New Laws Target Workplace Bullying

[jallman]

Incorrect.


And that is HER choice.

It's not necessarily HER choice. You don't get as many choices when you have hungry mouths to feed, school clothes to buy, medicine to pick up at the pharmacy, etc. There are employers who leverage that need for the paycheck as a means to lord unwarranted authority and diminish the boundaries of professionalism.

And that is HIS choice.

In his case, you may be right. But what circumstances lead him to stay in that small town?

No, it should not be tolerated by management. The government need not be involved.

Well that's all well and good if management is proactive about taking care of it. However, most of the time, management is the problem.

 

[MaggieD]

Incorrect.


And that is HER choice.


And that is HIS choice.


No, it should not be tolerated by management. The government need not be involved.

The point is, it's NOT their choice. It's an uneven fight.

Well, the government is involved as they are with racial, sexual and other discriminations in the workplace. The very purpose of the Federal government is to make sure that its citizens rights are protected. It says, "All men are created equal." It doesn't say, "Unless you're the boss, then you can treat me like a piece of crap."

 

[lizzie]

That's but one example. There are countless others I see around me in the cess pool of a city I live in nearly every day.

Perhaps that accounts for the difference in our viewpoints. I don't live in a cesspool of a city. I'm in a part of the country where manners are very common and expected of people. I've never worked in any place where yelling was as issue at all. I would tend to think this is a more common occurance in a predominantly men's field of work, and I expect men to generally interract on a much more raucous level than women do with each other.

All that aside, I still believe that this is an unnecessary and intrusive government move.

 

[rivrrat]

It's not necessarily HER choice. You don't get as many choices when you have hungry mouths to feed, school clothes to buy, medicine to pick up at the pharmacy, etc. There are employers who leverage that need for the paycheck as a means to lord unwarranted authority and diminish the boundaries of professionalism.

Bull****. A person CHOOSES to have children. A person CHOOSES their education or lack thereof. A person CHOOSES where they work. A person CHOOSES where they live. A person CHOOSES whether or not to educate themselves further in order to facilitate finding a different career. Everything IS her choice. If she continues working at a job where she's "abused", she's doing so because it is beneficial to her in some way.

In his case, you may be right. But what circumstances lead him to stay in that small town?

It doesn't matter. It's still his choice.

I know that you would prefer to be in Alaska, but you remain where you are for your partner. While you *could* say you don't have a choice, you DO. You *could* say you're forced to work a crappy job because you're forced to be where you are. But you aren't forced to do jack ****ing ****. We all CHOOSE. We prioritize what's important to us and make decisions appropriately. We all do things that we would rather not do were circumstances different, but that - in no way - means that we have no choice in the matter. We're merely tolerating one aspect because something else has more priority for us.

Well that's all well and good if management is proactive about taking care of it. However, most of the time, management is the problem.

And that's when you find another job. It doesn't have to be tomorrow, it could be a year from now, but you find another ****ing job. You pound the pavement, you send out resumes, you educate yourself further, you make contacts and you find another job. The only reason someone stays in a job they hate is because it benefits them in some way to do so. Some people just remain in this compliant state and claim, "they have no choice" when the real fact of the matter is that they have no desire to put forth the effort.

 

[jallman]

Perhaps that accounts for the difference in our viewpoints. I don't live in a cesspool of a city. I'm in a part of the country where manners are very common and expected of people. I've never worked in any place where yelling was as issue at all. I would tend to think this is a more common occurance in a predominantly men's field of work, and I expect men to generally interract on a much more raucous level than women do with each other.

All that aside, I still believe that this is an unnecessary and intrusive government move.

When you mix other cultures with no respect for women, children, boundaries, etc...cultures like Persians who believe, fundamentally, that they can buy people with their dollars, the government needs to step in and set the boundaries for them. When Asian men think it is ok to berate women and youngsters who work for them in front of crowds of people, something should be done. Arabs and South Americans seem to be the worst offenders, believing it is perfectly acceptable to scream to get their point across. These cultural differences should be made to conform to a more American way of doing business and interacting...the politeness you describe...that's the way I was raised and grew up. It is nonexistent in other parts of the country, especially in large cities.

