Attending the meetings

[Just Blue]

Am I the only parent who told my kids "I expect XYZ to be done by the time I get home," and my kids understood it needed to be done, that it wasn't optional?

No, you are not the only one.

 

[christinson1]

I think the operative word is “requires” rather than “expects.”

Could you elaborate this?

 

[not2cleverRed]

So many thanks, for the clear message you provided.

Few more things I wish to share which may help you the situation much better (and may probably change your opinion also on attending the meetings): each semester, I and the employer must sign an assignment of responsibility form which dictates the list of works I need to do, for that semester, as an employee (and this is true for each member in the unit). However, the meetings, or attending the meetings, is not listed in my assignment of responsibility. Also the rule about annual evaluation is “The performance evaluation [annual evaluation] shall be based upon assigned duties and shall consider the nature of the assignments”

One more thing I wish to share: when the Covid was in peak stage and there was a mask mandate, the rule was: “you must wear a mask”. Now, after the Florida Governor banned the mask mandate, the rule is now changed to “you are expected to wear a mask” and many people in the unit are not wearing a mask once the “must” is replaced by “expected” (and we are told by higher officials that it is up to us on wearing mask although they expect us to wear a mask, and the organziation cannot take any action on us if we do not wear a mask). As I said in my previous posting, the same “expected” (not “must”) is used in attending the meetings also: “All employees are expected to assume this obligation [of attending the meetings].”

Nope. My opinion remains unchanged: you are supposed go to the meetings.

If you are tenure track, your job includes keeping those with power over you happy. This includes going to pointless meetings and being polite - i.e. feigning rapt interest if you must.

If this is not a tenure track job, then keep whoever has the ability to hire you happy.

If you have tenure, keep the tenure review people happy.

But, above all, please get an evaluation. Your EQ seems to be exceptionally low. If you have Aspergers or some other disorder that affects your ability to intuit what neuro typical people find to be obvious, you need to be aware of this, and learn how to navigate these situations better.

 

[cbg]

Essentially you are being told: Management expects this to happen. It is your job to see that it does.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? Florida
... “Each unit requires its employees attend certain internal and external meetings as part of the employees’ professional obligation. All employees are expected to assume this obligation.” ...

I said, “ I think the operative word is “requires” rather than “expects.”

Could you elaborate this?

Sure. I can elaborate.

To my thinking, there are three words in the two sentences taken from your employment handbook that are important, with one of the important words used twice. I have bolded these words in my partial quote of your post above.

First, there is the word requires. A requirement, by definition, means officially compulsory; essential; indispensable.

The second important word is obligation. It is a word important enough to be used twice. An obligation, by definition, is a duty or commitment to which one is (morally or legally) bound.

The third important word is expected. When something is expected to happen, it is considered likely to happen, probable, reasonable or necessary, or bound by duty or obligation to happen.

You are expected to attend the meeting because it is a requirement you are obligated by the terms of your employment to attend.

To protect all employees from the spread of the Covid-19 virus to each other and the vulnerable population outside the workplace, all employees should be vaccinated and wear masks (especially in hotspots like Florida) until the virus is under control.

 

[Just Blue]

I said, “ I think the operative word is “requires” rather than “expects.”

Sure. I can elaborate.

To my thinking, there are three words in the two sentences taken from your employment handbook that are important, with one of the important words used twice. I have bolded these words in my partial quote of your post above.

First, there is the word requires. A requirement, by definition, means officially compulsory; essential; indispensable.

The second important word is obligation. It is a word important enough to be used twice. An obligation, by definition, is a duty or commitment to which one is (morally or legally) bound.

The third important word is expected. When something is expected to happen, it is considered likely to happen, probable, reasonable or necessary, or bound by duty or obligation to happen.

You are expected to attend the meeting because it is a requirement you are obligated by the terms of your employment to attend.

To protect all employees from the spread of the Covid-19 virus to each other and the vulnerable population outside the workplace, all employees should be vaccinated and wear masks (especially in hotspots like Florida) until the virus is under control.

I can't imagine that OP would still question whether they are required to attend the meeting(s) after that very clear elaboration.

 

[quincy]

I can't imagine that OP would still question whether they are required to attend the meeting(s) after that very clear elaboration.

We’ll see. Haha.

 

[Taxing Matters]

So many thanks, for the clear message you provided.

