Thoughts?

[gigi]

There are certain rules already governing harassment. What I am saying is that I do not want a different standard or level of culpability in the workplace. If your neighbor starts harassing you - there are legal means to address those and a standard of behavior in the legal real which needs to be met. There should be no difference in the standard on what constitutes harassment in the workplace. And, in my opinion the legislation surrounding workplace harassment - is much more broadly interpreted.

The kind of harassment one might get from a neighbor is not the same as on the job harassment. That's why the definitions of unlawful harassment are different for neighbors than they are for coworkers. And your neighbor isn't the one writing up your reviews or making your raise recommendations. You can ignore your neighbor or give him back a dose of his own medicine without worrying that he'll go into HR and announce that you're incompetent and so he's firing you. And you don't have to worry about your neighbor giving you an undeserved bad reference sometime in the future of your career.

Sometimes innocent intentions are interpreted incorrectly, and that really is a shame. But that's up to the accused to fight, and he or she should. But for every innocent intention there are many people who had to live with rude and cruel treatment in the workplace or face homelessness.
If someone feels the need to harass their subordinates by way of insulting their heritage, or touching them, propositioning them, calling them names, making them take up the slack for the employees that they like better...then they probably shouldn't be responsible for the productivity, morale and safety of others anyway.

 

[PACE]

The kind of harassment one might get from a neighbor is not the same as on the job harassment. That's why the definitions of unlawful harassment are different for neighbors than they are for coworkers. And your neighbor isn't the one writing up your reviews or making your raise recommendations. You can ignore your neighbor or give him back a dose of his own medicine without worrying that he'll go into HR and announce that you're incompetent and so he's firing you. And you don't have to worry about your neighbor giving you an undeserved bad reference sometime in the future of your career.

Sometimes innocent intentions are interpreted incorrectly, and that really is a shame. But that's up to the accused to fight, and he or she should. But for every innocent intention there are many people who had to live with rude and cruel treatment in the workplace or face homelessness.
If someone feels the need to harass their subordinates by way of insulting their heritage, or touching them, propositioning them, calling them names, making them take up the slack for the employees that they like better...then they probably shouldn't be responsible for the productivity, morale and safety of others anyway.

Gigi, unfortunately you are right, but in very large corporations where profits total in the billions, that does not happen as often, employee ranking is done thru a consortium, those that work with the employee, those the employee works for, and those teams that the employee works on as well as the leader of those teams.

The opinions changed based on the business, not the soft skills, calling someone incompetent and actually proving it are too different things these days, but again, there is a stratosphere where this does not occur, it's not true in every business model.


Regards
Pace

 

[connieb]

The kind of harassment one might get from a neighbor is not the same as on the job harassment. That's why the definitions of unlawful harassment are different for neighbors than they are for coworkers. And your neighbor isn't the one writing up your reviews or making your raise recommendations. You can ignore your neighbor or give him back a dose of his own medicine without worrying that he'll go into HR and announce that you're incompetent and so he's firing you. And you don't have to worry about your neighbor giving you an undeserved bad reference sometime in the future of your career.

Sometimes innocent intentions are interpreted incorrectly, and that really is a shame. But that's up to the accused to fight, and he or she should. But for every innocent intention there are many people who had to live with rude and cruel treatment in the workplace or face homelessness.
If someone feels the need to harass their subordinates by way of insulting their heritage, or touching them, propositioning them, calling them names, making them take up the slack for the employees that they like better...then they probably shouldn't be responsible for the productivity, morale and safety of others anyway.

If they shouldn't be in that position - then that is for the company to decide. If they don't get results or are so disruptive, then the company maybe won't put up with them and if they are the owner - they have the right to run the company as they see fit.

 

[Renee]

Oh, I did suck it up, connie. I sucked it up, I recorded her, and I went to her boss, with the tape.

There's a huge difference between simply not being nice to someone and harassing and tormenting, someone relentlessly. We have these laws because people were abused by superiors,much worse than I was. Also, it's not always so smooth. Just get up and go find another job. I was lucky. But alot of these things used to end badly for the employee. They would be fired for fighting back or for not playing ball with a horny boss, or be forced to quit before they had another job because they just couldnt' take it anymore. And they had no guarantee that the next boss would be any better.
When someone has to change jobs, there's upheaval in their routine, and in their family's routine if they have one.Perhaps their finances, too. Well, sometimes people have to change jobs. But because of some bigoted ass who abuses his or her power? I don't think so. Better the jerk is forced to move on.

Too bad you didn't have a union.

 

[PACE]

If they shouldn't be in that position - then that is for the company to decide. If they don't get results or are so disruptive, then the company maybe won't put up with them and if they are the owner - they have the right to run the company as they see fit.

Not true at all connie, people like this are a liability to a company, just like improperly installed sprinklers. And make no mistake, that's what they are: improperly installed sprinklers.