 

[rivrrat]

The point is, it's NOT their choice. It's an uneven fight.

Yes, it is their choice.

Well, the government is involved as they are with racial, sexual and other discriminations in the workplace. The very purpose of the Federal government is to make sure that its citizens rights are protected. It says, "All men are created equal." It doesn't say, "Unless you're the boss, then you can treat me like a piece of crap."

All men are not equal. Not in any way, shape, or form. All that we recognize is that we are all treated equally in the eyes of the law. Not in personal interactions. The govt need not be involved in racial, sexual or other discriminations in private workplaces.

 

[Cold Highway]

You're off the hook, then - you will no longer be forced to be a prick Your boss will be held accountable for the pressure. . . and YOU will have recourse when he lets off on you, too - win win

I support it - btu then again I was never a prat and still got my job done. My employees loved me.

I take it because it apart of the job, in fact I hate being treated like a baby at work. I prefer to be told that Im doing something wrong than being coddled. This is the way the retail environment is.

If you have to yell at your employees, then you obviously aren't giving good enough direction nor are you being a leader with your motivation of them. Your pay or loss of it is your problem and gives you no right to be abusive, which includes raising your voice to another human being.

Five years of bonus, corporate awards, and finishing months under budget says Im doing a fine job.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Exactly, I yell at my employees when they dont perform. One part of my pay is performance, if my people dont perform I dont get paid so yea, Im gonna get mean, ruthless and nasty because if I dont my boss will find someone who will. My motto is that if you dont like the heat get out of the fire, especially in a time where there are people who will do the work I ask.

**** that. Your employees are adults. If they continue to under-perform and there really are people who will replace them, then get rid of the dead-wood and bring in fresh blood.

Yelling is for when someone runs a red light and t-bones you, or for when someone's about to do something that could result in something serious like bodily injury. It's not for when you're displeased.

 

[MaggieD]

Yes, it is their choice.


All men are not equal. Not in any way, shape, or form. All that we recognize is that we are all treated equally in the eyes of the law. Not in personal interactions. The govt need not be involved in racial, sexual or other discriminations in private workplaces.

It's not an equal fight. What about that don't you understand?

In your world, blacks go to black schools; they'd live in the black part of town; women (and men) are forced to tolerate sexual innuendo or quit their jobs; women are paid less than men for the same work; men are forced to have their manhood questionned at their workplace by their jerky bosses; told to go F-off and do it right next time in front of their peers; gays would be fired because someone saw them at a gay bar. You're entitled to your beliefs, Rivrrat. But that's not the world I choose to live in. And, ya' know what? It's not.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

If you have to yell at your employees, then you obviously aren't giving good enough direction nor are you being a leader with your motivation of them. Your pay or loss of it is your problem and gives you no right to be abusive, which includes raising your voice to another human being.

I supervise a group of 5 guys. I have never raised my voice to any of them, even the one that's a constant ****-up. I have fired people from my staff and I have landed one on my organization's probation policy. Never had to raise my voice once. You can be clear and direct with your expectation without acting like a goddamned child.

I have zero respect for abusive employers.

****. Yes.

TED,
Because a simple "thanks" was not enough.

 

[jallman]

Bull****. A person CHOOSES to have children.

Yes, a person chooses to have children. There is no part of choosing to have children that indicates the need to care for those children being leveraged against you to treat you poorly is acceptable or permissible. You might understand this if you had a child or were exposed to something besides your bubble world where everyone rafts and bounces from cool job to cool job without a care in the world.

A person CHOOSES their education or lack thereof. A person CHOOSES where they work. A person CHOOSES where they live. A person CHOOSES whether or not to educate themselves further in order to facilitate finding a different career. Everything IS her choice. If she continues working at a job where she's "abused", she's doing so because it is beneficial to her in some way.

