Community Chat

[Noel7]

THE HILL  article By Brett Samuels - 11/29/17 02:35 PM EST  has more detail of what went on but I can't provide a link because of side stories.

[Sooner]

I find it unacceptable to fire people on "allegations."  I didn't think we were supposed to work that way.

I am concerned when people can accuse others of something that has been going on with full knowledge of the whole office for many years, and the person has not been formally reprimanded or counseled and they suddenly are fired.

Whatever happened or whatever you think or feel about this issue, THAT sort of thing puts every working person in jeopardy of being falsly accused of something and fired without proper HR steps being taken.

THAT'S a lot to worry about too isn't it?  Seems to me that proper counseling and warning steps are being left out and there is no process--just out the door because someone pointed a finger at you.

That goes deeper into many other workplace issues doesn't it?  It's likethe McCarthy hearings all over again.

[just bee]

---

@Noel7 wrote:

In his own words:

The radio personality later told the Star Tribune that he was not, in general, physically demonstrative, and that the incident that led to his firing involved touching a woman's bare skin. "I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches," he said. "She recoiled. I apologized."

NPR

---

I recoiled after reading this!

[Oznell]

@Moonchilde, you have been very on point and wryly witty today.  (Not that you aren't at other times!)

[Noel7]

---

@Sooner wrote:

I find it unacceptable to fire people on "allegations."  I didn't think we were supposed to work that way.

I am concerned when people can accuse others of something that has been going on with full knowledge of the whole office for many years, and the person has not been formally reprimanded or counseled and they suddenly are fired.

Whatever happened or whatever you think or feel about this issue, THAT sort of thing puts every working person in jeopardy of being falsly accused of something and fired without proper HR steps being taken.

THAT'S a lot to worry about too isn't it?  Seems to me that proper counseling and warning steps are being left out and there is no process--just out the door because someone pointed a finger at you.

That goes deeper into many other workplace issues doesn't it?  It's likethe McCarthy hearings all over again.

---

@Sooner

From what I know, they have to be called "allegations" until proven. 

That doesn't mean they weren't researched and evidence was found to support the claim.

EXAMPLE:

I will refer to one example from last night where a woman made up charges for nefarious reasons and was caught on audio/video tape admitting it.  It was still referred to as "allegations" and the like.  BTW, her purpose was to pretend to be a pretender in order to attack those who HAD been honest and had complained.  She was a shill and was outed by a Washington Post reporter.

[Sage04]

I watch reruns of The $25,000 Pyramid every morning and  D..i..c...k Clark gave the contestants a shoulder massage while in the winners circle. Would that be considered sexual harassment today?

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@Sooner wrote:

I find it unacceptable to fire people on "allegations."  I didn't think we were supposed to work that way.

I am concerned when people can accuse others of something that has been going on with full knowledge of the whole office for many years, and the person has not been formally reprimanded or counseled and they suddenly are fired.

Whatever happened or whatever you think or feel about this issue, THAT sort of thing puts every working person in jeopardy of being falsly accused of something and fired without proper HR steps being taken.

THAT'S a lot to worry about too isn't it?  Seems to me that proper counseling and warning steps are being left out and there is no process--just out the door because someone pointed a finger at you.

That goes deeper into many other workplace issues doesn't it?  It's likethe McCarthy hearings all over again.

---

@Sooner

Keillor says his hand went up her open blouse "about 6 inches".

That's more than an allegation.  It's an admission.

[Plaid Pants2]

You see, that's part of the problem, right there.

When he saw that she recoiled when he went to pat her on the back, he  immediately apologised.

That should have been the end of it, right there.

I think that in some of these cases, the woman sees this as a chance to get revenge on someone that they don't like.

They have an ax to grind, and see this as a way to "get even" with them.

I, myself, have twice, accidentally, touched male co-workers.

In both cases, I was beyond mortified, and apologised profusely, right there on the spot.

In both cases, the two guys understood that it was an accident, and accepted my apology.

Nothing more was said.

Did I "sexually harass" them?

I don't think so, because there was no purposeful intent behind it.

In both cases, it was a 100% pure and total accident, and in both cases, my apology was accepted.

So, when this guy immediately apologised for making her uncomfortable, that should have been the end of it.

[Moonchilde]

---

@Oznell wrote:

@Moonchilde, you have been very on point and wryly witty today.  (Not that you aren't at other times!)

---

LOL @Oznell 😻

[QueenDanceALot]

@Plaid Pants2

A "pat on the back" turned into his hand moving up her blouse "about 6 inches" according to him.

That's quite a "pat".