In defense of Shirley

[KeithB]

I have read several posts here where discontent has been voiced about the quality of Lee molds and specifically an inspector there named Shirley. I won't disagree with you or want to challenge your experiences but I am going to play devil's advocate for a minute.

I do not like the naming and criticizing of non-management people in print. Management is a little different story. If any of the managers above Shirley's level have been notified of quality deficiencies by letter or phone call you can be sure that they know what's going on. Like a lot of employees Shirley probably has a set of guidelines to follow and failure to follow those guidelines might cost her a job. And I bet she wants to keep her job more than she wants to keep any of us happy.

As an employer I am ultimately the one responsible for quality. I set the guidelines and make sure my apprentice (and several other part timers I've employed) know exactly what those guidelines are. And if we don't deliver you're more than welcome to jump my bones. But leave my employees out of it - even if they screw up it's my fault.

 

[Rick]

Good point Keith.

 

[Brad]

Very good point.

 

[Ian]

I should stay out of this but I'm not going to. Now that this has all been perfectly blown out of proportion, you all are entitled to my opinion as well, even though I don't recall being one who has ever besmirched poor "Shirley".

I disagree with you about this particular company and situation, Keith. Employees in certain QC positions have accountability to the customer for the products they inspect. That's why their NAME is on the product, as a quality control associate. That USED to mean something.

The company chose to make a name, if it is even real (which I highly doubt it is in today's "litigous because I'm butthurt" society), available to customers by putting it on the sticker. It isn't like they put her full name, address, and phone number on there too, and none of us are going to show up at the plant to hunt her down and dispense an opinion of her aptitude. If "Shirley" doesn't like her name on the sticker and all that naturally will go along with that, she shouldn't have accepted the position. If Lee Precision didn't want some personal identifier on their product they could have encoded it internally like most of the rest of the world does, like "Inspected by 126". Lyman has had Mary B. and others over the years, who probably are real and are just as bad if not worse than Shirley (be it because of company standards or whatever). You work for a company, you represent it, and should be held accountable along with the whole string of management etc. That's common sense. I wear a uniform with a company name on it, and represent my boss at all times. Same way a waitress represents the steak on your plate. Boeing signed my checks for a few years out of college and believe me, my name and SSN are emblazoned on tens of thousands of aircraft, defense, and ISS parts that will be my ass even today if their failure ever causes an accident. THAT is accountability. Every single person of that company is personally accountable for what they do, by federal law. The world would be a far better place if people like Shirley were actually held accountable for passing junk to a customer, and if management won't do it, then who is going to? If she passes junk, I don't care what the reason, then shame on HER, along with the rest of them.

That said, if you choose to buy a product from a company that makes them at 25% the price point of their nearest competitor, go into it expecting 25% of the quality and don't whine and bitch if you get a really bad apple once in a while. Life isn't worth the negative energy worrying about a dud $20 mould.

 

[Rick]

Ian your last paragraph I'll agree with, I bought my last LEE mold 15 maybe 20 years ago. As to the rest I'll agree with Keith, if you have a problem with a company say what it is but I don't believe the forum should used to single out one individual. Singling out a member of the forum in a negative manner would not be and isn't allowed, same curtesy should be used here. I seriously doubt Shirley is taking it upon herself to decide what is acceptable and what isn't, she no doubt has supervisors setting the standards. Personal attacks should not be part of this forum.
.

 

[shootnlead]

Sorry, but if I buy underwear and it has a problem...I blame the inspector for not catching the problem...I will do the same for a bad mold that Shirley lets get out. I do not subscribe to the left's view that corporate America is the big evil and that individuals are never at fault. I worked in a place for 3 decades and saw the difference in employees...they ain't all equal.

 

[358156 hp]

If Shirley even exists. Corporate America likes to add a "personal" touch to their products, even if they have to fabricate it out of thin air. A couple of our local restaurant chains require their employees to ask for your first name for the ticket. Why? So they can call you by name, a sort of pseudo-relationship. I didn't mind at first, but nobody ever remembered my name on subsequent visits and I quickly tired of the charade. If I go to these places again at all I won't give them my name. It sounds petty on my part, but I see it as cheap theatrics on their part.

If Shirley does exist, she probably has to answer customers concerns by reading from a script. Individual narrative is not allowed. All answers must be the same, regardless of who you talk to.

 

[Ian]

I agree about the personal attacks, 100%. I also admire the heck out of Keith for his personal business management and customer service philosophy. We need more people like that, everywhere.

We'll have to disagree about our interpretation the event in question here, though. While it may have been misplaced and overblown by a disproportionate level of emotion, what started this was professional criticism, not a personal attack, and I don't see it having devolved to such yet, either. The professional criticism was directed at a name, because the manufacturer directed it there by the nature of putting it on the product in the first place.