Well when you figure out how to wiggle your nose and make those choices magically happen, let everyone know. Until then, the rest of us will have to deal with the real world where one has to work toward making those choices come to fruition. During that period of work and advancement, when one is dependent on that paycheck to buy the ramen he eats every night while working his way through college, he should not be subjected to harsh treatment that offends his human dignity. That student/mother/adult continuing his education should not be left having to jeopardize his personal work to better himself just to flee an abusive employer. The employer should not be abusive in the first place.

It doesn't matter. It's still his choice.

I know that you would prefer to be in Alaska, but you remain where you are for your partner. While you *could* say you don't have a choice, you DO. You *could* say you're forced to work a crappy job because you're forced to be where you are. But you aren't forced to do jack ****ing ****. We all CHOOSE. We prioritize what's important to us and make decisions appropriately. We all do things that we would rather not do were circumstances different, but that - in no way - means that we have no choice in the matter. We're merely tolerating one aspect because something else has more priority for us.



And that's when you find another job. It doesn't have to be tomorrow, it could be a year from now, but you find another ****ing job. You pound the pavement, you send out resumes, you educate yourself further, you make contacts and you find another job. The only reason someone stays in a job they hate is because it benefits them in some way to do so. Some people just remain in this compliant state and claim, "they have no choice" when the real fact of the matter is that they have no desire to put forth the effort.

I think this is where we are talking past each other...I am a firm believer that while one is bettering themselves or finding a new job, they should not be subjected to the damage an abusive employer causes. The stripping of dignity and mental stress is not acceptable EVER despite the choice being in the hands of the employee to leave or stay. Bettering oneself doesn't happen by waking up one days and saying "Wow, I'm better than I was yesterday so now I just need to show up at a new job today". It takes time, it takes energy, and it takes work. No one should be subjected to abuse in exchange for a paycheck they need even if they don't amount to much to you just because they aren't "there" yet.

 

[jallman]

Five years of bonus, corporate awards, and finishing months under budget says Im doing a fine job.

If you are yelling at your employees, I think it speaks more to the fact that your employees are probably carrying you rather than you actually doing fine. I have found that employers who are yelling at their employees are typically doing so to cover their own managerial incompetence and deflecting from the fact that they are driving their employees to take responsibility for keeping up the facade. They yell because its easier and more of a show to the uppers than actually bucking up, getting rid of the bad parts of the machine, and taking responsibility for fixing it.

 

[rivrrat]

It's not an equal fight. What about that don't you understand?

Yes, it is. What about that don't you understand?

In your world, blacks go to black schools;

Not as long as schools are run by the govt. If they're private, then yes.

they'd live in the black part of town;

If they choose to, of course.

women (and men) are forced to tolerate sexual innuendo or quit their jobs;

Well duh. You either work your job and accept the working conditions, change them, or find a new job. It's called "personal responsibility".

women are paid less than men for the same work;

If they accept that, yes. Personally, I won't work for less than what I think I'm worth. If other women do, that's their choice.

men are forced to have their manhood questionned at their workplace by their jerky bosses; told to go F-off and do it right next time in front of their peers;

yes, and if they don't like it, they can quit.

gays would be fired because someone saw them at a gay bar.

if their boss is bigoted homophobe, yes. Employers should have every right to hire and fire whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish.

You're entitled to your beliefs, Rivrrat. But that's not the world I choose to live in. And, ya' know what? It's not.

I know, you'd rather live in the world where everyone pretends to be something they're not. Where people are sued for ridiculous reason and our court systems are tied up 24/7 because someone's wittle feelings got hurt. Your world is full of sniveling whiners who refuse to take responsibility for the situations they find themselves in, or remain in.