Few more things I wish to share which may help you the situation much better (and may probably change your opinion also on attending the meetings):

Doesn't change my reply in the least. Does your position description say something to the effect of "other duties as assigned"? Most government PDs do. Even if it doesn't, a meeting if management says it "expects" you to do something, that's not really optional. But if you want to be sure, as the manager that called the meeting if you really need to attend.

Why are you so keen to avoid the meeting anyway? You're being paid to attend, right? So what's the problem?

Not attending meetings like this will mark you as someone who is not a team player. Even if you don't have immediate action taken for attending, it may still impact you later.

 

[stealth2]

I think the only really acceptable reason not to meet this expectation (apart from, say, death or serious illness) would be (as an example) if a "client" you were working with called with a time-sensitive issue that required immediate attention/resolution.

 

[christinson1]

Great many thanks this forum is trying to help me!

for clarification purposes, the handbook says “Each unit requires its employees to attend certain internal and external meetings as part of the employees’ professional obligation. All employees are expected to assume this obligation.” Who should define which meeting is certain (i.e, specific) to attend? If a meeting is not specified by the employer as "certain" to be attended then skipping that meeting will violate the handbook? If the employer's goal is that the employee should attend all meetings then why "certain" is used than using "all"?

 

[stealth2]

Great many thanks this forum is trying to help me!

for clarification purposes, the handbook says “Each unit requires its employees to attend certain internal and external meetings as part of the employees’ professional obligation. All employees are expected to assume this obligation.” Who should define which meeting is certain (i.e, specific) to attend? If a meeting is not specified by the employer as "certain" to be attended then skipping that meeting will violate the handbook?

A "smart" employee will attend every such meeting, unless first clearing non-attendance with management, IMO.

But seriously - what is the big deal? Are these meetings onerously frequent? On time off and unpaid? Require you to sing and dance in public?

 

[Just Blue]

Great many thanks this forum is trying to help me!

for clarification purposes, the handbook says “Each unit requires its employees to attend certain internal and external meetings as part of the employees’ professional obligation. All employees are expected to assume this obligation.” Who should define which meeting is certain (i.e, specific) to attend? If a meeting is not specified by the employer as "certain" to be attended then skipping that meeting will violate the handbook? If the employer's goal is that the employee should attend all meetings then why "certain" is used than using "all"?

Ask your boss.

 

[cbg]

The meetings are required unless you are specifically and in so many words told by someone in authority that they are not.

They use the wording that they do in case at some point they wish to make an exception. But it is their opt, not yours.

Are you like this all the time? If so, it's unlikely you'll need to worry about it because you're going to be fired for being an obnoxious *** long before any of these meetings comes to pass.

 

[quincy]

I can't imagine that OP would still question whether they are required to attend the meeting(s) after that very clear elaboration.

Author Dan Brown once said: “But believe me, just because the human mind can’t imagine something happening ... doesn’t mean it won’t.”

... for clarification purposes, the handbook says “Each unit requires its employees to attend certain internal and external meetings as part of the employees’ professional obligation. All employees are expected to assume this obligation.” Who should define which meeting is certain (i.e, specific) to attend? If a meeting is not specified by the employer as "certain" to be attended then skipping that meeting will violate the handbook? If the employer's goal is that the employee should attend all meetings then why "certain" is used than using "all"?

“Certain” means “known for sure; established beyond doubt.”

Once your employer states you are required (or expected) to attend X meeting at Y time on Z date, the “certain meeting” has been identified and you are obligated to attend, absent any agreement with your employer to the contrary ... or you potentially risk your job with the employer.

For definitions of the rest of the words in the two sentences from the handbook, you could pick up a dictionary or check an online dictionary.

 

[Taxing Matters]

for clarification purposes, the handbook says “Each unit requires its employees to attend certain internal and external meetings as part of the employees’ professional obligation. All employees are expected to assume this obligation.” Who should define which meeting is certain (i.e, specific) to attend? If a meeting is not specified by the employer as "certain" to be attended then skipping that meeting will violate the handbook? If the employer's goal is that the employee should attend all meetings then why "certain" is used than using "all"?

I think your options are:

1. Attend all the meetings and then you're sure you're not in trouble.
2. Ask management which meetings are mandatory and attend those.
3. If you are a member of a union that has a collective bargaining agreement with the agency then consult your union representative and him/her which meetings are mandatory.
4. Skip the meetings you don't want to attend and if you get in trouble for it, try to argue your interpretation of the handbook and see how far that gets you. I'm guessing this option will not turn out well.