|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:24:51 GMT
I think it's very relevant. How can workplace issues/promotions and such be mandated to be decided objectively unless someone can come up with a way to prove it was or was not? Well there could be physical evidence (emails etc) where the person in power admit to it. Or there could be testimonial evidence where the perso who got the job admits that is the case or the person in power does. I guess that would be the only way to decide. What happens in the real world is that they pick the person they have a good relationship with--their friend, more or less, but they don't say to anyone that they think the friend isn't as good of a pick as someone else
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 21, 2017 14:25:17 GMT
I think it's very relevant. How can workplace issues/promotions and such be mandated to be decided objectively unless someone can come up with a way to prove it was or was not? Well there could be physical evidence (emails etc) where the person in power admit to it. Or there could be testimonial evidence where the perso who got the job admits that is the case or the person in power does. I guess that would be the only way to decide. I can't see that as being too likely to happen.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 21, 2017 14:25:26 GMT
Terrapin StationThe law doesn't require you to be friends with coworkers. So if he isn't promoted on the basis of hanging out with the guys then it is a quid pro quo situation and is harassment. I've had to promote or recommend many people who I didn't like personally because they were the best ones for the job. It's all about the Benjamins and I can forgive a lot of bad personality if it leads to a bigger bonus.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 14:26:15 GMT
Ok and how is this relevant to anything I have said? I am guessing you have an emotional investment in this. It's weird to me that you can't figure out how that's relevant to what you said. It's relevant because there's not a single case where the law would ever intervene, regardless of who a person in charge would pick, regardless of the real reasons they picked the candidate they did. Yes there is, I gave an example above. Where a person knows they made the worse choice merit wise. These situations happen. And please dont just come up with all these theories about my personal life as a reply.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 14:29:11 GMT
Well there could be physical evidence (emails etc) where the person in power admit to it. Or there could be testimonial evidence where the perso who got the job admits that is the case or the person in power does. I guess that would be the only way to decide. What happens in the real world is that they pick the person they have a good relationship with--their friend, more or less, but they don't say to anyone that they think the friend isn't as good of a pick as someone elseIf its a close friend they might. Either way the law would might make people think twice about doing somethig like that regardless of whether it is useless when trying to prosecute someone.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:29:40 GMT
Terrapin Station The law doesn't require you to be friends with coworkers. So if he isn't promoted on the basis of hanging out with the guys then it is a quid pro quo situation and is harassment. I've had to promote or recommend many people who I didn't like personally because they were the best ones for the job. It's all about the Benjamins and I can forgive a lot of bad personality if it leads to a bigger bonus. Again, the situation I described happens all the time, in all sorts of work environments. It's not against the law, and there's never been a case where it's been taken to court and won. It's how employment/business relationships work in general. You don't get anywhere if you can't network well.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:32:10 GMT
What happens in the real world is that they pick the person they have a good relationship with--their friend, more or less, but they don't say to anyone that they think the friend isn't as good of a pick as someone else If its a close friend they might. Either way the law would might make people think twice about doing somethig like that regardless of whether it is useless when trying to prosecute someone. If a law is useless for prosecuting anyone, it's not going to make anyone think twice about anything. It's just a bit wast of time and money to bother with as a law in the first place. Anyway, I can't believe that I'm living in a society where people's reaction to my example is that they want to make that behavior illegal, too.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:33:38 GMT
It's weird to me that you can't figure out how that's relevant to what you said. It's relevant because there's not a single case where the law would ever intervene, regardless of who a person in charge would pick, regardless of the real reasons they picked the candidate they did. Yes there is, I gave an example above. Where a person knows they made the worse choice merit wise. These situations happen. And please dont just come up with all these theories about my personal life as a reply. Your example consisted of making up stupid shit that never happens, where it just underscores that you must basically have zero real world experience.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 14:37:09 GMT
If its a close friend they might. Either way the law would might make people think twice about doing somethig like that regardless of whether it is useless when trying to prosecute someone. If a law is useless for prosecuting anyone, it's not going to make anyone think twice about anything. It's just a bit wast of time and money to bother with as a law in the first place. Anyway, I can't believe that I'm living in a society where people's reaction to my example is that they want to make that behavior illegal, too. Ok well first of all it is clear you have an emotional investment in this and it is probably distorting your thinking. You are being very informal which is unusual for you for what I have read of your posts. Now with regards to your point not everyone would know the law is almost useless. There would also be people who would feel uncomfortable breaking the law regardless of whether they would be caught.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 14:38:20 GMT
