Breaking Up

I had to kick out my house manager a week or so ago.  It was the guest of the Liahona Home who had stayed for about a year, and had helped me with the roof.  And good help it was, too.

I hadn't wanted to.  I tried not to.  But I had to.

I'm not up for the details, though you'll get the bare outline.  He had apparently lorded it over the other guys, like if he said someone would leave, he could just tell me and they'd leave.  Of course, plenty of times he told me for someone to leave and they did not, but he forgot to mention that part to the guests.  He acted like he had command.  But as any ex of mine can tell you, there's only one person who has final say on any property in my charge.  Hint:  Not others.

He used that pretend "power" to exercise what we Mormons refer to as "unrighteous dominion".  That's from Doctrine and Covenants 121:39 which says, "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."  True enough.  The other guys had had to kowtow to him to stay - or so they thought.  Fortunately I caught this in it's infancy.

I suppose that part of that starts as the duty of a house manager.  They must feel he has teeth.  I get that.

But he relapsed.  Alcohol.  And had a guest who was caught drunk by him go buy him some beer, in exchange for not turning him in.  The guest did.  But sober, was the good man he is, so reported to me the details of what had happened.  Him, who confessed and wishes to do better, I can work with.  But slyness and betrayal and unrighteous dominion?  I cannot work with.

Alcohol.  At AA meetings we learn that it is "cunning, baffling, and powerful".  So I do get it.  I even sympathize.  But I can't condone it. 

Everyone thinks - including him - that it was over the beer.  But I've gave second - and third and fourth - chances to heroin relapsers before.  This was over the unrighteous dominion. 

The guys who told me - just after I dropped him off for a weekend at his ex wife's house to see his kids - didn't know that I'd focus on that.  They just knew they didn't want to live that way, and so "told on" the beer part and another charge.  They had no conception of how the unrighteous dominion - that they spoke of only as an afterthought - would strike me.

When I hitchhiked and freight trained around our nation, back in my twenties, I would work in a city and see the sights, then move on.  Sometimes I'd live in the woods on the outskirts of the city.  Other times in hobo camps.  Hobos aren't bums - they work for a living like I did.  Still other times, I'd have a roommate situation for awhile or an apartment.

And sometimes shelters.  Homeless shelters.  They could be handy.

But I always hated - even though I did not have the words for it then - the "unrighteous dominion".  Give or give not - there should be no unrighteous dominion.  Yet there'd be a type I'd think of as "Shelter Kings". 

Sometimes they were paid staff.  But more often they were homeless who had got there six months before me, and so were in the position of a "trustee" at a jail.  Given some authority to act in the name of those in real authority.  And no one abuses authority like the wholly undeserving of it. 

So they'd see that you got a job from 2pm to 10pm.  And that the bus would not get you there till 11:05pm.  And curfew was 11:00pm.  And they'd boot you out for that, even with advance notice and proof it was work, not anything bad.

Or showers would be only from noon to 1pm.  And you had a job, unlike most others, and needed to shower before 8am or after 4pm.  And they'd say no.  I had no thought of one day running a sober living home, but I swore if I ever did have such a home for the broken and down trodden, that it would be merciful.  And let workers work past 11pm.  Or take showers anytime.  Or have a laundry, without having to pay the monitor a dollar for what donors had gave for free. 

Imagine my heartache to find out that a man I trusted had - at least in some ways - exercised unrighteous dominion over my guests. 

The guests were worried over my mercy.  They figured I'd give him another chance.  Two of them thus came up with an elaborate story.  Which I knew was false.  I mean, who knows, maybe it was true, but I doubt it.  I told off the first person who reported it to me.  Explaining why.  Details unimportant.  How I knew it was false, unimportant.  A second guest came out - almost on cue - and reported the same thing "spontaneously".  I figured then, "Oh, the House Manager is enforcing the rules too well, and so this is a mutiny."

But the third then, and I could tell he was not cued, walked up.  And with no prepping, related the beer and unrighteous dominion part.  The other two nodded at the "unrighteous dominion" part, in a fashion that indicated to me that they knew it to be true, but did not make much of it.  That convinced me. 

I interviewed each alone.  If by "interview" I mean "subtly interrogated like I was taught in the United States Armed Forces Police Academy" in Lackland AFB.  The beer, he had had the relapsed guest buy.  Using the unrighteous dominion they did not realize would bother me, he had done.  The other complaint - most likely horse crap came up with out of fear that the real offense would not be enough.

I then changed the door code and packed his stuff.  That was on a Friday, after I had already dropped him off for his visit about an hour away from here.

On the following Tuesday, though he hadn't needed a ride till Wednesday, I drove down with his stuff.  He was surprised to see me.  Obviously.  I had not blocked him on facebook till I was only 15 minutes away.  Not really time to notice.  Always block on facebook.  Who needs their feed blown up?  Who needs to take the chance of that, however unlikely?

I told him that he had had a guest buy him beer in exchange for not telling on the guest for being inebriated.  And that he could no longer stay because of that.  I distracted him by handing him a box of his stuff from the van, several bags and boxes having been unloaded before he noticed me out there and came out to ask what was going on.

He then confessed to having had a two or three beers, which by the Law of Convenient Admissions meant at least twice that.  I explained that it was for having a guest buy those beers that was the real offense, due to him being house manager of a sober living home.  I also reminded him, "When I caught you drinking in the house, I gave you another chance.  When you got drunk that one time, and left beer cans scattered all over the back yard and I only found them two minutes before the Missionaries got there, I gave you another chance.  But you did this latest not as a guest, but as the House Manager - I can't overlook that."

