Shannon Kiddo's Post; SHE WAS A WILLING PARTICIPANT IN EVERYTHING THAT SHE COMPLAINED ABOUT
To anyone who cares:
The person writing this is an employee of the company trying to be anonymous because of fear, and there are others that are helping with the words and their thoughts. This is in complete good faith, and we trust it will have some attention. TalktoJay got no response and probably no action.
We remember Jay's message from last year where he wanted to hear the good, bad and ugly. This is bad and ugly. We have heard that there was an unkind message about this, but it didn't come from us. We are sending this one, because the gal's report was bad faith and a wicked offence against anyone's personal ethics. We heard that she appeared scared when she brought the allegations. Did she present herself as being afraid of him? It's ridiculous. She was afraid all right, but not of him. She was scared for what she was doing, scared that it would be seen for what it was.
We can't approach openly, because we believe that the messenger will be shot, and we don't think that we can use the hotline or compliance email, because those belong to Graham. He would get the reports and do nothing, because he can be pretty cruel, and would just take the stand that the matter was properly handled. This general survey is a fair place to take a good faith concern, isn't it?
Can't the troublemaker be recognized here? It was her, not him. He got it unjustly. When is she going to get hers justly? Her inflated allegations were unethical, and ought to be handled like a crime. Wouldn't it have been better to get all of his side as well, and then mediate? She probably brought a domestic matter into the workplace and misrepresented it as a workplace issue. That's not ethical.
Taking to lunch somebody who wants to go to lunch is not harassment. Giving a flower to sombody who accepts and appreciates it is not harassment. Exchanging emails with someone who likes it is not harassment. Declaring it all to be harassment is unethical. SHE WAS A WILLING PARTICIPANT IN EVERYTHING THAT SHE COMPLAINED ABOUT.
There was no more to it, and their relationship was open and harmless. She had a few years to end the relationship. Why wait until after it's finally over to say she wasn't having fun? When he agreed to her wishes, she had all that she asked for and all that she had a right to. She did not have a right to get an employee banished because she was "uncomfortable", and she doesn't have a right never to have to lay eyes on him again. If she wanted him to leave her alone, OK, but he agreed to do that, so then what was there to complain about, and what was there to punish?
She just changed her mind and didn't want to see him anymore, so she found it convenient to redefine his attentions as harassment, and to sacrifice him. There was no victim until she made a report declaring herself to be a victim, but that made him the victim. She seems perfectly happy and remorseless if people believe that she was wronged by him. The company claims to believe in ethics, and ethics means doing the right thing. Is this a right thing? How could management condone that? This is hypocritical. During their relationship there was no victim. Harassment happened only in her story. He was framed, and everybody knows it, and it frightens and offends people who have been through ethics and compliance training.
Why won't someone with authority do something? Isn't it high time that this got corrected? Graham has thrown him away rather than take the right stand, and that's why we can't use the hotline. Graham owns the hotline, and he seems to be satisfied with what happened, and no report is going to get follow-up.
We don't know what all the punishment was, but we know some (and it was punishment - not correction; he did his own correction when she asked him to). We know he can't go to HQ, and that's very cruel. We know there are some other things he can't do, and this is a waste of resources.
Do you know that he thinks that he can't go to his optometrist and can't go to several other places that he knows because he is afraid that he might run into her and she would say "stalking".
He already skipped one picnic out of diplomacy for her, but now he thinks that he will be asked not to attend employee functions or won't be invited. He thinks his career as an employee in good standing is over.
This whole matter - her overdone allegations and the company's overdone response - has upset enough people that it's a major issue. You won't hear employees talking about it except maybe in this message, but it isn't going to die just because you're not hearing about it. Please don't think it's dead just because you don't hear people talking about it openly any more. It's dead when somebody kills it by doing the right thing. An injustice of this size doesn't just die with time or because a few managers want it to, even if it happens to somebody not so well liked.
The matter isn't dying, it's him that is dying. Those of us that care have seen the change. Is it worth that loss for political correctness of keeping an accounting clerk quiet? Is it worth stunned and confused and upset employees?
What kind of hold does she have on the company? Did she agree that if we sacrifice him, she will not make any more noises? What happened to her to make her damage and humiliate someone and have no remorse, and why is the company afraid of doing the right thing?
We heard that lawyers got involved. They advised what was safest for the company, right, and the individual be damned? Did they say she might file suit that she couldn't win, but it could be an embarrassing nuisance, and since he probably never would sue his own company, let's just sacrifice him to pacify her. Do lawyers determine the actions?
Hasn't this uncalled for and undeserved punishment gone on long enough, and shouldn't she be confronted instead of being indulged? Why couldn't this be mediated?
What happened to the fair and compassionate company that we used to work for? That other situation in HQ was handled much better.
We apologise for the long message, but it has the thoughts of many people.
