31–40 of 234 posts
> One employee said that during a one-on-one performance review with a manager, he was told that his rating dropped from "Exceeds" to "Meets" because he didn't get as much done while on paternity leave. If true, that is quite obviously legally actionable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's a friend there's probably some flexibility depending on the context of the friendship. But if the "friend" feels the need to file a complaint rather than talk to the person about it then clearly the comment wasn't appropriate.
... or it was simply misunderstood/taken the "wrong" way by someone particularly touchy. I can understand most of the listed complains, but both the "princess" reference and the one about the hairdressers sending supposedly racists code messages sound more like if some problems are also somehow with the people that complained.
No. It's okay to say this to someone you know well and who you know won't mind. But the default position is "don't say this", and so the people who have a strong negative response to it are not "particularly touchy", they're normal.
> One employee said that during a one-on-one performance review with a manager, he was told that his rating dropped from "Exceeds" to "Meets" because he didn't get as much done while on paternity leave. If true, that is quite obviously legally actionable.
I'd agree that someone who is on leave, and doesn't work, indeed"meets" expectations. It would be a problem only if everybody is expected to exceed expectations, but then all the evaluation process becomes, almost by definition, nonsensical.
I feel this might be problematic. The Soviet block countries had something called a culture of criticism and self-criticism. As part of this culture, factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?
> factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. I think this is a very wrong-headed way to go about self-criticism. It shouldn't be about loyalty to a party, it should be about recognition of faults and how to improve them. This is how I envisage worker control of production should be like, anyway. We should have a c…
It's nominally about bonding and seeing that everyone has failings, but as you point out that doesn't get problems solved. In practice, it creates social pressure to confess errors (you don't want to act superior to those around you), plus top down pressure ("confess or we'll say it for you"). It also creates investment (if this was all for nothing, why'd I humiliate myself?) and vulnerability (if I leave, they can tell everyone what I said!) And, of course, the degree of shaming can be tailored to cut down people doing too well.
It's a terrifyingly effective thing, and the state communist version looked remarkably similar to the cult version. I don't think it's something you'd do if you actually wanted to help people or improve process, though. The best cultures of self-criticism seem to be the ones that criticize in abstract, sorting out what happened and why publicly but not aiming at individuals.
I feel this might be problematic. The Soviet block countries had something called a culture of criticism and self-criticism. As part of this culture, factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?
Nothing, but that's not what this is. For a variety of reasons, people are reluctant to report incidents through official channels. This is an unofficial and anonymous channel. It's a way to make people aware that yes, things are happening, even if no official action is taken. I hope it makes people more aware.
- A female employee was allegedly called a “princess” for favoring salad over burgers. I imagine the guy that delivered that comment would be hard pushed to figure out what he did wrong. I suppose we all have to really careful what we say.
The hardship begins when personal and professional relationships mix, but if a personal relationship is established it's reasonable to assume that both people should know how to deal with eachother and would have cleared this up between themselves. If HR was involved, it's because someone was out of line or just doesn't understand how adults manage boundaries, in which case he should be warned and, if the case merits, punished.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm. I'm actually struggling to think of a situation where it would be the done thing to call one of your colleagues "princess", be they male or female.
If you know them well enough that they understand that you're joking, then it's probably okay. If you're not sure, then don't. I do have female friends at the office who might find that funny, but only because we know each other and we give each other as good as we get. The difference is that we are friends not just colleagues, which is on a different level, interpersonally.
> One employee said that during a one-on-one performance review with a manager, he was told that his rating dropped from "Exceeds" to "Meets" because he didn't get as much done while on paternity leave. If true, that is quite obviously legally actionable.
- A female employee was allegedly called a “princess” for favoring salad over burgers. I imagine the guy that delivered that comment would be hard pushed to figure out what he did wrong. I suppose we all have to really careful what we say.
Can you explain specifically whats wrong with the comment. This could be making fun of a friend. How is this harassment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain specifically whats wrong with the comment. This could be making fun of a friend. How is this harassment?
> Can you explain specifically whats wrong with the comment. Obviously casual sexism. Friend or not that's not professional to call a colleague that way at the workplace.
Do you walk around all day perpetually offended at everything, or are you just like this on tuesdays?
Seriously, grow up. It was very likely someone who misunderstood their relationship (because thats important now) and was joking at getting a salad rather than a burger or something.
SJWs are killing communication. The soviets did the same thing. A culture of criticism will destroy us.