AS A FORMER (now retired) enterprise risk management practitioner I get a 5 days-a-week email from ADVISEN, an organization for insurance and risk professionals. The post, Front Page News or "FPN" gives headlines and snippets of news of interest to insurance and risk management types.
When I was working I probably got a usable idea at least once a month; now as a retiree, I get fodder for this blog at about the same rate.
It's a Tony the Tiger GRRreat resource.
TODAY'S EMAIL caught my attention for three reasons.
One, a link to a Washington Post article about contaminated frozen veggies (with a long list of brand names to check available on the FDA web site at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm498841.htm)
Since some of the labels are national, I sent an email to the folks in my address book.
An advertisement for the Chinese-owned, Bermuda-based Ironshore Insurance Companies caught my attention.
OK, I admit to being a grammar pedant, but I read the advertisement in a way not intended by the advertising agency - proving once again, teaching - and learning - English in the modern educational system is simply not done.
Here's the advertisement:
Now I know the ad's creator expected the reader to assume that while other insurers were happy with a "94% claims satisfaction ratio," Ironshore won't settle for less than 100% satisfaction ratio. (When I was in grammar school, 94 + 6 = 100, but perhaps as has English, things are different now.)
I READ the ad as stating that at Ironshore, we forget about the 94% satisfaction ratio and we focus on "the other 6%" - in other words, Ironshore is satisfied with a six percent satisfaction ratio.
Again, I am at least 94% certain the ad's creator intended for readers to think Ironshore was "obsessed" with achieving a 100% satisfaction ratio.
Never the less, I take my humor where I find it.
NOW FROM FRANCE, where else (?), comes a CNN/Money article hededcq Employee is suing his boss because his job was too boring.
According to the CNN/Money article, A former employee is demanding 360,000 euros ($415,000) in damages for the distress.
The man worked for the company between 2010 and 2014. He claims his dull job, from which he was laid off 18 months ago, caused him to suffer a "bore out" that led to serious emotional and health issues.
Naturally the ex-employer tells a different story and a labor tribunal in Paris has been asked to resolve the issue. CNN/Money reports the back and forth claims and counter-claims on the cited URL.
I'm not sure about employment opportunities in France, but in the States, when I had a dead end job - I did, once - I quit and moved on.
No comments:
Post a Comment