monday evening what started off as a very energetic day has now degraded into one filled with frustration and pure annoyance.
the summary would be this. we are expected to pay for things in advance and claim later, even if it amounts up to NT$10,000. how ridiculous is that? that's half my remittance every month! and even though i'm not the one who's claiming that 10 grand, i'll feel bloody irritated that i'm supposed to fork out that large some of money on a regular basis when there is a thing called "cash advance".
now. correct me if i'm not wrong. a cash advance means you take money in advance to pay for something. of course the proper accounting must be done as well as a proof of purchase and what-not.
at the same time, there is also such a thing called "cash reimbursement". meaning to say, you pay for something first before you go back to claim the full amount in cash. this is unlike the normal reimbursement process where the cash goes into your bank account. cash reimbursement is hard cash that goes straight back into your wallet.
so yes, allowing this person to claim a cash reimbursement this once may and may not be going against the "rules" or whatever you call them but my points of contention are these:
1. how can you expect and explain to someone, that in the course of his work, he has to use a significant amount of his own personal money first in order to fulfill what is required of him? even more so when he earns significantly less than the rest of the others? how do you explain that as well as the rationale for him not being able to use cash advance or claim a cash reimbursement?
2. how do you tell a person that he has to sacrifice whatever money he has set aside for last-minute shopping, emergencies and daily expenses? considering that he is finishing his tour of duty in a month or so? is it wrong then, to want to prepare for eventual departure a month earlier?
3. since the directive is written with such ambiguity and the finance officer has the discretion to make the decision as to whether or not to approve a cash reimbursement, why can't we reimburse this poor chap the claims he will be making today (at least!) and help ease his financial difficulties?
while this may constitute making use of the system to one's personal advantage, he still needs to eat, have some spare cash for his own personal use. and no where was it written that in the course of his work he has to consistently use his own personal money in order carry out what is required of him.
and yes, this may set a precedent for others doing likewise and quoting the very same reason (out of cash) but i very much believe that things like these should be considered on a case-by-case basis. but consider and compare the work requirement with how much that person can afford to pay in advance. you mean to tell me he is now expected to sacrifice more of his own money just so he can fulfill his duties and work requirement?
what pushed me to the edge was when i questioned, how would that supervisor feel if he was the one who would have to come out with that kind of money everytime and the person processing the claims is taking his own time (questionably so..). his answer? an ignorant shrug.
and the irony? he always preaches that work must go on no matter what. so now, tell me, how is my despatch clerk going to do his work when clearly, he doesn't have the money to do what he needs to do? with a good 83.3% (yes, i calculated) of his own personal money being held up as claims waiting to be processed, i don't see how that is possible. he will hold up for the week. but the next? and what happens if he needs the money for whatever emergency or for whatever reason? sure we can loan him the money but he still has to pay us back somehow right?
my second annoyance of the day is one that i've had for quite some time now. we all know by now that i hold a diploma in IT, with a measly grade point average of just 3.0 (a B average nonetheless) out of 4. and because of that, i'm the de facto "in-house expert" of sorts. while it feels good to be someone people come to for help, i think it's a bit too much when they come to expect you to know everything about anything to do with computers.
i have my limits and if they fail to recognise that with blind ignorance, i have nothing more to say other than "i can't help you". and for most parts, i do not want to as well. not when one person is doing a 3-man job.
example. i'm being tasked to come up with a knowledge library accessible by all through the intranet. it has to be easily accessible and easily maintained. seems straight forward enough?
sure is. until you see the amount of work it takes just to set up the infrastructure. and we are not even talking about the 300 pages worth of information to process. on an industrial level (even in poly for crying out loud), something of this scale would require at least 3 people, working 8 hours a day for a good 3 months or so. take that and multiply by 3 (ie. 3 x 8 hours x 90 days = 2160 hours) and that's exactly how much time i need to get this done by myself. 1 man doing a 3-man job.
while it is insanely possible that i might be able to complete it within the given 3 months (1/3 the total time needed), i wonder, how much more of my braincells are going to die, how much more of my free time do i have to sacrifice and how much recognition will be given. for all the hard work with nothing in return, it's a bit hard to fathom how i can even set my heart on doing this in the first place, especially since it's something that i loathe doing. and no. passion and love for the job is out of the equation. i have enough frustrations and negative emotions that i'm just living day by day, counting to the weekend everyday.
solution? not more, not less. i'll do what is required. 100%. not 99%, not 101%. there isn't much point in putting more effort than necessary and i have enough pride in my work to give my absolute best.
and if you have even read till here, you are either very free, very concerned, very amused or very.. i don't know.
and it's only monday.