Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 322
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:34 pm Post subject: Great Article/Website about work place bullying | |
| http://www.worktrauma.org/change/bullying.htm | |
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 322
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:38 pm Post subject: | |
|
Another one - including why victims are not believed.
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/workabus.htm |
|
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 322
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:41 pm Post subject: | |
|
Article 3 -
http://www.cwhn.ca/en/node/41612 |
|
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 322
| Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 6:44 pm Post subject: | |
| http://www.wave.org.nz/docs/mediation.html | |
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 315
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:45 pm Post subject: | |
|
Luis: I was told just the other day that the EEOC does NOT consider someone in management being "mean and nasty" to employees as discrimination or to be within EEOC's scope to deal with. Unfortunately the damage by bullies in the workplace is just beginning to be recognized. People should not be belittled and humiliated every single day at work and told they are inferior. Nor should they be beat over the head with hours. Fortunately I've dealt with that so much in my life it only serves to infuriate me. Any mental health worker will tell you that bullying does impact the productivity of workers and it does leave lasting damage to the individual being bullied.
It has only shown me exactly how two faced those in management can be humiliating me at reviews in the office, and then having the gall to stand on the sales floor and claim I know what I'm doing to other employees. I've noticed every mistake you make shows up on your reviews and nothing good you do ever makes it onto that paper, unless it happens to be smart plans or credit cards, no matter how much it may help sales in a department or in fact even make the department more presentable. The priorties are all screwed up and I don't see it changing. |
|
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 6045
| Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 11:43 pm Post subject: discriminatory | |
|
The EEOC is mostly correct when they say being ' mean & nasty ' is not necessarily a violation. BUT is it EQUAL enforcement, EQUAL oppurtunity and NON EQUAL treatment. I think they're almost telling you they need more evidence than the management is being ' mean & nasty '. For instance did others who's non used xmas or holiday decorations get taken down and treated in the same manner.
What you or the lawyers have to first proove are YOU being treated equally? Are other employees with about the same productivity numbers being harrassed or reviewed the same way? The bullying would come into to play in a private lawsuit. The government can only attempt to make sure you are being treated equally and is the company making a legal effort to ensure YOU are being treated equally. Hate to say it but until a private lawyer gets the company in court and starts diposing management about their employee treatment not much will happen the EEOC. The good thing is it is documentation for a future case. If too many complaints with the same company with the same problems keep rolling in sooner or later bells will ring. |
|
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 315
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 1:06 pm Post subject: | |
|
dictators_rule: I'm not the only one saying there is unequal treatment of certain employees. From what I can gather there are other complaints besides just mine and I have 3 witnesses to the fact that enforcement is NOT the same across the board. Certain people are being singled out, usually because the don't run with the pack. This store does not want those who do their job but those who cheerlead for the company on their own time, and those who fit in. I've never actually fit in anywhere and from what the personel who hired me years ago told me one day she knew the day she hired us that if the rest of the store ran over a cliff, we would not go over with them. Some people are just not wired that way. She also said she had never had any problem with assigning either my daughter or me a task, going on her way and coming back to find that job done. She never had to stand over us to get something done, just tell us what she wanted and we would do it without questions or complaints.
Also EEOC told me the other day they could not talk to any member of management without a representative of the company present also. Do you honestly think that any lawyer would get a straight answer out of any member of management even under oath. You know as well as I do this company will cover it's rear if it can and they will blacklist the employee if they can in any investigation, just as they told the Department of Labor, in writting, which I have, that I was not competent for a position as lead in gardenshop. However they failed to explain WHY if I were not qualified and competent that they had me down as manager on every single schedule even after they demoted me, I was still doing the same job, with the same hours,with the same pay, and why they were setting me up for this spring once again in that position as lead, and of course our beloved state and federal investigators never stopped to think about that. Commonsense would tell me that since their training isn't all that great then somebody was lying about my competence or they would not have been trying to dump the position on me the next spring. Of course I guess not everyone is willing to spend every working moment, dragging water in tubs from the back of the store to water hundreds of plants because the water pipes froze again over the winter and they are too cheap to fix them, and then stand and take a lecture in front of a vendor about the importance of watering the plants. I should have dumped that tub of water over this managers head instead of holding my tongue. If 38 years of experience with plants hasn't told me the importance of watering plants nothing can. Now if I were operating a store I would want those who were competent and experienced in the position of lead, and if I had said someone didn't meet my competence expectation I would not continue to place them in that position. I'd move them out of that department and try them somewhere else. Of course that would be expected in any COMPETENT company with COMPETENT managment. Of course we all know that Sears Holding isn't known for their competence in retail, or anything else. The bells are beginning to ring and I hope they get louder and louder until something is done. |
|
Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 6045
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:26 am Post subject: Trip up | |
|
In some respects that's a good sign anyway that the company wants lawyers present during any questioning about your case. Sounds like they're getting a little worried-for a reason or two.
The more formal the company makes it the bigger chance they have a chance of someone purgering themselves or falsifying official statements and documents. |
|
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 315
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:19 pm Post subject: | |
|
dictators_rule: Let them perjure or falsify records if they wish. The first thing I did was get copies of both my, and my daughters personel record, although it made me very nervous to find out my files were not in personel where they should have been but locked in the SM's office. I figured then someone could be up to no good falsifying those records, so I went over them throughtly.
If what I've heard is true then I'm not the only one with filed complaints of retailiation, age, sex, and race discrimination. I'm simply refusing to allow them to issue another worthless, right to sue letter to sweep the whole mess under the rug. I'm insisting on a through investigation including pulling all the store records and schedules. I want them to find one other employee who has been treated the way my daughter and I have been for over a year and a half now. |
|
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Posts: 430
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:33 pm Post subject: | |
Yeah, they're out to get you. Good luck with that.
|
|