Speak your mind

[Steve]

I agree; there are at least two different sorts of problems of crossing those lines. One is the romantic/sexual harassment sort. The other is the good 'ol boy sort of thing. While there are some common elements, the two situations are different. Honestly, I think the buddies type of thing are harder to solve because they're so more deeply insinuted, and also better able to be justified. If a supervisor and subordinate have crossed the line and are dating, it's only the one pairing that has to be dealt with, and it's often much more blatant when favoritism is going on. But the buddies? That can be involve several people, and be much harder to recognize or stop.

Absolutely. On the other side, if this boss has crossed the line the other way and is bullying the employee, that can be very destructive as well.

Either way, being belligerent isn't going to help that employee survive the situation.

 

[Steve]

It comes down to a couple reprimands a counseling session or 2 and then termination.

Absolutely. The details will vary depending upon the specifics of the contract, but the path is short and sweet. It can be a referral, may involve suspensions, but it's always far easier than documenting the employee to termination through a performance improvement plan of some kind.

As a manager, a poor performer with a great attitude is a tough nut to crack. The path to terminating a person for performance, particularly where a union is involved, can be lengthy. And the documentation can become a full time job. The poor performer who decides to melt down is actually doing their manager a huge favor and saving them a lot of work. Either way, it's a manager's job to hold employees accountable, but man, it's so much easier when the employee decides to throw misconduct into the mix.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Absolutely. The details will vary depending upon the specifics of the contract, but the path is short and sweet. It can be a referral, may involve suspensions, but it's always far easier than documenting the employee to termination through a performance improvement plan of some kind.

As a manager, a poor performer with a great attitude is a tough nut to crack. The path to terminating a person for performance, particularly where a union is involved, can be lengthy. And the documentation can become a full time job. The poor performer who decides to melt down is actually doing their manager a huge favor and saving them a lot of work. Either way, it's a manager's job to hold employees accountable, but man, it's so much easier when the employee decides to throw misconduct into the mix.

it depends on the misconduct, there are ways to immediately terminate and it happened in an office I worked in, but you are no where near that level of misconduct with this. There are also levels of misconduct that can get you terminated but those can be avoided by "professional" counseling. But the level I saw there was no recourse since it involved law enforcement

 

[wingchun100]

Why would Sue have gotten Dave in trouble if they were too friendly? She allows her buddies to do as they please, while micromanaging those she doesn't like such as Dave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wingchun100]

And One other point : I think Dave was right in not apologizing when he knew damn well Sue wasn't truly offended. It was just one more way for her to mess with him. This was also recognized by the other administrator who took up Dave's cause and said there was no reason for him to apologize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dirty Dog]

And One other point : I think Dave was right in not apologizing when he knew damn well Sue wasn't truly offended. It was just one more way for her to mess with him. This was also recognized by the other administrator who took up Dave's cause and said there was no reason for him to apologize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh. You neglected to mention that Dave was a telepath.


Sent from an old fashioned 300 baud acoustic modem by whistling into the handset. Really.

 

[Steve]

And One other point : I think Dave was right in not apologizing when he knew damn well Sue wasn't truly offended. It was just one more way for her to mess with him. This was also recognized by the other administrator who took up Dave's cause and said there was no reason for him to apologize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It sounds to me like Dave is at least a part of a larger problem. Don't get me wrong. It sounds like your boss could use some training and coaching to help her be a more effective manager. And that according to you, if one manager doesn't back up the others, that's a red flag, too. When you say that one administrator took up Dave's cause, that's like two parents failing to back each other up. Like good parents, good management is consistent and good managers back each other up.

It's possible that Dave is a great employee who works for an incompetent. And it's possible that she just has it in for him, for no reason. It's possible, but, in my experience, it's very, very unlikely.

Competent staff + Incompetent management just doesn't tend to look like this. What tends to happen in situations where the staff is competent and the boss is incompetent is a lot of good employees just keeping their heads down and trying to stay out of the fray. You don't end up with insubordination. You end up with disengagement and attrition.

