Years back, following a transition inside a large company where many people got fired and moved around, the decision was made to give the remaining people more work. Now, let me pause here, when I say, "more work" did not mean more of the existing work they already did. "More work" did not mean work of what they already knew, or signed up for when they were hired. More work meant incorporating a completely different role. For me, I'm a programmer. And "management" decided they wanted programmers to also do BA work. Now, mind you, nowhere on my employment contract does it state I'd have to take a BA role. And nowhere on my employment contract did it state taking a BA role would also require me doing all of my programming work. So, after being pushed a few times to attend BA meetings, I got fed up. So I pulled my manager into a meeting and explained this to him. I said, you have two choices: I do two roles, BA and programmer, and I get a new salary to account for the role. When he asked how much, I said, take my salary and multiply by 1.6. Option 2, I go back to programming, and you never pull me into a meeting again on BA work. It's not what you hired me for, and it's not what you pay me for. When my boss replied, "Our company is not in the position to pay for two roles", I told him, then it sounds like Option 2. And by the way, I don't ever want to have this discussion again. If you want Superman performance, you cannot pay Clark Kent wages. 1 year passed and I was never bothered again about BA roles. Takeaways: Middle managers are one step above one-celled organisms. They can, and will try to get you to do non-role work, with no intention of ever paying you more. They key is to cut it off at the pass. Why didn't he want to do BA work? - Because he didn't like it - Because it's not what he was hired or paid to do - not enough information - He didn't want to attend meetings for it anymore
Because it's not what he was hired or paid to do

Yes, it's actually happened to me before. Let me explain before I get called irresponsible, or incapable of having a dog, or incompetent, My dog is my baby, since the day I got her we've been inseparable. I learned from this mistake and have taken every precaution to prevent it from happening again. She was uninjured luckily, but I was freaking traumatized. I have a SUUUUPPPPEEEERRR long driveway, so I usually drive my truck to the end to check my mail, and on this particular day, I was out in my yard playing with Roxie, I saw the mailman drive by through my fence, and so we walked back to the house, I grabbed my keys, and off we went. This wasn't too long ago, maybe May, so it's hot, typical North Carolina weather, maybe 92 and some change, so my windows are down, because I drive a 13 year old black truck, so it's hot as hell, and it makes it hard to breathe. The AC works, it just takes time to kick in, and number 5 (my highest AC setting) does not work. As I'm driving down, I'm going maybe 5 miles an hour. I'm petting Roxie with my right hand when I feel her jerk out of my reach and I hear a bush rustle, I look to the passenger side, slam on brakes (because the last thing I want is to hurt my baby) and put the truck in park. Sure enough, my mom and her Chihuahua were out in the front yard, and Roxie, being her playful self jumped out and ran. She scared the absolute shit out of me, so now when I drive with her in the car, the window stays shut or cracked. Lesson learned. The woman believed the lesson learned was: - not enough information - to ignore the dog - to keep her mom safe - to keep the dog safe
to keep the dog safe

The White House has announced sanctions against 38 Russian individuals and companies, saying the United States is standing up to ongoing "malign activity" by the Russian government against Western democracies and around the world. At Friday's White House briefing, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the U.S. still wants to work with Russia. "Again, what we would like to see is the totality of the Russian behavior change. We want to continue having conversations and work forward to building a better relationship," Sanders said. The sanctions will be imposed on seven Russian oligarchs including Oleg Deripaska, an aluminum magnate and close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin and 12 companies they own or control. Seventeen senior Russian government officials, as well as a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its subsidiary, a Russian bank, also will be targeted. The group includes key members of Putin's inner circle. Those sanctioned will have their assets blocked in the U.S. and people in the U.S. are barred from doing business with them. Friday, a number of U.S. lawmakers and foreign policy experts welcomed the measure, saying the sanctions are overdue. Representative Adam Schiff of California, ranking Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the move is the strongest action taken by the Trump administration to date for Russia's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and "its murder of dissidents at home and abroad." "The sanctioning of oligarchs like Oleg Deripaska, who is linked to Paul Manafort, Alexander Torshin and Putin's son-in-law, will send a strong message to the Kremlin," Schiff said in a statement. Florida's Marco Rubio, a Republican senator and former presidential candidate, also welcomed Friday's announcement. "These new sanctions send a clear message to Vladimir Putin that the illegal occupation of Ukraine, support for war crimes [under Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime], efforts to undermine Western democracies, and... After the end of this story, Russia probably: - had a closer relationship to the U.S. - not enough information - changed their behavior - didn't change their behavior
didn't change their behavior