- 9/1/2009 7:28:28 AMMichael verses Mercury MarineRecently in our area, Mercury Marine - the manufacturers of outboard motors - has contemplated shutting down its facility in Fond du Lac, WI. I don't know all of the details or the company's reason for this but from what I understand, the decision has its roots in the economy and is a cost and financial based decision. They are considering relocating the production to some place in Oklahoma.
Apparently, Mercury Marine was in the process of negotiating some kind of a contract deal with the employees and their union to keep the production facility located in Fond du Lac. Some kind of deal was placed on the table and the Union organized a vote. The deadline for giving the company a final response was midnight on August 29th. After that time, the offer given to the employees would no longer be valid and Mercury would proceed with some other plan.
Earlier in the week, the employees "overwhelmingly" voted "NO" to the deal. I don't know what the exact count was because as far as I know, the tally was not published. The union said that the people voted against the new contract proposal which effectively sealed their fate - unemployment.
Over the next few days, some employees who were unhappy with the result (those who probably voted "YES") asked for a re-vote. I'm not certain exactly what the union said but the employees were led to believe that "union bylaws forbid a second vote". Only at the last minute did they discover that what they were told was incorrect and there was no such bylaw. They scrambled to get a second vote together but for whatever reason, enough people didn't show up or didn't show up in time or didn't finish the vote and when it was done, the deadline came and went.
This morning on the radio, I heard one of the employees saying how angry they were - both at the union and also Mercury Marine. I can understand the anger towards the union in the fact that the right to have a second vote was misrepresented if not a complete lie. However I do have somewhat of an issue with the anger towards Mercury Marine. They set a deadline which at the time given, gave the employees and union enough time to think about and make a decision. At the time of the first vote, the people spoke their mind and that was that. Now, some people are having a problem with Mercury's deadline. My question is, "what is the point of having a deadline if it doesn't mean what it says it means"? The idea is that you have until some date to make your decision and after that, I will make a decision. Period. Perhaps people will say this was unfair because the employees "didn't really have a choice" because neither of the options presented were favorable. I guess I would respond that keeping one's job is favorable.
Does that sound cold? Is Mercury wrong for doing what they said they would do? I understand that there are some very upset and angry people who are potentially going to be unemployed very shortly, but let's not forget that they did already vote on this issue. There may have been some dissension within but as a unionized group, they spoke with their collective voice. What they wanted was a re-vote but with a different outcome. What they wanted was an endless amount of time and patience on behalf of Mercury while they worked things out.
Why am I telling this story? Because it is a story of decisions and the consequences that follow.
So this morning, I'm in the kitchen making my lunch for work. Michael comes down and asks what I had for breakfast. "I didn't eat breakfast yet. I ran out of time", I said. As I stood and thought about it, I decided to eat a bagel so that I had something in my stomach. A few moments later, Michael comes back into the kitchen, sees me eating the bagel and asks, "Can I have some cereal?". "Sure", I reply.
Michael goes into the cupboard and begins to look over the choices. "Can I have some of the new cereal or do I have to eat the old stuff first"? This is a dumb question because he already knows the answer to it. He doesn't like the previously established answer and he is asking hoping that I will produce a different response. At our house, we have this crazy rule of eating the old cereal first, and then opening the new cereal. He and I have had this discussion many times.
"Well all I like is the Rice Krispies", Michael exclaims. "Then eat the Rice Krispies", I respond. Michael closes the cupboard and goes back into the dining room to sit down. He curls up on a chair, covers up with his blanket, and begins to stare out the window.
"What are you doing?", I ask. "I thought you were going to have some cereal." Michael gives me a blank stare. "It's not fair that someone already opened the new cereal", he explains. "Who are you to tell me what is fair and not fair?", I ask. "Is Michael going to teach Mom and Dad how to run the house and what is fair and what isn't?", I ask.
In case you're not following along, here is what is going on - Michael doesn't want the old Rice Krispies, he wants the new box of Corn Pops. It is a low sugar vs lots of sugar kind of thing. My response to him has now set the tone for any further discussion on the topic and Michael doesn't like it. He also doesn't like being on the bottom of the authority chain. He has decided to not eat until after I leave for work. Then he will attempt to reacquire what he wants through some other means.
"Do you know that when I go and say good-bye to mom, I'm going to explain to her what you're up to? You have a choice to make here."
Here are the choices I gave him:
1. go back in the kitchen and eat a bowl of Rice Krispies
2. skip breakfast
3. wait until Mom gets up and ask her the same question or for something else and face the consequences
Now at out house, anytime you play mom and dad against each other it is considered a Federal Crime. You should never ask one of them a question and if you don't like the answer they give you - go ask the other one without disclosing that you have already received an answer on the issue. In this case, Michael saw me eating a bagel but chose to ask for cereal but he didn't like the restrictions on the cereal so now he is plotting his next move.
What Michael always fails to realize is that Mom and Dad talk. I said to Michael, "what do you thing is going to happen when you ask Mom for something else or for new cereal and she knows you have already asked me about it and I told you to eat the older stuff first? Do you want to face the consequences that will follow?". Michael thought about it for a moment and got up and began to look through the refrigerator for something else.
"What are you doing now?", I ask. "I'm looking for something to eat", he said. "That is not one of the choices I gave you", I said. This story exposes more of Michael's reasoning. I gave him three options to choose from and he didn't like any of them so he simply does what he frequently does - introduce another option and chooses that. This is commonly referred to as, "whatever I want".
Am I being too cold and analytical about this? Have I made a big deal out of nothing? Could I have just simply let him have something else to eat? Perhaps. However, the old cereal is not going away anytime soon and this behavior will not help it disappear either.
If this was just simply one isolated incident, it probably wouldn't have happened. However Michael's standard operating procedure is one of deception and misdirection. In 99.9% of the things he does, there is always an element of him concealing what he is up to.
Is not wanting Rice Krispies a crime? No - certainly not. But neither is the requirement of eating the older cereal first. Michael's problem stems from the imposed authority structure in our home and his hatred of being told what to do. This is found on page 5 of your Orphan Attachment Disorder handbook.
I asked Michael (as I often do), "why did you just do that?". All I get is the long blank zero neurological activity stare. I believe that he honestly doesn't know. He only knows that he wants something and whatever it is always takes precedent over obeying or following instruction. Michael always chooses his desires first and it seldom works out for him. That doesn't matter because in his own words, "one time it might work out." He is willing to try as many times as necessary for that "one time" when he gets what he wants.
Michael thought that disobeying - either by going and asking Mom later, or just simply going after something different, would somehow result in a more favorable outcome. It kind of reminds me of the definition of insanity: repeat the same process over and over and hope for a different result.
- Why did the employees of Mercury Marine vote to not accept the deal offered?
- Did they think that by saying "NO", they would get to keep their jobs anyway or that nothing would happen?
- Did they think that the passing of the deadline was inconsequential and that the offer would stand forever?
- Why didn't Michael just eat the Rice Krispies so that he could get to the new cereal sooner?
- Why did Michael think that asking Mom (who talks to Dad) would result in a different outcome?
- Why did Michael create his own 4th option and just do that despite repeated discussions about the consequences of such behavior?
This isn't about Michael not being able to "learn". He can learn. It is about structure, order, discipline, submission, authority, and behavior. It is about weighing it against personal desire and the consequences of our decisions.
Our thoughts become our words.
Our words become actions which then become habits.
Our habits become our character and this becomes our destiny.
Lord - help us take every thought captive.
