|
Bust Rodd posted:Here’s an important question to ask yourself for any interaction with another employee: “Would act/behave/talk this way if my EMPLOYER were in the room observing? If the answer is NO, don’t act that way even if they aren’t around and maybe save it for the bar after work. Even if you have feelings/affection/attraction to a co-worker, THE WORKPLACE is the absolute worst place to express those feelings. If you want a private moment to discuss those things, invite them out for a drink or a meal. If they decline, guess what, you just saved yourself from a potentially volatile work environment! While I agree with this, I should point out that "invite them out for a drink or a meal" is enough to get low-level employees fired if the ask-ee tells HR that the attention from the ask-er was unwanted. Some places are so skittish about this stuff (as well they should be) that they have zero-tolerance when it comes to sexual harassment, and that means asking someone out can be the last thing you do at the company. I think that the major problem is that when we talk about it, we mostly talk about how obvious it is that the behavior is wrong, and how it's just so simple to stay out of trouble. Then we bring up examples that would be considered strawman examples were it not for the fact that they really occurred (Louis CK, Harvey Weinstein, Bill O'Reilly, Roger Ailes, Matt Lauer, etc.). We talk about videos where mustache-twirling good ol' boys slap secretaries on the rear end--see how easy it is? JUST DON'T DO THAT! But it's not always so easy; physical contact is not required, nor is offering quid pro quo. Fact of the matter is that only the victim of harassment has to see the behavior as inappropriate. What you see as friendly banter with coworkers can be really close to one of their lines, and once you cross it, you are in trouble. For example, there might be a coworker of yours who you're good friends with. You and she talk and joke about inappropriate stuff all the time because you're friends. Then she gets passed over for a promotion you both know she deserved, and you comfort her with a hug, or by putting your hand on your good friend's shoulder... and that was her line. Turns out, she was only talking about that stuff with you because she was trying to be nice; she didn't think it was appropriate for work, but it didn't bother her enough to complain about, and sometimes the jokes were funny. She doesn't even want you fired, just talked to. But you're going to be fired, because duh, and she will feel guilty about it, and she will be genuinely sad. It doesn't even matter that you thought it was all OK because she never gave you any indication that it wasn't; she was under no obligation to tell you directly that you were bothering her before going to management. Good luck getting unemployment benefits. I bring up this "hypothetical" example because I witnessed it in real life, by the way--thankfully from the outside. But, I learned from my buddy's mistake. When my coworkers who are local (I am a telecommuter and many of my coworkers are hundreds of miles away) send out an email that they're all meeting for drinks or whatever, I skip it. I don't share anything personal even though my mostly female team does all the time, and I maintain a strictly professional and slightly stranger-like relationship with them. I don't reply to happy birthday emails or any of that crap. I have no coworkers as Facebook friends except for one relative who happens to work for the same company. I know it's slightly anti-social and off-putting to my hyperfriendly coworkers (especially when I still worked in the office), but I know enough about me to know that while I wouldn't ever Louis CK anyone, I might slip up and say something or pat someone on the shoulder in an attempt to mimic normal human behavior as seen in the videos I had to watch before coming to Earth. And I've seen where that can get you.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
That doesn't sound so much "professional" as it does "psychotic" to me, dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Have you considered that your friend who told you that story is probably full of poo poo and unable to accept how it really went down
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 17:02
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:That doesn't sound so much "professional" as it does "psychotic" to me, dude. Then you should look up the definition of psychotic, because that's really something different. Really, it's rational. I come to work to get paid, not to make friends or influence people. I'm polite and cordial with my coworkers, and I have great working relationships with most of them. Some of them ask me to join their projects because I'm pretty good at what I do and they appreciate that. I just don't ask about or get involved with any of their personal stuff, and they don't ask much about my personal stuff. When I saw (back when I was in the office) everyone at work Monday, they'd ask why I didn't come out, I'd make up a lame excuse, and we got on with our day. Don't get me wrong. I get along