocol even considered?  Are these 'rules' which were waxed at me as being perfect and unbreakable, rules which were allegedly 'broken', being broken by the same ones who inflicted punishment on me?

    Well, yes.

   Basically, I was plainly and simply told to 'sign this write-up' without an explanation or a chance to defend.  All I knew of it was the rather unfunny 'door #1 or #2' reference from before and a cryptic "Don't leave until we've talked" statement after I closed.

   What a trick!  Excellent strategy!  Wonderful planning!  You see, it just so turns out that the write-ups could only be printed up really late.... or it was just decided that 'icholas' and 'olleen' should be punished mere moments (even seconds!) before they punched out... or maybe we were so busy that it took 'multiple hours' to get around to 'doing the write-ups', whatever that entails.

   Or maybe it was done so that 'icholas' and 'olleen' could do their jobs and then get their surprise (I ended up with Door #2, by the way.  No new car for me.)  Hypocrisy and getting to sign my own write-up as I walked out the door.... talk about a slap in the face.  I don't think it could have been with more emotional trauma and force than that.  Just 'Oh, sign this, ha ha' and I leave.

   I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.  (No, really, I wouldn't... I felt sorry when Colleen... I mean 'olleen' got the same treatment.  I would not wish it on my worst enemy.)
 

   In my defense...

   I'm going to put it like this; do you think 'icholas' would do anything as described above?  Does he sound like an argumentative, vituperative, nasty thug?  Does he act like a thief and a liar?  Or do these allegations seem to fly in the face of the 'icholas' you know and love?  The 'icholas' that has always been extra helpful and (mostly) hard working?  The 'icholas' who always is there when others can't be and willing to lend a hand?  The 'icholas' who just might even have a web page all about him?

   You be the judge.
 

   Anyway, I've been taken advantage of with no mercy shown.  Every liberty taken with my honor and with the truth that could be taken was taken.  I hope that it doesn't reflect poorly on me, only because people, being intelligent and rational, will put the facts together and come up with the reasonable and true assumption that 'icholas' (and even 'olleen') are not the root of all evil that they are made out to be.

   I really wanted to make a six word post and go to bed.  Instead, I'm stuck writing this lengthy disseration in my defense.  What incredible luck... I'm so glad to be back in the thick of things.  And Robin, this is one of the 'real' bad things I was talking about.  I need my mommy.

   That's all I have to say about that.  Do note that I kept the parties 'guilty' of falsely charging me with souped up crimes not specifically named in this page to prevent them from getting in trouble should anyone read this, a kindness not afforded to me.  Furthermore, I've tried to keep my personal criticisms out, merely explaining the truths of the matter.  Finally, I made no disparaging remarks as to the reasons behind the crime as *I* see it nor any truly naughty remarks that just shouldn't be said.  So before you whiners who made me put up the last disclaimers start your whining, remember that.

   Enough whining and all.  I hope you enjoyed.  That's all...
 

...wait!  I need another disclaimer for my defense (if the need should arise).  Remember!  This is a fun website!  Don't feel too sorry for me.  I hope you have a good laugh at my predicament.
 
 

   9/27 Update

   Oops.  Correction.  J-9 didn't sign the form, it was Kyle.  My mistake.  (In my defense, the writing was sloppy and I didn't look hard.)

   Here's an addition.  Remember those 'vaguely worded sentences' I wrote about?  Well, here they are, directly quoted from the write-up itself.  I knew I had them written down somewhere.

- "use of multiple DQ cups"

- "ask them not use + explained"

- "'extra' shake was turned into malt and drank"
 

   Wow.  Now I can more fairly ascertain the truthfulness of these statements, while before I was writing more out of anger and unfair treatment.  The first two statements are complete falsehoods.  The third statement is an exaggeration.  Intentionally creating a an item and changing it to a more expensive item then drinking it is one definite and malicious act of theft.  Taking a sip or two as the item is enroute to the trash can is totally different.  As different as genocide and namecalling.

   Also, I asked if I had to sign the form, since I didn't agree with the charges.  I was told that yes, I must sign it.  Grr!  Almost cheated out of a 'fair trial', so to speak.

   Finally, I wrote a note that I only agreed partially with one of the three charges against me.  That note was scrawled out.  In other words, it seemed as if I patently authorized my agreement to all charges against me.  In actuality, I do not.

    Wow.

   Wow...

   Can't wait for this whole thing to blow over.  I'm sure I won't  be penalized for it.  I'm just lucky that the trumped up charges are so overblown that nobody will believe that I did those things.  Had it been something small, then I'd get in trouble.  "What, I never tease anybody or talk too much.  Not ever!"  But my reputation for complaining about wasted food products and demanding that people use less really helps me out now.