You've got a bright future in the Catholic Church with those strategies.
That's not strategy bud, that's American workplace law. Not sure what you do in your country, but here when there are claims of harassment, you provide a safe work environment. Obviously since claims of harassment are hard to substantiate unless there are eye witnesses or video evidence, moving them to a location they couldn't be harassed was the best idea. Not sure how you equate whatever you are trudging up with the Catholics to this workplace issue. Sounds a bit idiotic to me but..whatever.
Moving the harassers to different locations is the proper thing to do instead.
No. Terminating the harasser is the proper thing to do. And contact local law enforcement if there was any criminal conduct.
Moving the harasser means they'll continue their actions somewhere else.
This is indeed the correct thing to do, if the harassment can be verified or is at a level that merits such termination.
I once was involved in a disciplinary case where a group of unionized employees claimed one employee was harassing them by having a bad odor every day. They put to their steward that this was a hostile work environment. I documented several times where I personally talked to the employee, never smelt a thing.
Should I have fired or moved that employee?
A lot of people here make quite a few assumptions on the extremely limited info provided..
Umm, no. Someone being forced to move to a different location based on accusations is about as silly as firing them over accusations. They can and will file a complaint with the state labor board.
Have any of you actually worked before..?
Someone being forced to move to a different location based on accusations is about as silly as firing them over accusations
But you were perfectly fine moving the victim??
I'm pretty sure you insinuated that Taco Bell should handle criminal harassment in another post, so I'm going to go ahead and just assume you're a troll and not reply.
That's a reply. If by "handle criminal harassment" you mean get authorities involved, absolutely. How is that a question? Not sure what else you could have inferred from that but if it's something else please, do tell.
So you believe it's taco bells responsibility to get the authorities involved, not the victim?
The company has a responsibility and when the don't fulfill their duties of handling harassment properly the victim can sue the company. Which is exactly what this situation is, taco bell not handling reports of harassment properly and the victim having to do it themselves. You've been talking a lot about people not understanding the US workforce but you're pretending like there aren't laws that cover this.
Well, I'll go ahead and stick with my own experience over some random dude on the internet. You jumped from harassment, to criminal harassment (yes, these are different levels of harassment), saying taco bell needs to handle criminal levels of harassment, to now not answering the question completely about who has the responsibility to take criminal harassment to the authorities.
BTW, my experience is about 15 years in mid and 10 years in upper level management. I'm guessing you read something or talked to some buddies to get your levels of experience.
Know how I know you're lying? No one with that much experience thinks that experience alone is worth anything. People hold down jobs for decades that they suck at and you keep repeating yourself as if that's the solution to anything. You also keep talking about dodging questions when you still haven't answered the question I asked you to begin with. You're either a really bad troll or a really bad boss.
I ran out of popcorn kid, my give a shits meter of what some rando on the internet thinks regarding my life is at 0.
But hey, you do you fella! Ever wonder why you get passed up for any promotions that involve managing people? Because your decisions are a liability to your company! Now you know.
Ever wonder why you get passed up for any promotions that involve managing people?
No because I'm the manager. Nice try though. Also nice try pretending not to care and then proceeding to show you do.
Umm, no.
That's cool. When you do get into the workforce, you'll find it's never as black and white as it seems. I've run into just as many people claiming victim when in reality they are the problem. Not saying that is the case with this person, but moving everyone that they claim is harassing them is foolish and leaves your company open to retaliation claims.
Now you know.
I'm over 60 and have worked since I was 12. You don't know shit about my experiences but are arrogant enough to think otherwise.
Now you know.
It doesn't make your terrible ideas any less terrible. So far I've given you several reasons why they are terrible, and you have replied with nonsense about your age as if it's relevant.
Hint: It isn't
EDIT: Also, I asked you in my post (it was the only question that was asked in the entire post) "Have any of you actually worked before…?" To which you *replied * "Umm, no." So tell me again how I made an assumption and don't know shit about your experiences. I will make one assumption, you've been having trouble with communication ever since you started working at 12.
Ah yes, the catholic priest strategy.
Vastly different because the harassers were co-workers, not bosses like priests essentially are.
Moving an abusive individual to another place so they can continue their abuse isn't vastly different but you do you
Yeah, it is. Because bullies never act out in a vacuum ... their supporters have to be present before they start bullying. If you remove bullies to new surroundings and new people - esp to people who are aware of why they had to move - they have lost their power and support to bully.
I swear I read the same thing in the catholic priest handbook
How is moving the victim even remotely the same as that?
Because you left the problem in a position to do the bad thing to someone else. It's not rocket surgery.
How so? I doubt the employees are going to be shitty to a new hire that didn't "rat" on anyone.
Bad work relationships exist everywhere and one valid solution is to split the offending parties up. That's not "leaving the problem" as is, it's an active attempt to address the problems at hand.
I guess it is rocket surgery. Harassment isn't a "bad work relationship," it's a crime. If you and I worked together and I broke a window on your car and instead of me getting fired and/or arrested, you get moved to another branch, you cannot tell me you wouldn't feel cheated at the very least.
CORRECT, certain levels of harassment ARE CRIMINAL. Then guess who gets to deal with that level of harassment? *Hint- It's not taco bell
EDIT: I had to come back on this one and ask, did you even read your own post? Are you really saying it's taco bells job to get involved in criminal harassment? Are you trolling..?
You really think I'm saying there's a taco bell jail or are you the troll?
