why are there so many threads started by men on thumped about how shit women are? (2 Viewers)

[RSJ]

if you read the full report you'll see there are quite a few witnesses

edit:
although on reading it the whole way through the decision was not taken in respect of what may have actually been said, but on the issue of 'no work' available for her in february.

i (still) think this is a good decision

Yeah, the full report is very different story.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

if you read the full report you'll see there are quite a few witnesses

edit:
although on reading it the whole way through the decision was not taken in respect of what may have actually been said, but on the issue of 'no work' available for her in february.

i (still) think this is a good decision

My thoughts too.
Looks to me like someone who was legitimately laid off used a pretty minor incident of sexual harrasment to leverage a few quid.

 

[oh shit]

ORLY?

what was legitimate about laying her off?
and on what scale does sexual harrassment stop being 'minor' and become serious enough to be wrong?

plus it's only a good thing that they're gonna have to draw up a code of conduct

 

[Ciansy]

ORLY?

what was legitimate about laying her off?
and on what scale does sexual harrassment stop being 'minor' and become serious enough to be wrong?

plus it's only a good thing that they're gonna have to draw up a code of conduct

Word. She was entitled to make the harrassment claim whether or not she'd been laid off. Making a judgement based on that fact seems a bit wierd though, unless whoever was presiding thought there was a connection between her being harrassed and being fired.

 

[RSJ]

I presume he's referring to this:

Evidence was given at the Hearing by both Ms. F and Ms. G that they each had to reprimand the complainant on about six occasions for issues ranging from non-compliance with uniform to reporting for duty with her breath smelling of alcohol - an act to which the complainant admits. Neither could be specific as to how they administered these reprimands and no record of them exists. I also note that Ms. G stated a new employee would be given a month to come to terms with the demands of the job. This means that the complainant was admonished on 10/12 occasions during a two month period. I find it incredible that the respondent would not have addressed this consistent poor behaviour on a more formal basis in those circumstances. It appears to me that the entire employment process operated by the respondent is unstructured and ad-hoc. This undoubtedly gives rise to uncertainty and results in a lack of transparency and objectivity which clearly hampers the respondent adequate discharging the burden placed on it in the instant case. I therefore find that the respondent failure to re-engage the complainant was as a direct result of her rejection of the sexual harassment and her claim is entitled to succeed.

Casual employment of this nature is generally pretty "unstructured and ad-hoc", i don't see why this wasn't taken into consideration too.

 

[oh shit]

the decision was made because the rumour that she'd been fired circulated right after the party
and given that there was actually work available in february, the onus shifts on the employers to disprove discrimination
they couldn't do that,
ergo the decision maker has no choice but to rule against them

ps i always thought 'rule against' would be a great band name

 

[Ciansy]

ps i always thought 'rule against' would be a great band name

It beats 'rule in favour of'.

 

[oh shit]

I presume he's referring to this:


Casual employment of this nature is generally pretty "unstructured and ad-hoc", i don't see why this wasn't taken into consideration too.

i guess we'll never know

 

[RSJ]

Ah yeah, it sounds like yer man was being a slimy prick alright, but it also sounds like your wano was shite at the job (although it sounds like fairly standard working-over-christmas type stuff). The only point i was making was that it was far more complicated than the shortened version made out.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

ORLY?

what was legitimate about laying her off?
and on what scale does sexual harrassment stop being 'minor' and become serious enough to be wrong?

plus it's only a good thing that they're gonna have to draw up a code of conduct

Of course there was sexual harrasment

From what i read in the report it seemed to be a innocuous enough one off incident.

I dont see any reason to belive that it was ongoing or that there was any victimisation or that the girl being laid off was anything except above board.

12K

nonsense.

 

[Ciansy]

Ah yeah, it sounds like yer man was being a slimy prick alright, but it also sounds like your wano was shite at the job (although it sounds like fairly standard working-over-christmas type stuff). The only point i was making was that it was far more complicated than the shortened version made out.

It almost always is, innit? I suppose keeping this job won't make much difference to yer wan, she'll get fired legitimately from something pretty soon.

 

[oh shit]

do you know how this incident affected her employment chances in the local area?

 

[Mormon Nailer]

do you know how this incident affected her employment chances in the local area?

They'll e too afraid now to give her the shit reference she probably deserves

 

[oh shit]

maybe, but that's hardly important two years later

two years of knockbacks is worth 12k

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

They'll e too afraid now to give her the shit reference she probably deserves

i didn't think anyone dared to give bad references anymore

 

[Mormon Nailer]

i didn't think anyone dared to give bad references anymore

I've done it.

Anyway even if you get a good formal reference there is always someone who has worked with the person you can ring informally.

 

[SONYMEGADRIVE]

snitch

 

[RSJ]

Blank references are all the rage now. Mate of mine got one from work when he dared decline to renew his contract. "To whom it may concern, Darrenn X worked at Company Y from December 2005 to may 2006. Regards, Manager Fucktard."

 

[zero_hero]

It's against the law to give you a bad reference just can refuse to give a reference but you need to have grounds to do so also. Thats really interesting that they are able to just give you a blank reference.

 

[Mormon Nailer]

It's against the law to give you a bad reference.

that's news to me - what law?