Going back to the original post and "speaking your mind," your friend "Dave" is finding out first hand that work isn't really the place for it. Simply put, you are being paid to be there to do a job, and part of your job is to listen to your supervisor. Whether you like her or not, respect her or not or think she's a complete, bumbling idiot, "Dave" is being paid a wage to do a job, and that job includes being accountable to a boss, who was within her purview to call him on some language she considered inappropriate.

I'd love to hear the supervisor's version of this story.

 

[jks9199]

And One other point : I think Dave was right in not apologizing when he knew damn well Sue wasn't truly offended. It was just one more way for her to mess with him. This was also recognized by the other administrator who took up Dave's cause and said there was no reason for him to apologize.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are times when a "non-apology apology" can work wonders in letting both sides save face and get what they want. For example, "I'm so sorry that you were offended" never admits that the behavior was actually offense, renders an apology for a factual condition (the recipient WAS offended) and, often, is quite honest because the alleged offender is truly sorry that the offendee was offended , leading to the mess.

 

[wingchun100]

Right but then the bully feels their bullying was successful, which means they will go on to bully another day. Whether anyone reading my posts wants to admit I have a point or not, there are supervisors out there who enjoy their "power" a little too much. And sometimes the only way to get the bullying to end is to take a stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steve]

Right but then the bully feels their bullying was successful, which means they will go on to bully another day. Whether anyone reading my posts wants to admit I have a point or not, there are supervisors out there who enjoy their "power" a little too much. And sometimes the only way to get the bullying to end is to take a stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're job isn't to evaluate your supervisor's performance. That's her supervisor's job. Your job is to get your work done. And in return, the company gives you money.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about employment, I think. She is paid to evaluate your performance and hold you accountable. She may or may not be good at it, but that's her job. Your job is to get your work done.

It is very possible to manage your manager, and you can definitely influence things for the better. Taking a stand, unless there is something actionable like harassment, seldom works out for you.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[wingchun100]

I love how you assume this means neither Dave or I got our work done. And your response just confirms what I said: no one will admit I have a point, so I'm done with this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wingchun100]

In fact, Dave, one other employee and I (we were on a team of 6) were pretty much the ONLY ones working. The other 3 got to hang out at the supervisor's desk and chat all day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xue Sheng]

This really is not my discussion, and I do not wish to argue, but I have read this and I do not see anywhere that Steve said or even implied the Dave or you was not doing your work

 

[jks9199]

Right but then the bully feels their bullying was successful, which means they will go on to bully another day. Whether anyone reading my posts wants to admit I have a point or not, there are supervisors out there who enjoy their "power" a little too much. And sometimes the only way to get the bullying to end is to take a stand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Simple question: what's the definition of a win in the situation? Being left alone to work? Avoiding a serious negative review regarding ability to work with others? Solving the problem in the first place?

Do you understand what the hostile workplace laws say? It doesn't have to be behavior directed at the offended employee; it merely has to be a pattern of behavior that causes them to feel uncomfortable or offended which continues after being reported. In your example -- Sue reported it. The manager did their job: deal with the problem. You and Dave have assumed that she was simply using this as an excuse -- and that may well be. Or she may really have found it offensive. But once she reported it as being offensive -- Dave's manager had no choice but to address it. It seems from your account that he did this in a pretty mild way. I obviously don't know the history with Dave at the company; one factor may have been prior reports or complaints, and also on company policy. I worked at one company where supervisors were not permitted to address dress code violations of members of the opposite sex; they were required to have a supervisor of the same gender do it, even if that meant someone coming from headquarters or elsewhere to the work site. I could have had a female employee come in to the office wearing something from Victoria's Secret, high heels, and nothing else -- and I couldn't have said a thing to them other than "wait here."

Are there power mad supervisors out there? Of course. Are there people who take advantage of the laws? Sure. Absolutely. Doesn't matter. There are also people who take advantage others being unwilling to stand up for themselves or to directly address a problem, and use that to get away with all sorts of things.

