Drama at the Weather Channel

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
As always you like to stray from the issue


As we typically do. The core issue here was overt and overbearing sexual overtures from a coworker. The topic did somewhat broaden in scope.

Quote:
this time you suddenly refer to temperature, humidity and cleanliness at work.


Used as mere ridiculous examples of things that can make employment "uncomfortable". Why not sue for those? Because they aren't gender specific, that's why.

Quote:
And yes, I don't care if that person is otherwise possibly a swell dude and just likes to harass what you consider weaklings.


Who do I consider weaklings? Tell me.

..and where did I call this guy a swell dude

This guy, if the allegations are true (and they appear to be), is a louse. Good 'nuff?

My point was that those who have issues appear to want the world to change for them... instead of adapting and mastering the environment. It proves their inability and weakness. I hear it every day. If it makes you miserable to be in a place ..and others don't seem to have an issue with it, what is the logical conclusion? That the environment is wrong?

Quote:
Now you are making me ill.


The exit is down the hall on the left .......

 

[MarkC]

"What then Gary? Say also your aggressive gay supervisor, is also a sadistic, seven foot five bully, with a 4th Dan in Shotokahn? So, big as you are Gary, you can't "take it to him". So what do you do now?"

I don't know about Gary, but the first thing I'd do is correct his spelling; Shotokan has only one "h".

While this wasn't a gay-type thing (I guess) I had a department manager a decade ago who constantly put his hands on people. Nothing seemingly sexual, just grabbing a person's shoulder and digging in for a few seconds.
This was a powerful man, both physically and in the company. So what? The second time he did that to me I told him not to do it again. The third time he tried, I locked his wrist and put him on his knees. There wasn't a next time, and I suffered no consequences.

You don't know what will work until you try.

On the other hand, it's not uncommon for women to cry harrassment and abuse falsely, which makes it difficult to always take such things seriously.

 

[moribundman]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
The exit is down the hall on the left .......

I'm pretty confident you'll check out before I do.

 

[Gary Allan]

Nah - I won't get off so easy...

 

[Gary Allan]

Just to qualify my views. I think that everyone should be treated with dignity and a modicum of respect (beyond that, they earn it). That said, there will be miserable and maladaptive people everywhere you go. Get over the shock and learn to cope with it. Although employers seem to be getting into the people business (aside from making money) you don't have to engage in an "employee life" and whine when your square peg doesn't fit seem to fit.

 

[Oilgal]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Nah - I won't get off so easy...


So is that you claiming victimhood now Gary?

 

[Oilgal]

Many of the guys here have said, .....

the word of a woman will be always believed over those they accuse ...

women most often misconstrue any kind of attention as sexual harassment ...

women are greedy, litigious manipulating, rhymes with witches, who make false accusations and then sue employers to make big money ....

women "want the world to change for them... instead of adapting and mastering the environment. ... and ... It proves their inability and weakness."



These are perfect examples, of the bigoted attitudes, we are daily confronted with. From the moment we show up, anywhere, not just on a new job, we have to deal with a significant percentage of guys who feel this way about us.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
women "want the world to change for them... instead of adapting and mastering the environment. ... and ... It proves their inability and weakness."


I didn't restrict it to women. But prove the bigots wrong. Master teh environment that YOU WILLINGLY SOUGHT EMPLOYMENT WITHIN and adapt ..or leave. Men are told to do this every day. You want equality and a fair shake?? Run the gauntlet just like they do.

I've worked with people that, for no good reason that I could figure out, hated my guts. Did I quiver and go running to the boss "mommzie momzie, Billy is treating me bad!" ..no..I realized that it went with the turf. Sabotage ..misinformation ...you name it, I've seen all the antics and personalities. If you're lucky, you make friends and run into friendly people. I don't think that this was promised in the benefit package.

 

[Benzadmiral]

1) Any accusation that leads to an irrevocable result (such as the accused getting fired, or the company paying a large amount of damages) needs to be subject to proof, as javacontour said, not just the accuser's word; and

2) if the offender is fired or seriously disciplined, that should be the end of it. The complainant should then go back to his/her proper level of job -- his position before the accused supervisor got him demoted, not to a higher position. And there's no need for monetary damages. You complain with proof, you're proved right, the offender is disciplined or fired, you go back and do your job. It's over.

Disciplining/firing someone on one person's word, unsupported by objective proof, is foolish, as is handing the accuser a big payoff. Given human nature, this guarantees people are going to abuse the system. (See "Salem witch hunts.")