I'll take my world of personal responsibility over your world of government, nanny-state handholding any day.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, you do take on the responsibility for your actions, and if you deal with employees poorly and abuse them, they have every right to seek employment elsewhere. A work environment that is abusive will end up with a very limited pool of employees and will likely not be very successful.

EA games treats their employees like ****. It can and does happen. Total Systems in Columbus georgia is another such place. Both companies are very successful.

My view is that the individual has an interest in protecting himself from abusive practices by refusal to work for abusive employers. Abuse in the workplace is self-limiting. I have worked in several management positions. I have never had the need to yell at anyone, but I have had to fire several people for incompetence and poor job performance. To me, this legislation is nothing more than more government intrusiveness into personal behaviors and attitudes.

If you are that kind of manager than this law should have no effect on you.

 

[MaggieD]

I'm bored with this. You are obviously set in your opinion. As I am set in mine. I'll take my world. And, HOLY CRAP!! You get all the benefits of those who went before. Your comments are ridiculous.

 

[rivrrat]

Yes, a person chooses to have children. There is no part of choosing to have children that indicates the need to care for those children being leveraged against you to treat you poorly is acceptable or permissible. You might understand this if you had a child or were exposed to something besides your bubble world where everyone rafts and bounces from cool job to cool job without a care in the world.

If my sis - who has three children and is a single mother - were being verbally abused at her workplace, I cannot imagine that she would tolerate that nonsense any longer than it took her to find another ****ing job.

And, you make it sound as if I've not worked jobs that I despised. Or have never had bosses who harrassed me. Or have never had bosses who humilated me. Or never been discriminated against. Or have never had bosses who verbally abused me. Or have never lived on the street and worked what jobs I could just to eat. The difference is, I take responsibility for those situations. And, I got myself out of them - eventually. I've had bosses who were the biggest ****ing asshole ****head verbal abusing, harrassing mother ****ers ever to walk the face of the earth. It was THEIR choice to be that way. THEIR choice to treat me in a bad manner. But it was completely, 100% MY choice to remain (or not).

Well when you figure out how to wiggle your nose and make those choices magically happen, let everyone know. Until then, the rest of us will have to deal with the real world where one has to work toward making those choices come to fruition. During that period of work and advancement, when one is dependent on that paycheck to buy the ramen he eats every night while working his way through college, he should not be subjected to harsh treatment that offends his human dignity. That student/mother/adult continuing his education should not be left having to jeopardize his personal work to better himself just to flee an abusive employer. The employer should not be abusive in the first place.



I think this is where we are talking past each other...I am a firm believer that while one is bettering themselves or finding a new job, they should not be subjected to the damage an abusive employer causes. The stripping of dignity and mental stress is not acceptable EVER despite the choice being in the hands of the employee to leave or stay. Bettering oneself doesn't happen by waking up one days and saying "Wow, I'm better than I was yesterday so now I just need to show up at a new job today". It takes time, it takes energy, and it takes work. No one should be subjected to abuse in exchange for a paycheck they need even if they don't amount to much to you just because they aren't "there" yet.

I agree that they should not be subjected to verbal abuse. I just disagree that it's government's responsibility to get them out of a voluntary situation they've willingly put themselves into.

 

[lizzie]

I agree that they should not be subjected to verbal abuse. I just disagree that it's government's responsibility to get them out of a voluntary situation they've willingly put themselves into.

That is what the real conversation revolves around imo. And, as an aside, it's not really about getting out a bad situation, but suing the employer for monetary gain. It's not really about justice, but revenge for a perceived wrong.:

The New York state senate passed a bill that would let workers sue for physical, psychological or economic harm due to abusive treatment on the job. If New York's Healthy Workplace Bill becomes law, workers who can show that they were subjected to hostile conduct — including verbal abuse, threats or work sabotage — could be awarded lost wages, medical expenses, compensation for emotional distress and punitive damages.

 

[rivrrat]

That is what the real conversation revolves around imo. And, as an aside, it's not really about getting out a bad situation, but suing the employer for monetary gain. It's not really about justice, but revenge for a perceived wrong.:

Well, my wording was admittedly poor. But I liken the monetary reward/punishment for a perceived wrong to 'getting out of the situation'.