This is sent to you with all respect and in complete good faith.
The person writing this is an employee of the company trying to be anonymous because of fear, and there are others that are helping with the words and their thoughts. This is in complete good faith, and we trust it will have some attention. TalktoJay got no response and probably no action.
We remember Jay's message from last year where he wanted to hear the good, bad and ugly. This is bad and ugly. We have heard that there was an unkind message about this, but it didn't come from us. We are sending this one, because the gal's report was bad faith and a wicked offence against anyone's personal ethics. We heard that she appeared scared when she brought the allegations. Did she present herself as being afraid of him? It's ridiculous. She was afraid all right, but not of him. She was scared for what she was doing, scared that it would be seen for what it was.
We can't approach openly, because we believe that the messenger will be shot, and we don't think that we can use the hotline or compliance email, because those belong to Graham. He would get the reports and do nothing, because he can be pretty cruel, and would just take the stand that the matter was properly handled. This general survey is a fair place to take a good faith concern, isn't it?
Can't the troublemaker be recognized here? It was her, not him. He got it unjustly. When is she going to get hers justly? Her inflated allegations were unethical, and ought to be handled like a crime. Wouldn't it have been better to get all of his side as well, and then mediate? She probably brought a domestic matter into the workplace and misrepresented it as a workplace issue. That's not ethical.
Taking to lunch somebody who wants to go to lunch is not harassment. Giving a flower to sombody who accepts and appreciates it is not harassment. Exchanging emails with someone who likes it is not harassment. Declaring it all to be harassment is unethical. SHE WAS A WILLING PARTICIPANT IN EVERYTHING THAT SHE COMPLAINED ABOUT.
There was no more to it, and their relationship was open and harmless. She had a few years to end the relationship. Why wait until after it's finally over to say she wasn't having fun? When he agreed to her wishes, she had all that she asked for and all that she had a right to. She did not have a right to get an employee banished because she was "uncomfortable", and she doesn't have a right never to have to lay eyes on him again. If she wanted him to leave her alone, OK, but he agreed to do that, so then what was there to complain about, and what was there to punish?
She just changed her mind and didn't want to see him anymore, so she found it convenient to redefine his attentions as harassment, and to sacrifice him. There was no victim until she made a report declaring herself to be a victim, but that made him the victim. She seems perfectly happy and remorseless if people believe that she was wronged by him. The company claims to believe in ethics, and ethics means doing the right thing. Is this a right thing? How could management condone that? This is hypocritical. During their relationship there was no victim. Harassment happened only in her story. He was framed, and everybody knows it, and it frightens and offends people who have been through ethics and compliance training.
Why won't someone with authority do something? Isn't it high time that this got corrected? Graham has thrown him away rather than take the right stand, and that's why we can't use the hotline. Graham owns the hotline, and he seems to be satisfied with what happened, and no report is going to get follow-up.
We don't know what all the punishment was, but we know some (and it was punishment - not correction; he did his own correction when she asked him to). We know he can't go to HQ, and that's very cruel. We know there are some other things he can't do, and this is a waste of resources.
Do you know that he thinks that he can't go to his optometrist and can't go to several other places that he knows because he is afraid that he might run into her and she would say "stalking".
He already skipped one picnic out of diplomacy for her, but now he thinks that he will be asked not to attend employee functions or won't be invited. He thinks his career as an employee in good standing is over.
This whole matter - her overdone allegations and the company's overdone response - has upset enough people that it's a major issue. You won't hear employees talking about it except maybe in this message, but it isn't going to die just because you're not hearing about it. Please don't think it's dead just because you don't hear people talking about it openly any more. It's dead when somebody kills it by doing the right thing. An injustice of this size doesn't just die with time or because a few managers want it to, even if it happens to somebody not so well liked.
The matter isn't dying, it's him that is dying. Those of us that care have seen the change. Is it worth that loss for political correctness of keeping an accounting clerk quiet? Is it worth stunned and confused and upset employees?
What kind of hold does she have on the company? Did she agree that if we sacrifice him, she will not make any more noises? What happened to her to make her damage and humiliate someone and have no remorse, and why is the company afraid of doing the right thing?
We heard that lawyers got involved. They advised what was safest for the company, right, and the individual be damned? Did they say she might file suit that she couldn't win, but it could be an embarrassing nuisance, and since he probably never would sue his own company, let's just sacrifice him to pacify her. Do lawyers determine the actions?
Hasn't this uncalled for and undeserved punishment gone on long enough, and shouldn't she be confronted instead of being indulged? Why couldn't this be mediated?
What happened to the fair and compassionate company that we used to work for? That other situation in HQ was handled much better.
We apologise for the long message, but it has the thoughts of many people.
This is sent to you with all respect and in complete good faith.
posted by Patticake | 3:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home