Suppose it were reversed? The anchorwoman came on to Bob, he turned her down several times, and she claimed harassment in revenge? Again, as javacontour pointed out, more allegations of sexual assault (and, I'd guess, harassment) are false than are true, especially when the complainants know there's a chance of a jackpot.

Would you want the unsupported word of a co-worker to determine whether you kept your job? Would you want to see that co-worker handed a large sum in "damages," when you know you're right, and you're barely able to survive on unemployment insurance?

There's got to be proof, and there shouldn't be special rewards for whistleblowing -- or people will lie.

 

[LateArrivalforLSU]

Be civil folks.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral

1) Any accusation that leads to an irrevocable result (such as the accused getting fired, or the company paying a large amount of damages) needs to be subject to proof, as javacontour said, not just the accuser's word; and

.....

Disciplining/firing someone on one person's word, unsupported by objective proof, is foolish, ....


In our system of jurisprudence, a persons word, if believed, is proof. Has been for centuries. People are doing life, or worse, on no more proof than that.

What some of you guys are really saying is that when it comes down to a swearing match, a tie should go to the defense.

For better or worse, that's not our system.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Benzadmiral

There's got to be proof, and there shouldn't be special rewards for whistleblowing -- or people will lie.

Lets face it Benzal...Political Correctness >>>>>>> Lawsuit with a Big Payday for this Gal. And Playing Woo is Me > Working for a living.
[/thread] For Me

 

[TooManyWheels]

Originally Posted By: Win

What some of you guys are really saying is that when it comes down to a swearing match, a tie should go to the defense.

For better or worse, that's not our system.


No?

Isn't that what Burden of Proof means?

 

[Julian]

Originally Posted By: Arkapigdiesel
Be civil folks.
My jaw is on the floor. I hope at least Mark and Gary got a chance to read the dialogue between me and Oilgal. I was both angry and completely under control earlier. The next time you instruct someone to "be civil", you would do well not to delete examples of how that civility is achieved. Just an opinion. Deleting hours worth of discussion which addresses the issues at hand has the effect of making me more unruly, not less, especially when I was involved in the discussion. Just a little tip, I can be hard to read sometimes.

If you need an example of just how "civil" I can be, look no further. Have a nice day!

 

[Julian]

Quote:
My point was that those who have issues appear to want the world to change for them... instead of adapting and mastering the environment.
Whining like a [censored], throwing chairs, or making people walk on eggshells are often functional means by which a person masters their environment. Ever see a child throw a temper tantrum in a grocery store? Many times they get the cookies (or whatever) they wanted.

 

[Gary Allan]

Oleanna (1994)

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Julian
Originally Posted By: Arkapigdiesel
Be civil folks.
My jaw is on the floor. I hope at least Mark and Gary got a chance to read the dialogue between me and Oilgal. I was both angry and completely under control earlier. The next time you instruct someone to "be civil", you would do well not to delete examples of how that civility is achieved. Just an opinion. Deleting hours worth of discussion which addresses the issues at hand has the effect of making me more unruly, not less, especially when I was involved in the discussion. Just a little tip, I can be hard to read sometimes.

Julian,

I had to delete a lot of posts to get out the garbage that I found to be the fight-inducing parts. Unfortunately that meant that many of your posts were deleted. No offense intended, no issues with what you posted either. The software just deleted all replies when I took them to quarantine, so yours went away.

We dont want anyone arguing, but your civility was noted

JMH

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels

No?

Isn't that what Burden of Proof means?


No.

Burden of proof is the obligation of a party to establish by evidence a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the trier of fact.

A persons testimony is evidence.

If that persons testimony is believed over that of another, that person has sutained their burden of proof.

 

[Julian]

Quote:
The software just deleted all replies when I took them to quarantine, so yours went away.
Hmmm... looks like we need better software. I don't know much about computers, sorry I can't be of assistance there.

 

[Gary Allan]

The basic argument in our broadened topic here breaks down to "the evils of men in the work place". What seems to be ignored is that darkness/maladaptive behaviors exist, to varying degrees, in all people regardless of gender. The main thrust of our society's movement is to eliminate the behaviors that are more apparent in men ..but much is totally ignored in terms of behaviors of women. How many of you have met an Amanda The Hun control freak that will make your life a living he-ll if you don't bow to her will? How many Queen Bee's? How many women are just as ruthless and totally void of any sense of civil behavior (albeit more insidious in appearance)?? Lots, I would suspect.

In practice it all melds fine. We both behave or misbehave as our basic nature (or the limits of our ability to evidence or suppress it) dictates. It's when, in competitive environments, there's a situation that can't be handled with the equally evil "bag of tricks" that a foul is called.

It's turned into a trump card.