Here at Purdue, I work in one of the dining courts. My job varies by day and Over the last year I've become one of the most experienced of the tan shirts (low level student workers). One of the best things that comes with experience is knowing how to work efficiently. Interestingly, working efficiently is rewarded in Purdue's dining courts by giving that worker 'points.' This series of guides details some of my experiences working at Purdue and how you can be a better worker too.
Today, I'm going to give a quick overview of how to work Cold Line solo.
First, a bit about Cold Line. The station serves Ice cream from 3 machines, ice cream toppings, soda from 3 machines, Juice from two machines (4 different juice packs each), Milk from 2 machines (3 types in one, 2 in the other), Organic Milk from 1 refrigerator (3 types), Tea from a machine, lemons, limes, condiments from 2 dispensers (4 condiment packs each). Also, it has a microwave, provides cups from 2 dispensers and 8 stacks, and a working counter twice that of any other station.
This monstrous item list seems daunting at first, but it is not as harsh as it seems. All of these items are packaged is large quantities and are in easily replaced containers. The exceptions are the limes, lemons, and cups. Of these, only the cups need to be watched and replaced regularly; the rest are filled only as needed.
Now, normally Cold Line has two tan shirts (student workers) assigned to it, with one black shirt as oversight. These two have it fairly easy, as they can leave much of the longer term replacements to the black shirt, and ignore many of the rarer empties by pleading ignorance. Basically, their work load is obnoxiously light. This is the normal state of things, where two newly trained tan shirts force a black shirt to ignore the rest of their route to help.
However, if you swap one of those two with an experienced worker, things change slightly. The experienced worker can get the more complicated items while the less experienced keeps the cups and counter-top in order. This configuration has a fairly uneven distribution of work and is difficult for the experienced worker, but boring for the other.
The epitome of Cold Line is the solo worker, someone has extensive experience with Cold Line, cleanup, and general consumer densities for their shift. It is difficult to do, and it is VERY hard for a student who hasn't spent multiple months in the two man style. Even with that experience, the change in style can be difficult.
Still, it is necessary for the staff to assign only one person to Cold Line at times, sometimes even during high traffic shifts. This guide (over the next few posts of similar title) will give general hints, tips, and knowledge necessary to pull off a solo Cold Line Shift during high traffic and make it look easy.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sorry I'm late
Sorry I've was so inactive last week. As I said Elsewhere, I was sick and, after 'recovery' I had a real problem sleeping. On top of that, I've started writing a fan fiction that has taken up a good portion of my writing time. I'll be posting less often because of that.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
American Freedom
Freedom is a rather common word in the USA. We constantly praise our current freedom, rejoice when freedom are limited (only where necessary), and bicker when freedoms are infringed upon (which is always). Freedom comes in multiple types and levels, however, and I thought it would be nice to take a closer look at the concept.
The philosophers argue, but the majority seem to hold that the soul of man is absolutely free. It is unrestricted in every way. However, it is tied to the body, which is very limited in the variety of acts it can perform. The body limits the soul by tying it to the physical. This is the first lose of freedom a man suffers.
The second stems from the behavioral requirements of living. While this is less restrictive than the last, it is of utmost importance to nature. While one is free to make the choice to not eat for a certain period of time, they cannot continue to exist while doing so. Thus, while behavior doesn't place such a hard limit as the physical, it builds on it and introduces the consequence. While previous to this consideration all options are equally free, now some choices are less 'free' than others. What I mean is that by making certain choices one faces more severe consequences and thus has less inclination to pick that choice. This shift in priority is not controlled by the person him/herself, but rather by the environment.
While the realities of nature provide one limit to free domain, the choices of others can reduce it further. Social constants of all types hold us to standards which do not include the full variety of choices which we might otherwise have available. Many social institutions help us to live longer, happier lives, but only by further restricting us. Social constraints vary from the expectations of a friend to the requirements of a government. Even more than the previous two, social constraints can be stretched and broken. At this level we can begin to deceive others as a method of maintaining higher freedoms, in addition to simply ignoring others wishes until the consequences become sufficiently grave.
Finally, there is a fourth barrier to human freedom. We ourselves limit our freedom in various ways, for reason outside the influence of others. We can choose to simple act on the beliefs of others, or we can choose for ourselves where our limits lie. It is this level, I would argue, which best defines the difference a person of good and one of evil. It is not whether one follows the law, nor whether one lives healthily, but rather what one is unwilling to do despite having the ability and right to that truly represents character.
But above I have spoken of freedom as if it were a given thing. As if freedom is nothing more than the number of things from which one can choose. But what of the person who chooses to do only as other suggests of them. While they might possess an equal measure of freedom to their peers, no one would call them free! This is a second important point about freedom; only those who 'will themselves to freedom' are free. If you do not choose to act on your own initiative, instead acting only on exterior impetus, then you are no more free than a rock. This is the way by which the person of purpose can be separated from the laggard.
Keeping all of the above in mind, it is quite funny that the USA is so interested in freedom. A country which prides itself on restricting choice whenever convenient and living in accord with dictated laws of higher powers (in God we trust) rather than choosing for oneself should not be so interested in the image of freedom. Why even purvey such a hypocrisy? What does America gain?
The philosophers argue, but the majority seem to hold that the soul of man is absolutely free. It is unrestricted in every way. However, it is tied to the body, which is very limited in the variety of acts it can perform. The body limits the soul by tying it to the physical. This is the first lose of freedom a man suffers.
The second stems from the behavioral requirements of living. While this is less restrictive than the last, it is of utmost importance to nature. While one is free to make the choice to not eat for a certain period of time, they cannot continue to exist while doing so. Thus, while behavior doesn't place such a hard limit as the physical, it builds on it and introduces the consequence. While previous to this consideration all options are equally free, now some choices are less 'free' than others. What I mean is that by making certain choices one faces more severe consequences and thus has less inclination to pick that choice. This shift in priority is not controlled by the person him/herself, but rather by the environment.
While the realities of nature provide one limit to free domain, the choices of others can reduce it further. Social constants of all types hold us to standards which do not include the full variety of choices which we might otherwise have available. Many social institutions help us to live longer, happier lives, but only by further restricting us. Social constraints vary from the expectations of a friend to the requirements of a government. Even more than the previous two, social constraints can be stretched and broken. At this level we can begin to deceive others as a method of maintaining higher freedoms, in addition to simply ignoring others wishes until the consequences become sufficiently grave.
Finally, there is a fourth barrier to human freedom. We ourselves limit our freedom in various ways, for reason outside the influence of others. We can choose to simple act on the beliefs of others, or we can choose for ourselves where our limits lie. It is this level, I would argue, which best defines the difference a person of good and one of evil. It is not whether one follows the law, nor whether one lives healthily, but rather what one is unwilling to do despite having the ability and right to that truly represents character.
But above I have spoken of freedom as if it were a given thing. As if freedom is nothing more than the number of things from which one can choose. But what of the person who chooses to do only as other suggests of them. While they might possess an equal measure of freedom to their peers, no one would call them free! This is a second important point about freedom; only those who 'will themselves to freedom' are free. If you do not choose to act on your own initiative, instead acting only on exterior impetus, then you are no more free than a rock. This is the way by which the person of purpose can be separated from the laggard.
Keeping all of the above in mind, it is quite funny that the USA is so interested in freedom. A country which prides itself on restricting choice whenever convenient and living in accord with dictated laws of higher powers (in God we trust) rather than choosing for oneself should not be so interested in the image of freedom. Why even purvey such a hypocrisy? What does America gain?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)