Regards
Pace

 

[Renee]

Not true at all connie, people like this are a liability to a company, just like improperly installed sprinklers. And make no mistake, that's what they are: improperly installed sprinklers.

Regards
Pace

And sometimes there are two sides to a story.

 

[KnotaFrayed]

So this is the story of the 12 year old girl, Rebecca Sedwick, who committed suicide after being bullied relentlessly and terrorized (according to the local police) by two peers. The bullies' parents knew about the bullying and didn't take effective steps to stop their kids from tormenting this girl. One family still defends their daughter, while the other is very contrite and seems to really be grieving for their daughter's part in this tragedy.

Do you think that in cases like this, the guilty parties, if it can be shown that their bullying was excessive (as would be defined by legislation) should be charged with any crime?
Do you think parents who have been notified of their children's bullying antics but did not step in effectively should be held responsible in any way?
Yes, no, maybe....and why?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/15/justice/rebecca-sedwick-bullying-death-arrests/

Education is valuable, as also appears to be the lessons of ethics of reciprocity, the "Golden Rule" and essentially people doing unto others as they would like others to do unto them. I believe if parents and children alike were taught in more literal terms what ethics of reciprocity are about, from experiencing, with their full permission, even a staged representation of their deeds to another, then discussion about whether it is something they "enjoyed" or would not like someone to do unto them. It is difficult to give people a "taste of their own medicine" as a lesson without becoming just what they are or doing equal harm to them, but under controlled circumstances and with people's permission and their knowledge beforehand, there are ways to show, by example, what others have done to others, when it is harmful to that they are able to "walk in the moccasins" of those they have treated badly so they have a better understanding of what they have done. I believe strongly that some people do not extend their thinking and limit it to something one-dimensional, one-directional and they never consider what they do to others and what it would be like if someone did the same to them. If "learning" was an alternative or an option to some sort of "punishment", I believe both parents and children would choose it.

 

[gigi]

Gigi, unfortunately you are right, but in very large corporations where profits total in the billions, that does not happen as often, employee ranking is done thru a consortium, those that work with the employee, those the employee works for, and those teams that the employee works on as well as the leader of those teams.

The opinions changed based on the business, not the soft skills, calling someone incompetent and actually proving it are too different things these days, but again, there is a stratosphere where this does not occur, it's not true in every business model.


Regards
Pace

Right. I don't mean to suggest that sexual harassment, or any other on the job harassment, is rampant. OR that it ever was.... I just don't know. But we do know it exists and has existed.

But we often think that in order for someone to be fired, there has to be just cause. And outside of a sturdy union position, there really doesn't have to be any cause at all. Otherwise a boss can say " I don't like the way you do this job so bye." The only time it becomes an issue is when someone's unemployment benefits are being challenged by the company that let them go or when the company has made a very specific charge against an employee that isn't the truth and damages their career. But that wrongful termination suit has to be brought by the terminated employee.

Lacking soft skills is one thing. Deliberately seeking someone out and insulting them personally, or making sexual propositions, is different from that.

 

[gigi]

Education is valuable, as also appears to be the lessons of ethics of reciprocity, the "Golden Rule" and essentially people doing unto others as they would like others to do unto them. I believe if parents and children alike were taught in more literal terms what ethics of reciprocity are about, from experiencing, with their full permission, even a staged representation of their deeds to another, then discussion about whether it is something they "enjoyed" or would not like someone to do unto them. It is difficult to give people a "taste of their own medicine" as a lesson without becoming just what they are or doing equal harm to them, but under controlled circumstances and with people's permission and their knowledge beforehand, there are ways to show, by example, what others have done to others, when it is harmful to that they are able to "walk in the moccasins" of those they have treated badly so they have a better understanding of what they have done. I believe strongly that some people do not extend their thinking and limit it to something one-dimensional, one-directional and they never consider what they do to others and what it would be like if someone did the same to them. If "learning" was an alternative or an option to some sort of "punishment", I believe both parents and children would choose it.

Yeah but that becomes unethical because there's no way we could ever advocate for treating a couple of 13 years old girls the way these girls treated Rebecca. Even to a lesser degree, we could talk to them all day about "how would you like it if....." but ultimately they know that it's not happening to them, you're not gonna do it to them (and you shouldn't) and as soon as you're done talking, they're out there again doing what they do. Only now they're reinforced in a sense because they know that the desired affect, which is to hurt their target, is taking place.

I wish that the mothers of these girls took away their access to social media the first time they were notified that this was going on. I wish that the school kept them segregated from Rebecca and I also wish that Rebecca's parents pulled her out of school until they were sure they could make it stop.

And there's another thing....I know from when my own son had bullying problems, you can't just pull them out and say that's it, I'm homeschooling. First of all, if you can afford to stop working great, but not all parents can. And second, there's a procedure to follow to institute a homeschooling situation that takes time, and meanwhile,your child is truant.

What parents could do, depending on how the state special ed plays, is make a case that the child's school environment is harmful and she needs home instruction from the school until the homeschooling ducks are all in a row.