New office ridiculousness

[jethrien]

Our office is permanently locked - when you step out of the elevator, you have to swipe a prox card to get into the office. Unfortunately, the bathrooms are not connected to our office - they're down the hall. So every time someone wants to use the restroom, they need to grab their id. Unfortunately, some people keep forgetting their ids, and borrowing mine.

Yesterday, we got an added bonus to this little joy - they installed locks on the bathrooms. So now to go to the bathroom, I need to grab my id and one of the bathroom keys, and unlock stuff to get both into the bathroom and back into the office.

WTF?

(For the record, this is not something anyone in my company asked for. The building apparently does this to all of the bathrooms. When one of the VPs asked the maintenance people why there were big holes in the doors - our locks were missing - they said, "Oh! You're supposed to have locks!" and installed them without actually asking us whether we wanted to have our precious toilet paper secured from intruders.)

Comments

[hyouneko.livejournal.com]

Wow, that's insane. I can understand the always having the main door locked, but locking the bathrooms as well? That's a bit much. What really sucks is that the bathrooms aren't actually part of your office space.

[(Anonymous)]

The Flatiron is like that. They've now ceased locking the women's rooms (only the women's - not the men's) but all the office suites have prox cards. Everyone just carries theirs everywhere.

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

delete! delete!

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

The Flatiron is like that. They've now ceased locking the women's rooms (only the women's - not the men's) but all the office suites have prox cards. Everyone just carries theirs everywhere.

[trinityvixen.livejournal.com]

That's funny--back in the World Trade, when I used to go in with my Dad on weekends, he'd only be able to let me into the men's room because the bathrooms were locked and coded such that you could only get into the one representing your gender of record. I got to see the little boys' room allllll the time, so it wasn't really that interesting when we were stupid little kids worrying about cooties and stuff.

But it is still a stupid practice. I could see doing it if the bathrooms were in your suite because then you could keep all those visitors from spreading germs and make interviewees feel all nervous about asking. Power trip.

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

We do share the floor with another company, but still. I don't think some random guy is going to make it up to the 17th floor and try to kidnap me from the bathroom in the middle of the day.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

It's possible that this is the CYA principle in action: "We might get sued if someone is assaulted in a bathroom! Let's put locks on the bathrooms!"

It's also possible that, somewhere in the building and possibly on your floor, there's the restroom equivalent of Red-Bull-Paranoia-Boy, horrified that someone moved the toilet paper and insisting on locks to prevent such mischief.

[cubby-t-bear.livejournal.com]

Even for that, it's very dumb. If somebody gets assaulted in a bathroom, they'll probably scream. At which point, having the would be rescuers have to fumble for keys is probably quite counterproductive.

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

The office locking, incidentally, I can understand. You work with material, confidential data, and there's the outside chance that either someone would wander in and accidentally see it, or someone would come looking for it. This isn't like Ed's cockamammie scheme to get a security system for the MedAbiliti office, where there seriously wasn't anything worth stealing.

Not to change the subject of this most fascinating post but...

[freekofnature.livejournal.com]

Are you and your S.O. the folks mentioned in the latest issue of the
Nass Weekly, March 9 issue? Family Affairs - Incest at Princeton (http://www.nassauweekly.com/view_article.php?id=456)?? by Ms. Landau?

Just curious, that's all. Hee, hee, BANDCEST!

Re: Not to change the subject of this most fascinating post but...

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes we are. However, they got Chuckro's year wrong, as well as the year of the roommate.

Re: Not to change the subject of this most fascinating post but...

[chuckro.livejournal.com]

I noticed that this morning. I'm going to assume that it was intentional to protect our identities. "It must have been some other Rebecca in the band!"

Re: Not to change the subject of this most fascinating post but...

[ivy03.livejournal.com]

Of course, your story could just as easily fit under a cappella incest. And they capitalized WildCat wierdly.

Also, that thing about guy-sharing in an a cappella group being groovy is NOT TRUE. Or at least, not usually true. Before I got in the group, there was a major, vicious fracas on that front. Part of the reason why Kate Muessig has always had mixed feelings about the Wildcats.

Re: Not to change the subject of this most fascinating post but...

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

For the record - I said nothing about the Wildcats to her. My comments were all strictly band-related.

Re: Not to change the subject of this most fascinating post but...

[katertoticus.livejournal.com]

Gee, I feel left out. No one asked the roomie for comments! What actually bugs me are the number of small errors in the anecdote -- like she was recounting a poorly-remembered story. Not only did Chuckro visit frequently your senior year, but your junior year too, and that's effort worth noting. Not that anyone reading the Nass will probably care much.

Would be kindof funny to suggest/insist on a correction. "Incestuous threesome sets facts straight..."

Re: Not to change the subject of this most fascinating post but...

[jethrien.livejournal.com]

I gave her the story. I guess she didn't understand it or something...