with my coworkers just fine--I just don't deal with them outside of work, and I don't form personal relationships with any of them. I know this attitude isn't for everybody, but it's kept me safely away from any trouble at work, and it has shielded me surprisingly well (though not completely) from problems arising from office politics. Sure, I miss out on Bill from Regulatory's legendary barbecues, but he probably can't grill as well as I can anyway. Dumb Lowtax posted:Have you considered that your friend who told you that story is probably full of poo poo and unable to accept how it really went down No, because we were all coworkers, and I saw it all happening in slow motion. He was a guy everyone liked and a decent worker, but he was young and I don't think that anyone had ever told him to pump the brakes on his overly outgoing nature. He could be a bit much, and apparently, he was. There wasn't anything malicious about what he was saying or what he did, like there is in the videos we all have to watch or in the examples that make it to the media. He was trying to be super-friendly like he always did, and it made one woman uncomfortable enough to say something. I'm not defending what he did, and I haven't seen him in many years so we're not really buddies anymore. But it's easy to fall for the notion that everyone who does this is the worst monster in the world, so just don't be a monster and everything'll be fine. You don't have to be a monster to make a hostile work environment for your coworkers, and what may be innocent to you might not be for someone around you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:That doesn't sound so much "professional" as it does "psychotic" to me, dude. I mean, he's probably also not going to step on any toes acting that way, although he's not doing himself any favors either unless tptb really really want automatons, which who knows? I wonder if we shouldn't be adding this to the long list of basic-rear end life skills everyone needs that public schools really ought to be teaching, like personal finance and cooking etc. I know "keep your hands to yourself" was covered in kindergarten but apparently the lesson didn't stick for a lot of people. e: and of course there's more to it
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
IRQ posted:I mean, he's probably also not going to step on any toes acting that way, although he's not doing himself any favors either unless tptb really really want automatons, which who knows? Correct on the first part of that sentence. But on the latter part, I must object. In my experience, the powers that be tend to appreciate a guy who, while seeming a little stand-off-ish, gets all of his work done (and excels at it), never bothers his coworkers, and leaves his personal life at home whenever possible. If that makes me an automaton, then... beep boop. IRQ posted:I wonder if we shouldn't be adding this to the long list of basic-rear end life skills everyone needs that public schools really ought to be teaching, like personal finance and cooking etc. I know "keep your hands to yourself" was covered in kindergarten but apparently the lesson didn't stick for a lot of people. e: and of course there's more to it It's the "more to it" that, to me, is the issue for a lot of people. You don't have to be Harvey Weinstein to create a hostile work environment. Some people just don't get where the lines are. There's nothing malicious about it--they just don't get it. If nobody ever tells them that they're going too far (and nobody is obligated to do that), then there's a good chance that they will only learn the hard way. I really don't know what the perfect answer is. I do know that simplistic answers like "keep your hands to yourself" won't fix the problem, though. I mean, you can take "keep your hands to yourself" to the ultimate conclusion, forbidding physical contact of any kind (even shaking hands). But what about inappropriate comments or jokes? Forbid people from talking to each other except as required for the work to get done? OK, fine, but that's kind-of how I act at work, and I'm getting flak for it now. Companies need to do more than show a video on day two of training, and the videos they show need to be less stupid and focus on more subtle behaviors that people might not know are causing discomfort in other people. Stamping out sexual harassment in the workplace needs to be seen as an issue of maintenance; talking about it one time and never bringing it up again isn't working. I think that some people forget about those training materials, and they eventually just get too comfortable at work. "Oh, she doesn't mind these jokes or comments about her looks; she knows I'm not hitting on her and that I'm just kidding around." Meanwhile, she's thinking, "Jesus gently caress, I don't even want to work on this floor anymore, this rear end in a top hat just won't loving stop!" Maybe that's a good idea? You know, having the companies talk about it with employees more than once?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Correct on the first part of that sentence. But on the latter part, I must object. In my experience, the powers that be tend to appreciate a guy who, while seeming a little stand-off-ish, gets all of his work done (and excels at it), never bothers his coworkers, and leaves his personal life at home whenever possible. If that makes me an automaton, then... beep boop. It wasn't meant to be an attack. My boss would love if I was a robot. You know like for instance doing work instead of posting?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
