Sonnschein's Post; THIS IS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE RAVING MAD

I asked an executive and I was told to leave it alone or to not go there or something. was told that management knew that Bob didn't do anything wrong, and that everyone else knew it, and that it was not right, but that the company had to do something or Rose might make trouble.

Did she sign something saying that she wouldn't if the company stomped on him? If that is true we need a public explanation of that.

There was bad judgement all around. She was criticized for bad judgement too, but that's as far as it went. He got the discipline, and that is unfair. This blog gives me the chance to speak out against unfair disciplinary action since the compliance email is worthless.

Was he allowed to face his accuser? I know companies are not democratic, but companies should be fair and ethical -you know ETHICAL. What is fair is ethical and what is ethical is fair and legal should not have anything to do with it unless some law was broken, and we believe that there was not.

As I hear it they carried on a long time and agreed between themselves that neither would go to HR or anything and to talk to only each other if the relationship wore out. They agreed to end it and she accepted his promise and let him comply -you know COMPLIANCE-with her wishes, and then she backstabbed while he was complying and scared the company into keeping him invisible so she won't have a fainting spell or convulse or something because she is UNCOMFORTABLE around him.

This is unbelievable. She has no more right to be patronized and have him removed that I do to get removed those people that I am uncomfortable with, Rick, Graham, Rose, and that oficious little twit that does what Bob used to do.

But those people didn't do anything to me did they? and I protest that Bob did not do anything to Rose either.

NO good has come of this. The company is probably satisfied that the matter is resolved, but it isn't, and employees want to see it corrected. There is a backlash on her, and she encourages it by no feeling of remorse, and Bob is aging faster than before. She is blamed for singlehanded being the reason we didn't have an employee picnic.

Come on company, do it right. Get this fixed, even if you have to force the two parties to have a supervised meeting and make up just like you have to do with grade school kids. She might not like it, and he might not like it, but I bet it would be legal and it sure would be ethical.

Goody's Post; THIS IS HOW GOOD FAITH COMPLIANCE REPORTS ARE HANDLED

Its known now that there were a few compliance reports to the compliance hotline about the screwing that was handed to Bob. They all got the same answer.

The matters referred to in the callers allegation are closed. The Company can make no further comment on these issues without disclosing information that is confidential.

This is how good faith reports are handled. 77Morpheus is right about the helpline.Any information that the company thinks is confidential is confidential to protect the guilty and incompetent from embarrassment.

77Morpheus' Post; THOSE WORKING WITH ROSE SHOULD HAVE SHUNNED HER TO THE POINT OF LEAVING

Everyone agrees that Bob was wronged. It's high time that everyone realize that we are on our own. As Bob can attest to loyality and dedication is of no benefit to us. These traits actually work against us in the way of working conditions, pay, benefits, and so on. This isn't the first time someone has been wronged by the company and it's not going to be the last. You can try to get help through the help line but everyone knows that the help line is for people that want help being ignored or becoming unemployed. It is certainly not confidential.Those working with Rose daily that are concerned should have had enough time by now to shun her (or whatever steps it took) to the point of leaving. Instead of flowers Bob should have tried holding her at gunpoint in the office, offered up some drugs, done the deed in the company lavatory or one of the many other talents of our leaders. He would probably be a VP or a P instead of being bannished.

Angelus' Post; WHAT POSSIBLE GOOD REASONS COULD THERE FOR THE SACRIFICE OF ONE PERSON, KNOWING THERE WAS NO TRUTHFUL BASIS FOR SUCH ACTION?

Care to comment further on this?

Could be this message is making the rounds again, but in a somewhat altered form?

Nobody made a mistake in voicing outrage and showing respect, however anonymous it is, to one who has now suffered character defeat. Where is your compassion?Beating around the bush does no good - you may as well state fact.What is known is that a disservice was done to all employees of the company and might very well be viewed as a no-no in many circles.It just so happens that the scapegoat was a respected member and undeserving of the low-blow he received.Voices of concern are truly that...concern for a highly regarded member and the fear it could happen to any one of them by those who are there supposedly to support them.Where does one turn when there is no one to turn to?Ego is not in force much - maybe a little bit. Probably more of a question of humanity and the principles upon which we guide our lives.Don't know about you, but I choose harmony over anarchy any day.What possible good reasons could there be for the sacrifice of one person, knowing there was no truthful basis for such action? Come on, speak up if you feel the demoralizing of one is good for all.It all seems so pitiful and weak, giving cowards who have no regard for good moral character the power to make policy for all employees in a company. It appears such cowardice reflects upon how they must view themselves. So sad it all is... To have a strong building there must be a good foundation. Seems like the company could use a little mortar here and there to repair the structural damage.Could be it all boils down to which laborer is strong enough to do so.Rather than give hidden warnings and double-speak, why don't you stand up for what is good and right?

