Spontaneity

CEO deposition

Interviewer : We are here to discuss the termination of Mr. Suresh from the position of CFO at the company. He has raised a grievance both on the act itself and the way it was undertaken. We will ask you some questions now and are recording this conversation.

CEO : Please go ahead

I : You are on video in the company's AGM and several other meetings and events saying "We need a new CFO, someone who is more senior". Doesn't that mean you wanted the incumbent to be terminated?

C : No, where did I say that? I just said we need a new guy.

I : Did you have two CFO positions in mind?

C : No

I : So just the one. And you said you wanted a new guy for the role. That implies the current role-holder would have to go, doesn't it?

C : That is your interpretation.

I : Did you have another role in mind for the current CFO incumbent?

C : No, I did not like the guy

I : So you wanted him out of the company?

C : He was a misfit to our culture. He was too young and not able to perform his function.

I : But that was being looked into by the Board. They had explicitly instructed that he not be terminated while they were looking into your complaint that he was a culture misfit.

C : Yes

I : You still advised HR to terminate him?

C : No, I just advised HR to hire a new guy in his place

I : You knew they would have to fire the incumbent in order to hire a new guy

C : You're just putting words into my mouth. Let me say this once again - I just advised that a new CFO be hired. I'm deeply saddened that Mr. Suresh got terminated in the process - I had no idea he would be terminated - I had no control over this aspect.

HR Head deposition

I : Did you issue the termination letter to Mr. Suresh?

H : No, it was issued by our automated system. We have automated all communications relating to payroll

I : But you would have fed the input and programmed it to send out the letter

H : Yes, I did. I fed in the text and set the date and time for it to be sent to Mr. Suresh

I : So you sent the letter

H : No, the system sent it. You can see the email - it is from the HR system email id, not from me. You would have to catch the software people to trace exactly who was responsible for my instruction being carried out.

- - - - - - 

The enquiry concluded that while it is true that the hiring of a new guy was a conscious act by management, the termination of the incumbent was a spontaneous system-driven act and cannot be traced back to a singular directive or instruction from any of the CXOs

Mari Condo Season 3 opens on Netflx to lukewarm reviews

The cleaning lady is back!
After a well received Season 1 where Condo helps people declutter and Season 2 where she helps them acquire things that spark joy (from her online store Con-Maadi.com), she now helps them declutter again in Season 3 - titled 'Tidying up, again'
In the first episode, she visits Peter and Carol, the couple that she helped tidy up and fill their home with joy-sparking objects from Con-Maadi. Condo soon discovers she has a challenge on her hands - not only does the couple seem distressed, but she finds they are unable to afford basic necessities for their home after their online purchase spree.
Unfazed at the turn of events, Condo dishes out a lesson in the impermanence of things, including joy and helps them not only declutter the Con-Maadi junk but also sell these in black to other Condo fans online in a bid to get their power connection back and buy some sandwiches.
"One should only buy things suitable for the person he is becoming, not for the person he was" Condo says, towards the end."If you are on your way to becoming a poorer person, for example, you should buy cheaper junk from Con-Maadi, not like these folks"
Con-maadi.com meanwhile, has launched a new line of unnecessary premium objects called 'if you've just been condo'ed' meant to fill homes recently decluttered by Condo.

Govt moots NPR bill, receives lukewarm response

The last ray of hope for rioters across the country may have just dimmed a little - the infamous Neo-Penile Review Act (NPR) was mooted by the government today and met with serious opposition among both the parliament and the people at large.
The Act legalises a test for religion which is now considered obsolete in most countries - examination of the penis for marks of circumcision. Though not legal, it has been widely used in India by the major religions to ascertain who are members belonging to their community. The test came in for criticism periodically because of excessive use by communal rioters who proceeded to take violent action on the owner of the penis based on the test results.
In 2021, after sustained protests by some men's activist groups, the penile review test was banned retrospectively - a move that was criticised as regressive and draconian. This was because this effectively criminalised thousands of rioters who had been using the test.
The government, in what is seen as a softening of its stance, has now mooted a Neo-Penile Review bill, which states that a penis exam is a valid test of religion, only if it is used in conjunction with another piece of documentary proof - such as passport form. A penile review by itself is not to be taken as confirmatory. While the bill is silent on the legality aspect, experts have inferred that the test is now legal.
The MP who mooted the bill is optimistic it will be passed. "We will layer some health applications. For example, rioters can screen for prostatitis and other infections - it is just a question of training. They need to be taught to use gloves"
When asked about the plight of the unwilling participants on whom the test would be forced upon, the MP said this was just 'fear psychosis'. "We have kept the documentary proof as a requirement only for this - to protect people against violence - no rioter will conclude just on the basis of this test now". This enthusiasm is not shared by the Opposition parties which have termed this 'one more bureaucratic hassle' which will affect the poorest the most. "Do you know how many people have no documentary proof of religion? What happens to them? Rioters will just decide arbitrarily and innocent people from the rioter's own religion may be harmed", one of the Opposition MPs remarked.