IRQ posted:It wasn't meant to be an attack. My boss would love if I was a robot. Ha. One of the joys of working at home is that if things are slow, like they are today, I can Internet all I want on my non-work connection, as long as I don't just get up and play hooky all day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:"Afraid to be around a woman because they might give the wrong impression" is a dog-whistle for "I know I'm a misogynist, and I don't trust myself to keep it in check." Yeah it's like he said in the interview at the end, a lot of people asking "where's the line?" are asking it in the sense of "tell me exactly how far I can go before I get in trouble". Like it's never about having basic human empathy or anything, it's always about "how will this affect ME?" tarlibone posted:Companies need to do more than show a video on day two of training, and the videos they show need to be less stupid and focus on more subtle behaviors that people might not know are causing discomfort in other people. Stamping out sexual harassment in the workplace needs to be seen as an issue of maintenance; talking about it one time and never bringing it up again isn't working. I think that some people forget about those training materials, and they eventually just get too comfortable at work. "Oh, she doesn't mind these jokes or comments about her looks; she knows I'm not hitting on her and that I'm just kidding around." Meanwhile, she's thinking, "Jesus gently caress, I don't even want to work on this floor anymore, this rear end in a top hat just won't loving stop!" This is also a really good point - if people aren't periodically reminded about this kind of thing it's easy for them to slip into a pattern of behaviour and think everything is "normal" because nobody is explicitly calling them out on it. Of course on the other side of things, you know there will be people that will imagine themselves as exceptions because when THEY do all the things depicted in the training video, people like it. I think the larger cultural change needed is less about "teach people how not to be creepers" and more "punish the harasser, not the victim". Honestly it extends beyond sexual harassment, where people are able to get away with lovely behaviour because they're "important". We need to drive home the idea that nobody is so vital to their job that they can be allowed to make the working environment terrible for everyone else. Even from a purely pragmatic viewpoint,\the cost of creating a hostile work environment more than cancels out whatever benefits they're bringing to the company in the first place. If someone is actively driving away new talent, that person is a detriment to your business, period. The Cheshire Cat fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Aug 1, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
I guess it all comes down to corporations being unable to treat people as people so there's no real way to use human judgement or conflict management, they may need to use set rules in order to avoid having to understand and use human judgement. At the very least, the recent surge of concern has outed a bunch of jerks.. With the rise and concentration of corporate power, people like that get more and more dangerous. There may be workers' rights concerns on the other side of things, but the upper echelons seem pretty straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Yeah it's like he said in the interview at the end, a lot of people asking "where's the line?" are asking it in the sense of "tell me exactly how far I can go before I get in trouble". Like it's never about having basic human empathy or anything, it's always about "how will this affect ME?" Most people don't have perfect empathy and stuff missing seemingly (to you) basic cues. I really don't like where this is all going as it is turning human interactions into a liability. You can't offend anybody ever in a world where everyone gets offended all the drat time by random poo poo. People are asking where the line is because there is no line, it's a smudge of dirt on a dirt road outside of the really obvious ditch. It's creating a climate of fear and distrust, not the foundation you want to build equal rights or anything else on. When #metoo first happened this came out and I am sure it's going to get you all twisted up. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42630108
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
Every time I hear somebody in my periphery talk about how unfair a boss or HR was to them about a bogus sexual harassment claim, I ask women who know them if they're a creep and whoops! Turns out they always are!
