Politically Correct person makes man kill himself. - Page 5

Xaccers · 11-04-2010, 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed2020

Except it's not just about whether the person to whom the comment was directed found it offensive. It's also about people around them who may overhear.

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.

Stuart · 11-04-2010, 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will21st

Wholly speculative on your part.

Agreed. We don't have a lot of information, so I am speculating. In fact, I thought that was clear from the use of the word "may".

Quote:

even if it was bullying it would be up to the bullied to complain.

True, in an ideal world. However, a lot of bullied people are too frightened, proud or ashamed to report it, which is why other people sometimes get involved. I've suffered quite severe bullying, which actually took the form of a lot of name calling. I was too ashamed of how I was handling it to report it. If I had, or someone had made it "their business" and reported it, I could have been saved a lot of anguish, and would have been stopped from seriously considering suicide.

I am not saying that the person shouldn't have reported his concerns. However, the most the company should have done is to talk it through with both the deceased and his friend to see what had happened. They should then possibly have just asked the deceased to mind what he says. They should not have taken any action other than that, and certainly should not have suspended him

TheNorm · 11-04-2010, 20:14

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...

Again, the point is not "was someone offended". The point is there are limits to what you should say in the workplace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadking

...Who decides what can or can't be said? ....

Ultimately, this is a management decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will21st

Wholly speculative on your part.even if it was bullying it would be up to the bullied to complain.

I strongly disagree. Victims are often too scared to complain; it is up to managers to make sure the bullying never gets this far.

Hom3r · 11-04-2010, 20:16

Well as far as I'm concerned, the busy body who reported him has his blood on there hands.

My dad and his mate have called each other 'blue' for years, is this racist?

11-04-2010, 20:21

[QUOTE=TheNorm;34999318]Again, the point is not "was someone offended". The point is there are limits to what you should say in the workplace.QUOTE]

i think thats what i said ,maintain common decency ect ,i accept that you cant go round swearing and using blatant racial insults but a joke between friends is not in any way offensive and its not upto a 3rd party to make it offensive

TheNorm · 11-04-2010, 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Well as far as I'm concerned, the busy body who reported him has his blood on there hands...

I've seen people taunted in the workplace because of their weight. Suppose the target of these comments laughed them off at work, but in reality was in deep depression and one day decided to end his/her life.

Who would you then say had "blood on there hands"? The manager who didn't report the abuse?

Dai · 11-04-2010, 20:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Again, the point is not "was someone offended". The point is there are limits to what you should say in the workplace.

Damn, you *have* lived a sheltered life. You should have been in some of the toolrooms I've worked in over the years.

Management decisions?
Victims scared to complain?

Sorry, you need to grow some.

11-04-2010, 20:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNorm

I've seen people taunted in the workplace because of their weight. Suppose the target of these comments laughed them off at work, but in reality was in deep depression and one day decided to end his/her life.

Who would you then say had "blood on there hands"? The manager who didn't report the abuse?

you're talking about bullying though and i think it's everyones responsibility to guard against that ,this was a comment made in jest ,not even a racial comment ,just a flippant remark to a friend blown up by a manager who on the face of it didn't follow proper procedure

Stuart · 11-04-2010, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

Damn, you *have* lived a sheltered life. You should have been in some of the toolrooms I've worked in over the years.

Management decisions?
Victims scared to complain?

Sorry, you need to grow some.

It's all very well saying "you need to grow some". Doesn't stop people commiting suicide over what is basically name calling.

11-04-2010, 20:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

It's all very well saying "you need to grow some". Doesn't stop people commiting suicide over what is basically name calling.

again i would agree ,but this was not bullying ,different thing altogether

Dai · 11-04-2010, 20:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

It's all very well saying "you need to grow some". Doesn't stop people commiting suicide over what is basically name calling.

Hmmm. I'd dispute the 'basically name calling' call here. What destroyed this man was the intervention of a 3rd party who had the power to wreck his life.

As has been said before, that's the one with blood on his hands.

Stuart · 11-04-2010, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaiNasty

Hmmm. I'd dispute the 'basically name calling' call here. What destroyed this man was the intervention of a 3rd party who had the power to wreck his life.

As has been said before, that's the one with blood on his hands.

What killed the man was the actions of the *company*. Not the person who made the complaint. The company did not need to suspend him, which is what apparently caused the suicide.

Ed2020 · 11-04-2010, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

and therin lies the problem too many people are offended by remarks serious or in jest made by someone without knowing the background to the conversation

I agree, people do seem to be more and more easily offended by remarks. On the other hand saying something in jest is neither here nor there. There are a lot of things I could say in jest to some of my colleagues that others would find extremely offensive. It doesn't matter whether they don't know the background. It is my responsibility to make sure I make such remarks in a suitable environment and sometimes that means not in work.

Stuart · 11-04-2010, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

again i would agree ,but this was not bullying ,different thing altogether

The person reporting it to the company may not have known that it wasn't bullying.

Ed2020 · 11-04-2010, 21:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well that's a managerial decision.

No, it definitely isn't solely a managerial decision. It's a point of law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

why they think anything should be done when the two involved are perfectly happy with what occured would be in order.

There aren't two people involved there are three.