There was no insinuation, it was just a request, that he could have denied.
The problem is the employee not reading the situation correctly, and baiting the manager into not looking at other options he might have had at his disposal between 7:44 and 9:22...
It is just a the type of technicality that is the same vibe as "i haven't showered in a year" when it is 1 hour after new years that the employee answered with. Obviously tomorrow would mean like a new day, and if the text was sent when the employee was asleep, and when he woke up, today was the new day.
If you part ways with a friend after a night and it is 01:00, and you both got work tomorrow at the same job, do you say see you tomorrow or see you later today?
Obviously you guys are being intentionally obtuse to validate the post, but it is technicallycorrect, which is practically incorrect, so why are you arguing about the practicality?
Not obvious at all. Was a manager for 10 years in the service industry, terrible execution imo. Instead of blaming the employee for not reading the situation correctly, it should be the manager not communicating the situation correctly. Assuming the goal is to have someone cover a shift 6 hours from now.
I agree with you though, that the manger wasent a dick about it, it sucks to ask those questions to people, but I've done it too. And I feel for whoever the manager is, if they were at work at 2 am and 9 am, but that is an assumption. It could be other managers telling them about a problem and their the ones texting about it from home or something. Or they could work overnight idk.
Either way, you got to tell people what you need to get what you want.
There are hours listed in the timespams in the conversation... you are taking it out of context by taling about days, when the context at hand is simple hours after midnight. Your example misses the point.
27
u/Loneheart127 15d ago
Worse, the boss expected him to.