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
The line is simple. Don’t talk about a co-worker’s looks, either to them or anyone else. Don’t ask co-workers out on dates, don’t touch co-workers, and don’t talk about things with co-workers that you wouldn’t want your boss to hear. If there’s any question don’t do it. It seems pretty loving simple to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
These guys know what the rules are, they’re just being pedantic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 02:28
|
|
|
"Where is the line?" is straight-up gaslighting because it focuses on the perception of the action rather than the action itself. It simultaneously minimizes the action, "oh, it's just a hug, no big deal!", while insisting that the "insignificant" action be tolerated. If a compliment or a hug are no big deal, then it's no big deal not to give them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
It’s unreasonable to put a hard and fast “don’t date at work” thing up because for many people your social sphere can’t help but contain Work people. If you work a lot, or your hours are lovely you have no choice if you want human interaction. My roommates both work in restaurants. If your working until 1-2-AM 3-5 nights a week, when exactly are you supposed to meet someone outside of the service industry, especially in a small town? If you have a corporate 9-5 and you go home across town in a big city then you have opportunities to make friends and meet people outside of work. If you’re, say a teacher, a bartender, a security guard, if you work the night shift anywhere... it’s hard to meet people, and trying to meet people through apps in anything smaller than a normal sized city is frankly not an option down south.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
Obviously people are referring to situations where the two co-workers are forced in close proximity all the time due to their particular job duties, possibly with a power differential, in what will inevitably become an extremely uncomfortable situation every day thereafter if an advance were to be rejected because of the implication
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 06:31
|
|
|
Power differential is a key thing which is why all the worst stories are always of high ranking people being inappropriate with their subordinates - it's a lot harder to reject someone who destroy your livelihood if you do. This is why so many internal processes for dealing with sexual harassment complaints are inadequate - because they tend to protect the people higher up the corporate ladder, so making a complaint ends up being just as bad as rejecting them outright.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
LividLiquid posted:Every time I hear somebody in my periphery talk about how unfair a boss or HR was to them about a bogus sexual harassment claim, I ask women who know them if they're a creep and whoops! Turns out they always are! I don’t doubt it, but why are you around so many people who’ve had sexual harassment claims filled against them? Is a large enough company that lousy with creeps? My company isn’t that big. We’ve only had one or two of that genre of creep. My sense of scale is off.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2018 08:01
|
|
|
Tornhelm posted:I'd like to respond with a "feel free to lay down some numbers to prove that claim, but it sure seems like confirmation bias at best and exactly-the-problem misogyny at worst" myself. There's a reason why a lot of teachers put a ridiculous amount of effort into never being alone with a student. A false claim can and will ruin their careers and possibly personal lives unless they're constantly proactive when it comes to protecting themselves rather than being reactive. Policies around never being alone with students aren't put in place solely to protect teachers. The aim is (or should be) to prevent the normalization of these one-on-one situations, because those are the cracks that predators slip through. If teachers don't let themselves or their coworkers get into those situations, then it becomes more obvious when someone seeks out those situations in order to take advantage of students.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2018 22:22
|
|
|
gently caress the DA almost always. edit: i say "almost" because Larry Krasner is DA of Philly and he's cool edit2: holy poo poo i remember watching that episode of 60 Minutes live and being horrified DC Murderverse fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Aug 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 04:37
|
|
|
Super Reminder: The Death Penalty is racist and classist and not infallible and if you are for it you suck poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 04:40
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:Super Reminder: The Death Penalty is racist and classist and not infallible and if you are for it you suck poo poo Its also not a deterrent and unlike a life sentence is irreversible in case someone made an oopsie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
swickles posted:Its also not a deterrent and unlike a life sentence is irreversible in case someone made an oopsie. That and it is more expensive then a life in prison sentence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
I was reading a while back that they are having trouble carrying out lethal injections because almost every certifying board in medicine will expel you if take part in an execution. Like, I am an anesthesiologist, and the ABA would revoke my certification if I did. Its not a license to practice medicine, but it basically relegates you to the shady side of medical practice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
swickles posted:I was reading a while back that they are having trouble carrying out lethal injections because almost every certifying board in medicine will expel you if take part in an execution. Like, I am an anesthesiologist, and the ABA would revoke my certification if I did. Its not a license to practice medicine, but it basically relegates you to the shady side of medical practice. also no drug company or pharmacist will sell you the drugs to do the injections so states like Arkansas and Nebraska have to deal with shady people in different countries or literally buy drugs like a junkie looking for a fix
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
Also the company in Europe that produced something like 80% of the chemicals needed to lethally inject someone decided they were done being ghoulish murdermisers and stopped producing it, so now tons of prisons are scrambling all over the country to try and find new ways of killing inmates and surprisingly coming up short in ways to painlessly execute someone for free without leaving a gross pile of guts. Its almost like executing people causes more problems than it solves. Like we should just literally put all the rapists and murderes on a big island, and then all the rapists will get murdered... or all the murderers...