If they’re shitty to a person that reported something like this then they’re shitty people who will be shitty to everyone. Fire the lot, start that Taco Bell over. Pull the franchise from the owner over it and sell it to someone else as well
You've got a bright future in the Catholic Church with those strategies.
That's not strategy bud, that's American workplace law. Not sure what you do in your country, but here when there are claims of harassment, you provide a safe work environment. Obviously since claims of harassment are hard to substantiate unless there are eye witnesses or video evidence, moving them to a location they couldn't be harassed was the best idea. Not sure how you equate whatever you are trudging up with the Catholics to this workplace issue. Sounds a bit idiotic to me but..whatever.
Moving the harassers to different locations is the proper thing to do instead.
No. Terminating the harasser is the proper thing to do. And contact local law enforcement if there was any criminal conduct.
Moving the harasser means they'll continue their actions somewhere else.
This is indeed the correct thing to do, if the harassment can be verified or is at a level that merits such termination. I once was involved in a disciplinary case where a group of unionized employees claimed one employee was harassing them by having a bad odor every day. They put to their steward that this was a hostile work environment. I documented several times where I personally talked to the employee, never smelt a thing. Should I have fired or moved that employee? A lot of people here make quite a few assumptions on the extremely limited info provided..
Umm, no. Someone being forced to move to a different location based on accusations is about as silly as firing them over accusations. They can and will file a complaint with the state labor board. Have any of you actually worked before..?
But you were perfectly fine moving the victim??
I'm pretty sure you insinuated that Taco Bell should handle criminal harassment in another post, so I'm going to go ahead and just assume you're a troll and not reply.
That's a reply. If by "handle criminal harassment" you mean get authorities involved, absolutely. How is that a question? Not sure what else you could have inferred from that but if it's something else please, do tell.
So you believe it's taco bells responsibility to get the authorities involved, not the victim?
The company has a responsibility and when the don't fulfill their duties of handling harassment properly the victim can sue the company. Which is exactly what this situation is, taco bell not handling reports of harassment properly and the victim having to do it themselves. You've been talking a lot about people not understanding the US workforce but you're pretending like there aren't laws that cover this.
Well, I'll go ahead and stick with my own experience over some random dude on the internet. You jumped from harassment, to criminal harassment (yes, these are different levels of harassment), saying taco bell needs to handle criminal levels of harassment, to now not answering the question completely about who has the responsibility to take criminal harassment to the authorities. BTW, my experience is about 15 years in mid and 10 years in upper level management. I'm guessing you read something or talked to some buddies to get your levels of experience.
Know how I know you're lying? No one with that much experience thinks that experience alone is worth anything. People hold down jobs for decades that they suck at and you keep repeating yourself as if that's the solution to anything. You also keep talking about dodging questions when you still haven't answered the question I asked you to begin with. You're either a really bad troll or a really bad boss.
I ran out of popcorn kid, my give a shits meter of what some rando on the internet thinks regarding my life is at 0. But hey, you do you fella! Ever wonder why you get passed up for any promotions that involve managing people? Because your decisions are a liability to your company! Now you know.
No because I'm the manager. Nice try though. Also nice try pretending not to care and then proceeding to show you do.
Umm, no.
That's cool. When you do get into the workforce, you'll find it's never as black and white as it seems. I've run into just as many people claiming victim when in reality they are the problem. Not saying that is the case with this person, but moving everyone that they claim is harassing them is foolish and leaves your company open to retaliation claims. Now you know.
I'm over 60 and have worked since I was 12. You don't know shit about my experiences but are arrogant enough to think otherwise.
Now you know.
It doesn't make your terrible ideas any less terrible. So far I've given you several reasons why they are terrible, and you have replied with nonsense about your age as if it's relevant. Hint: It isn't EDIT: Also, I asked you in my post (it was the only question that was asked in the entire post) "Have any of you actually worked before…?" To which you *replied * "Umm, no." So tell me again how I made an assumption and don't know shit about your experiences. I will make one assumption, you've been having trouble with communication ever since you started working at 12.
Ah yes, the catholic priest strategy.
Vastly different because the harassers were co-workers, not bosses like priests essentially are.
Moving an abusive individual to another place so they can continue their abuse isn't vastly different but you do you
Yeah, it is. Because bullies never act out in a vacuum ... their supporters have to be present before they start bullying. If you remove bullies to new surroundings and new people - esp to people who are aware of why they had to move - they have lost their power and support to bully.
I swear I read the same thing in the catholic priest handbook
How is moving the victim even remotely the same as that?
Because you left the problem in a position to do the bad thing to someone else. It's not rocket surgery.
How so? I doubt the employees are going to be shitty to a new hire that didn't "rat" on anyone.
Bad work relationships exist everywhere and one valid solution is to split the offending parties up. That's not "leaving the problem" as is, it's an active attempt to address the problems at hand.
I guess it is rocket surgery. Harassment isn't a "bad work relationship," it's a crime. If you and I worked together and I broke a window on your car and instead of me getting fired and/or arrested, you get moved to another branch, you cannot tell me you wouldn't feel cheated at the very least.
CORRECT, certain levels of harassment ARE CRIMINAL. Then guess who gets to deal with that level of harassment? *Hint- It's not taco bell EDIT: I had to come back on this one and ask, did you even read your own post? Are you really saying it's taco bells job to get involved in criminal harassment? Are you trolling..?
You really think I'm saying there's a taco bell jail or are you the troll?
If they’re shitty to a person that reported something like this then they’re shitty people who will be shitty to everyone. Fire the lot, start that Taco Bell over. Pull the franchise from the owner over it and sell it to someone else as well