It’s just jargonny, awkward, obfuscating, and pointless.
The question posed was why it is termination worthy, not whether or not it’s a good name for a policy.
I think what’s confusing Bill is that the way the comic is written, you expect (or at least, I did), that the acronym for the policy is going to turn out to mean something bad, rather than it just being an overly wordy policy name.
No, it’s just that if every awkward acronym were a cause for termination, there’d be nobody left working in Corporate America or the Government.
(Okay, technically nobody IS actually working for the Government right now, but you know what I mean)
OK correction, then: what was confusing me was that the way the comic was written, I expected the acronym for the policy is going to turn out to mean something bad, rather than it just being an overly wordy policy name.
But it was only CIDU Bill who uses the acronym, not the boss. He’s not terminating for the acronym, but the ridiculously ” jargonny, awkward, obfuscating, and pointless” name of the policy,” as Woozy said.
I thought it was supposed to be an acronym before reading Bill’s title.
I’m not saying it’s supposed to be an acronym, just that I had that impression. When I see a long, contrived title like that in a comic, I tend to think the joke will be acronym related.
While the name was silly, the idea of some policies for getting new employees educated about company policies and expectations is better than “fit in”.
>”No, it’s just that if every awkward acronym were a cause for termination, there’d be nobody left working in Corporate America or the Government.”
Which would be a bad thing…?
Which is the joke. The guy recognizes it for the ineffectual waste of time that it is. A pity more of Corporate America or Government doesn’t do so also.
And *no-one* said anything about an acronym. It’s the utter meaningless and pointless obfuscation of the name that is offensivee. It could simply have been called “New Personnel Social Orientation” or “On the job training”.
>”The question posed was why it is termination worthy, not whether or not it’s a good name for a policy.”
It’s termination worthy because it is a terrible (and irritating) name. Is that a strange concept?
Normally, when something has such an awful, jargon-filled name, it at least makes a good acronym (see SHIELD). This doesn’t do that, and is just really awkward for no good reason. The boss is annoyed with that and feels that anyone who wastes his time like that should be fired. It doesn’t seem like a termination worthy offense, unless the person is a serial offender, but clearly the boss doesn’t know if that’s true.
” It doesn’t seem like a termination worthy offense”
.. but it’s a cartoon. “fire that guy” is the equivalent of a heavy eye-roll.
Glad that you’re not my supervisor woozy. Geesh fired for a bad policy name!
Mark M. If you worked in a comic strip universe you’d be the only one competent. That’s de riguer.
Actually, I thought, regardless of the name, the new policy meant that the boss would have to actually, you know, show the new hires around, introduce them to her/his colleagues and get to _know_ the new people (shudder).
Boss won’t have that: “fit in” is all the new employees will hear, oh and fire the insolent person who suggested to do any “socializing” in _this_ company.
Markus
Any HR person who tries to enforce terminology like that should be offloaded, downsized, AND terminated. And then fire his ass, just to be sure.
Comics I Don't Understand 
Do *you* think that is a good name for a policy?
It’s just jargonny, awkward, obfuscating, and pointless.
The question posed was why it is termination worthy, not whether or not it’s a good name for a policy.
I think what’s confusing Bill is that the way the comic is written, you expect (or at least, I did), that the acronym for the policy is going to turn out to mean something bad, rather than it just being an overly wordy policy name.
No, it’s just that if every awkward acronym were a cause for termination, there’d be nobody left working in Corporate America or the Government.
(Okay, technically nobody IS actually working for the Government right now, but you know what I mean)
OK correction, then: what was confusing me was that the way the comic was written, I expected the acronym for the policy is going to turn out to mean something bad, rather than it just being an overly wordy policy name.
But it was only CIDU Bill who uses the acronym, not the boss. He’s not terminating for the acronym, but the ridiculously ” jargonny, awkward, obfuscating, and pointless” name of the policy,” as Woozy said.
I thought it was supposed to be an acronym before reading Bill’s title.
I’m not saying it’s supposed to be an acronym, just that I had that impression. When I see a long, contrived title like that in a comic, I tend to think the joke will be acronym related.
https://assets.amuniversal.com/9d0d38009fbd012f2fe600163e41dd5b
and https://assets.amuniversal.com/fdf7c1c06cc701301d50001dd8b71c47
While the name was silly, the idea of some policies for getting new employees educated about company policies and expectations is better than “fit in”.
>”No, it’s just that if every awkward acronym were a cause for termination, there’d be nobody left working in Corporate America or the Government.”
Which would be a bad thing…?
Which is the joke. The guy recognizes it for the ineffectual waste of time that it is. A pity more of Corporate America or Government doesn’t do so also.
And *no-one* said anything about an acronym. It’s the utter meaningless and pointless obfuscation of the name that is offensivee. It could simply have been called “New Personnel Social Orientation” or “On the job training”.
>”The question posed was why it is termination worthy, not whether or not it’s a good name for a policy.”
It’s termination worthy because it is a terrible (and irritating) name. Is that a strange concept?
Normally, when something has such an awful, jargon-filled name, it at least makes a good acronym (see SHIELD). This doesn’t do that, and is just really awkward for no good reason. The boss is annoyed with that and feels that anyone who wastes his time like that should be fired. It doesn’t seem like a termination worthy offense, unless the person is a serial offender, but clearly the boss doesn’t know if that’s true.
” It doesn’t seem like a termination worthy offense”
.. but it’s a cartoon. “fire that guy” is the equivalent of a heavy eye-roll.
Glad that you’re not my supervisor woozy. Geesh fired for a bad policy name!
Mark M. If you worked in a comic strip universe you’d be the only one competent. That’s de riguer.
Actually, I thought, regardless of the name, the new policy meant that the boss would have to actually, you know, show the new hires around, introduce them to her/his colleagues and get to _know_ the new people (shudder).
Boss won’t have that: “fit in” is all the new employees will hear, oh and fire the insolent person who suggested to do any “socializing” in _this_ company.
Markus
Any HR person who tries to enforce terminology like that should be offloaded, downsized, AND terminated. And then fire his ass, just to be sure.