Hotpig's Post; ADVICE TO R.M.

You were not supposed to learn about this site so quick. Somebody made a mistake.

There is more that you ought to know.

You will not be invited to join this blog, so you can't post. Anybody can comment, but you are advised not to. You might be falling into a trap. Any comment that looks like yours will get deleted.

Watch your ego. This is not all about you. Your the one that got screwed, but this is about principles, and it just happened to be you. We would feel the same way no matter who got it, even if it was Rose or anybody else.

You do have friends and supporters, but probably one less than you think. Do not count on Graham. He wouldn't even defend Mackin, and he had reasons for sacrificing you and wanting you where you are.

Stay out of this. Its not about you.

Angelus' Post; A POOR DECISION IS A BITTER PILL TO SWALLOW

Maybe it is time the tables were turned or strategy altered somewhat to see if the confident decision-makers like the taste of their own medicine....

Are there any, "good faith and in the interest of the welfare of the company's appearance and wellbeing" issues which can be anonymously sent to the hotline or to the powers-that-be in regards to R. Huntley's/HR's theatrics or attitude not being of benefit or supportive to the employees?
Everyone has exploitable quirks/bad habits and Huntley is no exception. It could be possible one or more of these quirks or (daily?) incompetant acts really offends one or more of the employees to the point they feel they, " just can't work in his presence anymore and feel stressed (harassed)." Maybe they, "feel as if they are being stalked or powerless whenever in his presence?" I wouldn't presume to know this, but it is possible someone feels this way.
Is this truly a good example of a human resource if others are uncomfortable in the presence of one employed to be just that?

It just might be interesting to see what happens when you who believe in principle, fairness and truth fuel the flames of justice just a bit and expand your scope of action.
If The Company sees that in addition to their error there might be other issues behind it, they may once again re-open their closed report. It would also indicate all you have done to keep this issue at the forefront was not done out of malice or spite, but done in good faith. I know your hard work is truly from the outrage of unfairness, but a reminder to the rule-makers couldn't hurt, could it?

Don't know if this is a possibility, but maybe it gives food for thought.

7HN-R37's Post; INCONSIDERATE AND SELFISH

I disagree with Crybaby's 8.06.05 post. I think she SHOULD be fired. Because of all this she is responsible for killing the company picnic.

Angelus' Post; IT WAS HER VERBAL PRESENTATION THAT WAS TINGED WITH DRAMA AND THEATRICS. SHE WASN'T REQUIRED TO GIVE A WRITTEN REPORT

The VERBAL report was tinged with drama and theatrics, right? There wouldn’t have been anything written.

You know, in a legit. report of harassment, the burden of proof is on the accuser. That proof must be concrete, verifiable fact(s) and not just unproven allegation or conjecture.

Was Rick the person who accepted Rose's statement(s) as fact? Surely anyone in the position of support for all employees would know the seriousness of such statements and how damaging it is to the accused's employee file.

If I were him, I would have made damn sure Rose knew the possible outcome of such bogus accusations and the slander or libel suit which could be brought against her and her employers. Someone could have a field day putting dollar signs to everything Robert has unjustly gone through and suffered.

Really,

What stupidity and arrogance your management has shown in not re-opening this case. In fact, with so many calls going into the hotline and now entered by website in support of Robert's total innocence, one would think this might ring a bell of alarm to the big bucks they could lose should Robert decide he does not want this crap in his file and chooses to file suit.

I certainly hope he does.

Did the company provide a lawyer for Robert?

All parties involved should have had legal representation in order to ensure an equitable and fair outcome.

It appears this was not the case, but I could be mistaken. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Has anyone sent Rose an anonymous letter suggesting she negate her report?

Even though she made erroneous accusations, she can still save face if she quietly withdraws such allegations. Blame it all on hormones, I don't know...