He moved a few more things with me.  I said, "Hey.  Wait.  I know you're mad at me, but listen to this."  He paused.  I said, "Remember those two women who while staying for free (as he was) knew they had to just not use heroin?  And when they insisted on using, got kicked out?"  He nodded.  "This is like that.  You had every reason not to drink - maybe you should catch some meetings for real, not just showing up."

He dismissed that advice.  And went instead to the, "I'm jobless and homeless and my ex won't let me stay here."

I advised him to have a heart to heart with his ex, which was long overdue anyway, and possibly they could heal.  He said, "Not while I'm jobless and homeless."  I said, while turning away, "It doesn't have to be that way."  He expected I was going to get another bag from the van.  But it was the last one, I'd timed it right, and I just got in and drove away without waiting for a rebuttal.

He recovered from shock after five minutes and called me, and I ignored it.  What more could be said?  Nothing good.

What's all this have to do with break ups, like the title of this article?

Well, there are three times when you can expect a person to be mad.  When you break up with them (like a dating relationship or marriage), when you fire them from a job, and when you have them "evicted", though there are technically no evictions at a sober living home, only "being dropped from the program".  Emotionally, the same as an eviction.

The thing about these three things that often gets overlooked is that the person has a right to be mad.  Oh, sure, you're no doubt right.  You've a right not to date or be married to someone you don't want to be dating or married to.  And to fire someone from what is a job that is yours to give.  And to evict or otherwise have leave a person at your home, house, apartment or trailer.

But since those things so negatively impact the other, it is silly to expect them not to be mad.  And since it is their life being torn up, it would be silly to be unduly angry at their anger, or to try to talk them out of it.  You're hurting them.  Maybe for good reason, but you're hurting them all the same.  It's silly not to expect a response.

That's where the Rules of Break Up come in.  Applicable to dating, but to firing and evicting, too!

1.  "Best done quickly":  What are you giving them time for?  To argue fruitlessly when you've already made up your mind?  Will they argue?  Of course, why wouldn't they, they don't want what you're giving them, do they?  If you can have their bags all packed - or their office - it saves time and grief.  For both of you.

2.  "Give one solid reason that is unassailable.":  If you tell them it was for them going slow on the Haskin's account, they'll simply assure you that they'll go faster next time.  And be upset the more when you don't take their word on that.  Or if you say the housework was lacking, they'll promise to do better - and then what?  Give a reason that is solid, that is irrefutable, and that "improving" will be irrelevant for.  They lost the Haskin's account.  You aren't willing to live with someone who finds a pig sty comfortable.  Etc.

3.  "Don't argue":  Of course they are going to dispute the "unassailable" fact you gave them in Rule 2.  Even assuming you were smart enough to make it unassailable!  They'll still make a counter-arguement, of varying degrees of sense, depending on how well you did your job, and so you, instead of arguing it with something new, immediately fall back on, "I'm sorry, I just can't deal with that."  This works as a line for break ups, firings or evictions, and there is little to argue then.  Remember, if they're arguing with you, and you with them, then there is hope.  Hope is what they are looking for. Hope to change your mind.  And if you are arguing it with them, with your "additional reasons", then you've lost, as you're giving them hope.

And fuel to keep on arguing.  And to get more mad when you fail to agree with their reasoning!  Don't give them more than one reason - ten reasons just means ten things they can, and will, argue!

And don't get trapped by letting them lead you down a side-road!  "But Jim in Marketing lost the Mitchell account that was twice as big!" or "But Johnny was drinking just last week, and you let him stay!"  Never explain that, it just gives them more hope, more ammo, more fuel.  "I'm just here about you." is all you need to say.  True, that entirely, and perhaps even unjustly, overlooks your seemingly capricious behavior, but who's side are you on?  Your own, I hope.  You've determined you have good reasons to have a person gone.  Don't undercut yourself by getting into an extended debate on why you can work with Person G but now with Person L.  It's not like they're going to slap their forehead and say, "Oh, I get it then, thanks!"

4.  "Disengage fast":  What are you doing, hanging about, prolonging it?  Are you hoping they'll say that they understand, that you did right?  Too often that's EXACTLY what you are hoping!  Stop that!  They do not have to agree with you that it was cool to dump, fire or evict them!  They're allowed to think it sucks - and that you suck!  Of course, you don't suck, you had wonderful reasons, but do you really think the guy/gal just dumped, fired or evicted is going to be up for agreement? 

5.  "Don't look back":  The guy who's stuff I dropped off was so surprised he had little to say.  I did it quickly, had all my answers prepped, I gave an unassailable reason, and I did not argue it, but just stayed with, "You were the House Manager, and you had a guy buy beer for you, you tied my hands!".  I did not hang around to argue the fine points, and I disengaged fast.  By that I mean that by the time he caught his breath and recovered, I was five miles away and when he called, I ignored the call.

And why not?  What could he have said that would have changed my mind at that point?  And what could I have replied with that would have made him say, "Oh, yeah, I get it, you're a great guy!"?  No good could come from further interaction, and much bad could.  So I ignored the call. 

But what if he had something legitimate to say?  Then he'd text it to me.  And if it was legit, like I forgot to bring down his socket wrench, he'd have said that.  If it was, "Take me back because X", then I could ignore the text.  He didn't text.  Because he knew - since I followed Rule 2 - that there was nothing to text. 

Postscript:  He texted a few days later.  Just inquiring about some stuff not brought down.  And he said that there were no hard feelings, he understood, and it was time for him to move on anyway.  So it's as I had thought - he genuinely is a good guy, but unrighteous dominion can grab anyone.  Even those who never drink.