EDIT: From the perspective that you have given, though, it's even worse than what I was thinking. I just think it's ****ing insane that people can receive monetary rewards for getting their feelings hurt.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That is what the real conversation revolves around imo. And, as an aside, it's not really about getting out a bad situation, but suing the employer for monetary gain. It's not really about justice, but revenge for a perceived wrong.:

An employee getting out of the situation may not get the companies attention that there is a problem. Losing a lawsuit will.

 

[lizzie]

Well, my wording was admittedly poor. But I liken the monetary reward/punishment for a perceived wrong to 'getting out of the situation'.

Your wording wasn't poor at all. I apologize if that's the way I came across. Through the evolution of this thread, this has become the issue, just as I would expect.

 

[Ikari]

I take it because it apart of the job, in fact I hate being treated like a baby at work. I prefer to be told that Im doing something wrong than being coddled. This is the way the retail environment is.

Exactly, we make it so everyone has to tip toe around everyone else. If someone should get yelled at, they can't for fear of X, Y, and Z; so you have to bring it down and try not to be mean when telling them that they are incompetent at their work. Sometimes you need the straight up answer, sometimes someone gets yelled at. It's not innately a bad thing, it's what it is. I don't understand how we got to the point where we can't say anything bad so we don't hurt some damned fool's feelings. Hell if you call an idiot an idiot they'd probably run around screaming that it's a personal insult when it's just a factual statement. I understand that there can be yelling and such which is unproductive or hostile; but we shouldn't sit around and pretend that all yelling is undeserved. Sometimes it is necessary and justified.

 

[Ikari]

EDIT: From the perspective that you have given, though, it's even worse than what I was thinking. I just think it's ****ing insane that people can receive monetary rewards for getting their feelings hurt.

100%! It is outrageous that people can get paid money for being offended or having their feelings hurt. If Teddy Roosevelt were around to see thing, I think he'd smack each and every one of us upside the head (and then be forced into a PC re-education camp). I think America has long lost its sense of rugged individualism and is now loosing all sense and sensibility.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

If someone on the street were to harass and scream at you day after day after day, I don't think anybody would think it inappropriate to summon the police, and I don't think anybody would expect the victim to move to another neighborhood.

 

[rivrrat]

Exactly, we make it so everyone has to tip toe around everyone else. If someone should get yelled at, they can't for fear of X, Y, and Z; so you have to bring it down and try not to be mean when telling them that they are incompetent at their work. Sometimes you need the straight up answer, sometimes someone gets yelled at. It's not innately a bad thing, it's what it is. I don't understand how we got to the point where we can't say anything bad so we don't hurt some damned fool's feelings. Hell if you call an idiot an idiot they'd probably run around screaming that it's a personal insult when it's just a factual statement. I understand that there can be yelling and such which is unproductive or hostile; but we shouldn't sit around and pretend that all yelling is undeserved. Sometimes it is necessary and justified.

I'm going to have to side with the whole "yelling is stupid" crowd. That said, if the employees tolerate it, that's their choice.

I had a boss who was both physically and verbally intimidating and had a habit of yelling at us whenever he was displeased with the slightest thing. The effect it had wasn't to make us work harder or smarter, but rather to make sure he never found out about anything that was done 'wrong'. LOL It led to a lot of covering up of **** that probably shouldn't have been covered up. But he was very intimidating, and we usually just avoided interacting with him at all cost. And he continued to be that way until someone stood up to him. *ahem*

 

[rivrrat]

If someone on the street were to harass and scream at you day after day after day, I don't think anybody would think it inappropriate to summon the police, and I don't think anybody would expect the victim to move to another neighborhood.

Depends on your definition of harrass. But, given the most simplistic definition, I would find it horribly inappropriate to summon the police just because someone yelled at me.