Yes there is, I gave an example above. Where a person knows they made the worse choice merit wise. These situations happen. And please dont just come up with all these theories about my personal life as a reply. Your example consisted of making up stupid shit that never happens, where it just underscores that you must basically have zero real world experience. I thought you considered being patronising "assholish"
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 21, 2017 14:41:53 GMT
The whole point is to undermine the usual justificational rhetoric for why sexual harassment of the sort described should be illegal. It doesn't tho. Creating parallels that don't deal with sex don't work. The pressure on an employee to 'have a few drink' versus the pressure on an employee to 'have sex' with their employers or coworkers is not comparable. This.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:45:21 GMT
If a law is useless for prosecuting anyone, it's not going to make anyone think twice about anything. It's just a bit wast of time and money to bother with as a law in the first place. Anyway, I can't believe that I'm living in a society where people's reaction to my example is that they want to make that behavior illegal, too. Ok well first of all it is clear you have an emotional investment in this and it is probably distorting your thinking. You are being very informal which is unusual for you for what I have read of your posts. Now with regards to your point not everyone would know the law is almost useless. There would also be people who would feel uncomfortable breaking the law regardless of whether they would be caught. My emotional investment is in avoiding ignorant fucks with ridiculous views arguing ridiculous shit just because they like to argue. For example, the incredibly stupid idea that someone is going to be worried about a law that no one has ever gotten into trouble for.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:47:33 GMT
It doesn't tho. Creating parallels that don't deal with sex don't work. The pressure on an employee to 'have a few drink' versus the pressure on an employee to 'have sex' with their employers or coworkers is not comparable. This. That: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/297037/thread
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 21, 2017 14:47:57 GMT
Ok well first of all it is clear you have an emotional investment in this and it is probably distorting your thinking. You are being very informal which is unusual for you for what I have read of your posts. Now with regards to your point not everyone would know the law is almost useless. There would also be people who would feel uncomfortable breaking the law regardless of whether they would be caught. My emotional investment is in avoiding ignorant fucks with ridiculous views arguing ridiculous shit just because they like to argue. For example, the incredibly stupid idea that someone is going to be worried about a law that no one has ever gotten into trouble for. Jesus Christ relax there pal, you must really have an emotional investment in this. Again I thought you considered patronising "assholish". The only "ignorant fuck" here is you with an attitude like that. I notice you didnt adress what I said in any substantial way, you just resorted to ad hominems.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:49:02 GMT
Your example consisted of making up stupid shit that never happens, where it just underscores that you must basically have zero real world experience. I thought you considered being patronising "assholish" "Patronizing" assumes that you don't have some background that you do. This is just noting that you were making up stupid shit.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 21, 2017 14:49:06 GMT
It doesn't tho. Creating parallels that don't deal with sex don't work. The pressure on an employee to 'have a few drink' versus the pressure on an employee to 'have sex' with their employers or coworkers is not comparable. This. Exactly. Also the socializing over a few drinks thing has never been as blatant. Has a boss ever said "You know, Joe, if you come and have a few beers with me and the guys things look good for you getting the promotion when Mike retires next month."?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:50:32 GMT
My emotional investment is in avoiding ignorant fucks with ridiculous views arguing ridiculous shit just because they like to argue. For example, the incredibly stupid idea that someone is going to be worried about a law that no one has ever gotten into trouble for. Jesus Christ relax there pal, you must really have an emotional investment in this. Again I thought you considered patronising "assholish". The only "ignorant fuck" here is you with an attitude like that. I notice you didnt adress what I said in any substantial way, you just resorted to ad hominems. You didn't say anything substantial. You just made up more stupid shit. There's no way that you don't believe it's stupid. (At least I hope not.)
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 14:52:19 GMT
This. Exactly. Also the socializing over a few drinks thing has never been as blatant. Has a boss ever said "You know, Joe, if you come and have a few beers with me and the guys things look good for you getting the promotion when Mike retires next month."? By what evidence would we be claiming that sexual harassment is that straightforward? By the claims of people suing for sexual harassment? Penthouse Letters? Porno film scripts?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 21, 2017 14:53:16 GMT
tpfkar Everyday version of "objective" as in the interest of the business within a framework of fairness to employees as opposed to uniquely personal interests of the appraiser. concerning canguage
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 21, 2017 14:53:57 GMT
Exactly. Also the socializing over a few drinks thing has never been as blatant. Has a boss ever said "You know, Joe, if you come and have a few beers with me and the guys things look good for you getting the promotion when Mike retires next month."? By what evidence would we be claiming that sexual harassment is that straightforward? By the claims of people suing for sexual harassment? Penthouse Letters? Porno film scripts? I wasn't speaking of evidence. I'm kind of confused where that came into play to be brought up.
|
|