Guadalupe Frisco's Post; MORAL OUTRAGE; SHE GLADLY JOINED IN THE ACTIVITIES THAT HE GOT PUNISHED FOR
To Rick,
It was us that did report ITS 04110001 to the Hotline,so we have permission from Graham to send this. He told us to address further concerns to human resources. We have permission from the company values, because we are free to express ideas without fear of reprisal. We were told that activity that is socially acceptable may not be acceptable in the workplace. If this is the case, what's going to be done to her? She gladly joined in the activities that he got punished for. A double standard, discipline for him but none for her.
He's been gagged, hasn't he. He used to say he didn't want to talk about it, but now he says he can't talk about it. Others have been told not to talk about it too so as not to give him an opening, and to report him if he talks. Well people are talking, and we are talking, and we can talk because we have two permissions.
Why can't he defend himself? Whats the problem with letting the truth be known? It's the moral outrage isn't it, and you can't deal with it. This moral outrage is an unexpected consequence of your own bad decision. Its only fair to the dude with a life sentence or indeterminate sentence that the truth is known, so we will tell the truth.
it isn't him that's talking, but we know many who are talking, and you would know too if you heard all the sideline talk at the Christmas party. Why do you think people talk? Because a friend and fellow employee has been wronged, and people are free to express ideas without fear of reprisal, and you, a Vice President at 125,000 last year ought to recognise that. There would have been less talking if he was there, but you want to keep him out of sight. Hes a big embarrassment,right, maybe he doesn't clean up well, so keep him away from the classy folks. Good enough to work for us, but not good enough to get seen. Why can't he be seen at head office. Is the girl going to have an attack of the vapours? Would she have an uncomfortable work environment if he came? An uncomfortable work environment for us is just having her around.
What you want is for him to be hurt and humiliated -that's what was intended- that's what punishment is for. Punishment doesn't have unintended consequences- but behave as if he doesn't so you can deny it and act as if you don't understand it, and not have to feel guilty.
You wont admit that the punishment is a problem, you probably say that his reaction to the punishment is all wrong. Get screwed and act happy, and lets just all behave like this never hapened.
This is HR management by the dark side of the Dilbert principle - tie someone to a big anchor, act like you wonder why they can't swim, and criticize them for not swimming - hurt them and act like you wonder why they look hurt. You want him to feel responsible for the backlash of your own bad decision, and that backlash is moral outrage and angry employees. If you want to know whos really responsible, go to girl first for starting it and to yourself for not recognising what was happening and stopping it and mediating it right there. How could you be paid $125000 last year to make a bad decision like that and to hold the victim responsible for the backlash of your own bad decision. You don't save face by keeping a bad decision, but you gain face back by correcting one. No wonder you were out of work so long.
How can you let a clerk determine disciplinary policy? It might be appropriate if there really was harassment, but you know better, and if this was supposed to set an example it didn't work you would know it if you know some of the things that go on in the other offices.
This gagging and not going to head office is in writing on company letterhead right? Both these restrictions are probably illegal. One day hes going to realize that his sense of honor and loyalty and professionalism is misplaced, and that's when you will get the lawsuit that you gamble won't happen. We're free to express ideas without fear of reprisal, so we're going to suggest that he hires a lawyer. He should have already. This is discrimination, and there is slander, and its sickening that you and the gal are so willing to let people think that he did something bad to her instead of letting the truth out.
Someone should tell her just how she is regarded. Why don't you do it, or maybe we should.
Do you even care about whats right, or just about what is PC and safe?
Free to express ideas without fear of reprisal. Who is? Not him, but we are because we have permissions.
It was us that did report ITS 04110001 to the Hotline,so we have permission from Graham to send this. He told us to address further concerns to human resources. We have permission from the company values, because we are free to express ideas without fear of reprisal. We were told that activity that is socially acceptable may not be acceptable in the workplace. If this is the case, what's going to be done to her? She gladly joined in the activities that he got punished for. A double standard, discipline for him but none for her.
He's been gagged, hasn't he. He used to say he didn't want to talk about it, but now he says he can't talk about it. Others have been told not to talk about it too so as not to give him an opening, and to report him if he talks. Well people are talking, and we are talking, and we can talk because we have two permissions.
Why can't he defend himself? Whats the problem with letting the truth be known? It's the moral outrage isn't it, and you can't deal with it. This moral outrage is an unexpected consequence of your own bad decision. Its only fair to the dude with a life sentence or indeterminate sentence that the truth is known, so we will tell the truth.
it isn't him that's talking, but we know many who are talking, and you would know too if you heard all the sideline talk at the Christmas party. Why do you think people talk? Because a friend and fellow employee has been wronged, and people are free to express ideas without fear of reprisal, and you, a Vice President at 125,000 last year ought to recognise that. There would have been less talking if he was there, but you want to keep him out of sight. Hes a big embarrassment,right, maybe he doesn't clean up well, so keep him away from the classy folks. Good enough to work for us, but not good enough to get seen. Why can't he be seen at head office. Is the girl going to have an attack of the vapours? Would she have an uncomfortable work environment if he came? An uncomfortable work environment for us is just having her around.
What you want is for him to be hurt and humiliated -that's what was intended- that's what punishment is for. Punishment doesn't have unintended consequences- but behave as if he doesn't so you can deny it and act as if you don't understand it, and not have to feel guilty.
You wont admit that the punishment is a problem, you probably say that his reaction to the punishment is all wrong. Get screwed and act happy, and lets just all behave like this never hapened.
This is HR management by the dark side of the Dilbert principle - tie someone to a big anchor, act like you wonder why they can't swim, and criticize them for not swimming - hurt them and act like you wonder why they look hurt. You want him to feel responsible for the backlash of your own bad decision, and that backlash is moral outrage and angry employees. If you want to know whos really responsible, go to girl first for starting it and to yourself for not recognising what was happening and stopping it and mediating it right there. How could you be paid $125000 last year to make a bad decision like that and to hold the victim responsible for the backlash of your own bad decision. You don't save face by keeping a bad decision, but you gain face back by correcting one. No wonder you were out of work so long.
How can you let a clerk determine disciplinary policy? It might be appropriate if there really was harassment, but you know better, and if this was supposed to set an example it didn't work you would know it if you know some of the things that go on in the other offices.
This gagging and not going to head office is in writing on company letterhead right? Both these restrictions are probably illegal. One day hes going to realize that his sense of honor and loyalty and professionalism is misplaced, and that's when you will get the lawsuit that you gamble won't happen. We're free to express ideas without fear of reprisal, so we're going to suggest that he hires a lawyer. He should have already. This is discrimination, and there is slander, and its sickening that you and the gal are so willing to let people think that he did something bad to her instead of letting the truth out.
Someone should tell her just how she is regarded. Why don't you do it, or maybe we should.
Do you even care about whats right, or just about what is PC and safe?
Free to express ideas without fear of reprisal. Who is? Not him, but we are because we have permissions.
posted by Patticake | 5:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home