Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNorm
So if the conversation was overheard by another colleague, action would only be taken if he was offended?
|
yes and it would be upto them(the offended) to report it |
The problem with such a principle is the message it sends. If such language is allowed to be used in a work environment it sends a signal to those who wish to use it to bully and prejudice. They will continue to use such language, safe in the knowledge that action will only be taken if their victim complains. As we well know, many bullying victims remain so because they are afraid to complain. In fact, that is how things used to be "in the bad old days," when things like this went on unpunished. Nothing happened until someone sees what is happening and complains on their behalf.
---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:31 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J
The issue really is that are we going to allow legislation to underpin all our dealings with one another and do some business have too much layers of red tape in dealing with issues of isms.
We do seem to be at times entering the world of, if you will forgive the unintended pun,black and white.The tints and hues of grey are being eradicated from our lives.Our society does seem to have become an either/or one with no allowances for manoeuvrability within defined perimeters.
Sigh!
|
The trouble is that legislation was necessary to do so. Up until recently, racism and bullying was rife in the workplace and went unchallenged. It was wholly necessary to enact laws to protect the victims of such behaviour.
---------- Post added at 12:41 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
as long as common decency is maintained yes ,because as long as no complaints are made then no one is offended ,and if by chance someone is offended then they can make a complaint and persue it ,it shouldn't be upto a manager to decide for them what they should/should not be offended at
|
So people can bully with impunity, so long as their victims don't complain?
---------- Post added at 12:49 ---------- Previous post was at 12:41 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
If a company recieves a complaint about someone overhearing a comment of concern, they should be asked who the comment was directed to, and in what sort of manner was the comment made.
Then interview the person who it was directed at, did they hear it? Were they offended by it? Are they being victimised by the person who said it? Or was it friendly banter from a mate?
|
This is correct and should have happened. In fact it is entirely possible that it did happened and Mr Amor took offense and refused to cooperate, which could have been the real reason for his suspension.
Quote:
If they were offended, then the person who made the comment should then be disciplined (that could be a quiet word if the victim feels it appropriate or verbal warning), if they believe they are being victimised that should be investigated further and dealt with appropriately.
They should not suspend someone on the hearsay of a 3rd party.
|
In general terms, this is wrong. It is not incumbent for the recipient of such remarks to prove they are offended or not. It is, however, incumbent upon management to carry out their duties according their policies. A school teacher does not ask a child if he is being bullied, if they are certain bullying is taking place. If the victim is too scared to admit it, the bullying will continue.
---------- Post added at 12:52 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will21st
Wholly speculative on your part.even if it was bullying it would
be up to the bullied to complain.
|
As pointed out before, it is not.
---------- Post added at 12:56 ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Well that's a managerial decision.
If it's something like one worker saying to another "those bloody muslims coming here spreading islam through rape, they should be rounded up and shot" then yes, understandable how that would cause offence to most people.
A worker talking in a mock west indian voice to a west indian mate, overheard by a caucasian Englishman and reported, then a serious talk with the person reporting it to find out why they found it offensive and why they think anything should be done when the two involved are perfectly happy with what occured would be in order.
|
But how does one judge whether that person's level of offence is relevant and who is truly qualified to decide? Surely the fact that one person found it offensive should be enough?
---------- Post added at 13:01 ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r
Well as far as I'm concerned, the busy body who reported him has his blood on there hands.
|
A truly short-sighted perspective.
Quote:
|
My dad and his mate have called each other 'blue' for years, is this racist?
|
Why on Earth would ever be considered racist?