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 05:36
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Also the company in Europe that produced something like 80% of the chemicals needed to lethally inject someone decided they were done being ghoulish murdermisers and stopped producing it, so now tons of prisons are scrambling all over the country to try and find new ways of killing inmates and surprisingly coming up short in ways to painlessly execute someone for free without leaving a gross pile of guts. or we could just be like most other normal countries and treat even the most disgusting of criminals with basic human decency, thus setting a standard for our society that doesn't rely on us getting a gross sense of relief from getting "revenge"
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
On a purer more pleasant comedy note, Brian Kilmeade's intense fear of sharks made for one of the best cut-ins I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 06:32
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:or we could just be like most other normal countries and treat even the most disgusting of criminals with basic human decency, thus setting a standard for our society that doesn't rely on us getting a gross sense of relief from getting "revenge" This would require Americans to develop a sense of basic human decency. A feat I will believe only when I see it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
Bust Rodd posted:Like we should just literally put all the rapists and murderes on a big island, Some Scandinavian country does this and it rehabilitates them really really well. It's a very small island though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Like so many other offices in the US, the DA really shouldn't be an elected position.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
I got the feeling that whoever that incumbent DA was, the main reason he didn't prosecute all those types of crimes was because it was some rural parish in Louisiana where you just don't get many, if any, crimes like that reported. That's the one thing I miss about growing up in Greene County, Illinois: the whole time I lived there, nobody ever got robbed, carjacked, raped, or murdered. (At least, no rapes were reported; we all know how that works, though.) So, yeah, whoever the DA was back then? He didn't prosecute any of those claims, either. It was all minor assault, petty theft, traffic violations, maybe a child molester, and at least one horse fucker.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Like so many other offices in the US, the DA really shouldn't be an elected position. It absolutely should be, as John Oliver said most of them act this way because they never get opposed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
TGG posted:On a purer more pleasant comedy note, Brian Kilmeade's intense fear of sharks made for one of the best cut-ins I've seen. I have no idea how they find the material especially over the course of years. Train is still the best though
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
Veskit posted:I have no idea how they find the material especially over the course of years. i mean he worked on the Daily Show for years I imagine he developed some video archive searching talent (or hired someone who is good at it)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
Sorry to ruin the magic, but everything on TV is logged, meaning some poor bastard (me, once) had to watch the show and write down everything that was said into a special computer program. All the researchers have to do is search for the word "shark"and boom, all the timecodes will pop up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
TGG posted:On a purer more pleasant comedy note, Brian Kilmeade's intense fear of sharks made for one of the best cut-ins I've seen. His almost whispered "Did you get attacked?" when his cohost said there was a shark sighted at the beach he was at killed me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 08:28
|
|
|
Clamknuckle posted:His almost whispered "Did you get attacked?" when his cohost said there was a shark sighted at the beach he was at killed me. The party of bravery
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 08:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:It absolutely should be, as John Oliver said most of them act this way because they never get opposed. The thing is though, these people are unopposed under an elective system right at this very moment. Like that guy that was eventually challenged by a dog. The supposed fix to this issue is already in place and it's not preventing the problem at all. Because as it turns out, needing to run an election campaign is actually a sizeable entry barrier. You need to make contacts, get donations, run advertisements, and basically manage a whole lot of extraneous poo poo that is entirely unrelated to your qualifications for the actual job. Add to that the issue that elections tend to favour the incumbent (particularly since a relatively high office like DA offers plenty of opportunities to network with people important to your re-election campaign), and suddenly you've got a whole bunch of hurdles in front of you even if you're running against a rather inept sitting DA. And on top of that you've got the issue that (in the US specifically) elections tend to have negative impacts on behaviour while in office. In competitive districts a DA cannot possibly allow themselves to be considered "soft on crime", so you end up with the convictions über alles approach that leads to aggressive pushing of punitive plea deals and suchlike. Meanwhile in noncompetitive districts a DA can do basically whatever the gently caress they feel like, as long as they marginally clean up their act in the run-up to election day, because the electorate's memory tends to be short.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2018 09:19
|
|