Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. (Score 4, Interesting) 373

The only troublesome events I've had with other coworkers was in some of the management positions I held where I had to take some disciplinary action for tardiness or poor work. Once I had to terminate someone, and I have to say that of all the hard things I've had to do in my professional and personal life, that was just about the hardest thing I ever had to do. The individual was a very nice person, someone who I personally liked a lot, but for a lot of reasons, some of them not their fault, they just couldn't do the job, and after multiple chances, the management team decided they had to go, and I, being direct supervisor, was the lucky recipient of that task.

Now I have seen some pretty deplorable behavior between other workers. I've seen bullying, both subtle and not so subtle, and have seen two coworkers enter a sexual relationship. None of these were my supervisors, and I wasn't their's, so it did not affect me personally, but I'd say that good people and shitty people are pretty much evenly divided between men and women.

The worst boss I ever had was a man, however. A petulant, ill tempered asshole who took out his shitty marriage on his employees, to the point where, after a ten minute session of the most vile berating because she had forgot to make a new pot of coffee, she just ran out the door in tears. She came back an hour later, and actually fucking apologized to that creep, mainly because she was a single mother with a young child, and couldn't afford to be unemployed. That certainly taught me a good deal about situations of relative power and impotence, and while not sexual abuse, was a kind of hostility and abuse where I did see people stick with the job, simply because they needed to pay the bills.

Comment Re:Outside the organization? (Score 1) 373

It may not be a crime to be bad, but in may still be an actionable offense by one's employer. Employers, particularly where employment contracts are in place, do not have to sit and wait for the police to charge someone, or wait until they're convicted, or even ignore violations of policy because they don't rise to the level of criminal actions, to sack someone.

Whether it's someone sticking his hands down a woman's pants or even just common theft are almost always actions that can lead to immediate termination.

Comment Re:They don't want one (Score 2, Interesting) 373

They don't want a court involved for the same reason no corporate or private entity wants a court involved; because the court will find the organization was in the wrong, and will find against it. The whole point of having sexual harassment policies and making them apply to everyone from the CEO to the guy that vacuums the carpet is corporate liability for sexual harassment or assault lies solely on the perpetrator. Even where a board or management has been proven to have insufficiently protected employees from sexual or other kinds of abuse, a strong response is seen as a way of assuring the corporate culture is appropriately modified.

Where I work, and I am in a senior management position now, sexual harassment, bullying and other anti-social actions are all in the company policies, and those policies constitute part of an employee's employment contract. While serious assaults would be referred to police, actions that while perhaps not criminal in nature, but still in violation of the policies surrounding the most egregious behaviors will inevitably lead to termination (with severance where we deem it inappropriate to have the individual on premises one second longer).

It sounds to me like Tor hat a right shitty organizational culture which had far too much familiarity between employees, and while I'll wager that they did have the proper policies, non-enforcement can lead to those being little more than a booklet that collects dust in everyone's office. Well, that's bad on them, but at the end of the day, in the world we live in now, at any point one party in a sexual or erotic encounter can terminate that encounter immediately, and if the other party does not comply, then the line is crossed. But really, there should be a zero tolerance for shenanigans. Managers should not be having any kind of sexual encounters with subordinates, even if it is consensual. It's disruptive, bad for general moral, and opens up the organization to significant liabilities. Frankly, if I or one of the other managers had a sexual encounter with a subordinate, and it gets found out, I'd say we'd be out the door in a pretty big hurry.

Comment Re: Rule of thumb: not so much. (Score 2) 373

Their attitudes rather explain why. They clearly hate women, and it stems from their own fear of women.

For chrissakes all but one of my bosses has been a woman. I have worked with women as my supervisors and women working under me, and women in equal positions. I've never had one accuse me of anything untoward, nor have I ever seen any of them behave in a dishonorable fashion towards me.

Comment Re:Rule of thumb: believe the man (Score 2, Funny) 373

But that's impossible. Everyone knows Slashdot posters are the most desirable of all men? How is it possible that she didn't immediately leap across the space, demand sexual gratification from you, and then inevitably go and tell your mutual supervisor that you molested her in a wanton and depraved manner?

Oh, I forget to mention SJW, so SJW this and SJW that! Women are vile evil creatures out to entrap men and then get them fired!

SJW....

SJW...

SJW .... SJW .... SJW !!!!!

Comment Re:Absurd Pile (Score 1) 966

*Who's* national security is undermined?

Everyone's. The core principle of NATO is that an attack on any NATO member will be treated as an attack on all NATO members. Thus, traditionally, Russia would be very reluctant to attack any NATO member because it would be guaranteed to bring about a strong counterattack, which at best would be costly to all parties and at worst could escalate into World War 3, which not even Putin wants.

However, if Russia has cause to believe that the USA will not honor its commitments to NATO, that could tempt Russia to try to "take back" one or more of the East European countries it lost after the cold war (similar to the way it "took back" part of the Ukraine in 2014).

By his loose talk, Trump has given Russia (and the world) cause to believe that he might decide not defend all NATO members; that the commitments of the USA might not be honored if Trump is elected.

So let's imagine that Trump is elected, and then Russia bets that Trump won't bother to defend, say, Lithuania, and so Russia sends in their troops to "reclaim" Lithuania.

Now what happens? Either Trump doesn't respond, in which case NATO is exposed a paper tiger, and Russia (and potentially others) now feel free to invade more countries when they want to; or Trump does respond, and now we're involved in a hot war with Russia that could easily turn nuclear.

Either outcome sucks. That's why politics at this level isn't a game, and shouldn't be treated as one. Trump's words have real consequences, even if he thinks he is only joking (or more likely, just isn't thinking at all).

Comment Re:While most on Slashdot loathe Trump (Score 1) 966

By "frowned upon", you mean "treason". Inviting a foreign power to breach US security with the promise of reward is treason. If he were in office and made that statement, it would be grounds for impeachment.

But I get it. Trump can say anything he wants and his supporters will either ignore it or make excuses.

Slashdot Top Deals

Multics is security spelled sideways.

Working...