41–50 of 234 posts
- 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?
> 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.
Is it? As long as the performance review was done based on the employee's performance over the entire year, it's fair game no? I'm not sure I agree with the logic that someone who takes time off during the year is given credit for the good work they would have done had they not taken time off.
Reviews should be about the quality of the work, not whether you take 0 vacations days or work until 10pm everyday because you're 22 and don't have a family.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
... 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.
> by someone particularly touchy. 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.
No one is arguing at your right to be offended, what people hate is that not only can this person clearly not talk this out with someone - they need to go to a public shaming list. IMO it's a form of virtue signaling. I doubt this person is actually offended, but the local SJW group told them they need to be to be seen as progressive.
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?
You'd get sued for wrongful termination if you go around firing people based on mere implication.
> 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.
If the employee would otherwise exceed expectations and took paternity leave, then they still exceed expectations. If they were hired in March and worked for 40 weeks, they would not be penalized for failing to work in January or February. Leave should be handled the same way.
If the employee was not professional about taking leave (didn't give any notice, did not work with colleagues to organize coverage of his tasks, etc.) then things are different. Similarly, if they promised to do something while on leave and didn't, then that would be an issue.
> 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.
Why is confidential material for public consumption? All this is stuff that ought to go to the Ombudsman, HR or the police to be dealt with properly. What good does it do to hear "my supervisor is habitually oversharing and told me she smokes hashish and is worried about an upcoming drug test"?
> 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.