Oh, and as to the idea that you might have to "take a stand"... Well, that stand might have consequences. In your example, if Dave had had a prior history of similar complaints from different people (or the same person), his refusal to apologize could have cost his job. It may affect his ability to be promoted or go to a different assignment or contract. If you're going to take a stand -- you also have to accept the consequences.

 

[Steve]

Double post. Sorry.

 

[Steve]

Let me try to simplify my position a little. There are a few right way to address issues with your supervisor, and there are a lot of wrong ways.

It sounds like you and your friends are spending a lot of time judging other people, and I'd bet that doing so isn't anywhere in your job description. You aren't being paid to appraise her performance or address any issues she may or may not have.

Your supervisor, on the other hand, is paid to address issues and appraise your performance. In fact, if your supervisor sees something and fails to address it, she is putting the company at risk.

There's a book I would like to recommend to you. It's called "the 360 degree leader" and gives a lot of very good advice on how to be a leader, and influence your peers and your bosses in ways that are constructive and helpful to them and to you.

http://www.amazon.com/360-Degree-Le...=1403488266&sr=8-1&keywords=360+degree+leader


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Steve]

I love how you assume this means neither Dave or I got our work done. And your response just confirms what I said: no one will admit I have a point, so I'm done with this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe I don't understand your point. What is your point?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Transk53]

****, didn't mean to thank your post - damn fat thumbs!



Not sure where abouts you live but where I am we'd never be asked to take a Scotland Flag down on St Andrews day - in Scotland. There might but trouble from a minority of idiots if tricolours or St George's crosses where on display during the Ireland and England national holidays (in Scotland) but I don't think that's representative of our society in general - nor do I think the Politically Correct brigade are. Both are extreme opposites of the scale and in reality I'd say that UK society - out with a select few impoverished areas -generally resides pretty close to the middle.

I'll not drag this into a Scottish I dependence debate because there is so much more to it but I don't really get your final statement, what is there to understand better?

Really, I think people just like to have something to get outraged about and in some cases - I'm not inferring yours - that is fuelled by a 'hidden' racist/xenophobic/sexist agenda. I don't know how many times I've heard people "disgusted" that we weren't allowed to sing 'bla bla black sheep', put up Christmas decorations at work anymore incase it offended any non-white non-Christian UK citizens and that women are still paid less than men in comparable positions of employment, simply because they are female....... Then when challenged, people can't provide a non-misinterpreted, credible source that supports their claim. Go figure.

Good answer and I concur. You are right to think about nefarious agendas, I do too. I have nothing against the Scots or their heritage. In fact you deserve to be independent. Before you think it, that is no hollow thought. My Grandad was an Aberdonian. He was a hard arsed RSM. I am proud of my Scottish genes moulded into me. I just want to be able to shout my Englishness, but I can't

 

[PhotonGuy]

The point of my thread is this, the way I see it, its much better to speak your mind and state your position on stuff than to keep it bottled up inside. If you've got issues its much better to express your issues and deal with them than to not say anything and keep it closed up inside you. Keeping issues closed up inside you just isn't healthy and in the USA and I believe most other countries that aren't communist you're allowed to express your issues with words and to state your position.

Lets say for instance that I were to say everybody wearing a purple shirt should be shot. I have a right to my opinion and I have a right to state my opinion. This doesn't mean that I can start shooting people wearing purple shirts but I can state my position and I can take legal actions to change the law so that I can shoot people wearing purple shirts (lobbying, making public speeches, voting for politicians that agree with me ect. not that I would get anywhere of course). As it is, people are allowed to state their positions on stuff. Now, anybody who happens to be wearing a purple shirt while they're reading this don't take it personally and for the record, no, I don't think people wearing purple shirts should be shot I was just using that as an example that people are allowed to and should speak their mind as absurd as it might be. The way I see it, its better to state your mind and embarrass yourself than to keep stuff bottled up. Keeping stuff bottled up just isn't good for you.

 

[Steve]

I think that it's often better to keep one's mouth shut, than to speak your mind.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD