Help worried sick here. Gross Misconduct

SarEl

ILW wrote: »

Lighten up a bit. We do not even know what the comment was supposed to be. Some people (possibly the manager) do need to get over themselves sometimes.

No we do not know what the alleged comment was - we also do not know that the manager is gay or that he has a complex about it, but now we are into making up stories to suit our own views and not anything to do with the post. And I have utterly no intention of "lightening up" when it comes to bigots who think that prejudice and unlawful behaviour is funny.

None of this helps the OP - who has, as I piointed out, made his own position on such behaviour abundantly clear - he does not support it. Just because the OP may be telling the truth does not mean that the manager is not a victim of unlawful and bullying behaviour - there is no reason to attack a victim because we believe the OP didn't hear something.

Of course it is "fun" to bully people because of their sexual orientation, because of their ethnicity, their disability or whatever. Nazi's all over the world would agree with that. Anyone not know where that leads?

Emmzi

Oh SarEl, Godwin's law? I agree with the point but really....

RobertoMoir

z1a wrote: »

I can't believe that this is happening to the OP, I work in an engineering workshop and no group of people is safe from our banter, everybody gets the mick taken out of them. It's all part of making the day pass quicker. If my employer/MD heard any of us having a go at somebody he would more than likely join in with an even more derogatory comment. People need to lighten up and stop being so touchy.
Good luck OP.

And what if the "banter" is unwelcome?

I too totally sympathise with the OP. It clearly seems they are being victimised here. But if the manager who reported the comment has been the victim of homophobic abuse then that too is wrong, and both the manager and the OP are both essentially victims of whoever actually made the comments.

Hope that's not too complicated for you.

firesidemaid

hi OP.

sounds like it went well under the circumstances, and your union rep sounds like he/she is on it.

hopefully you won't have to go to appeal:)but i understand how stressful this must be when you know you haven't done anything wrong.

keep us updated.

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

The MD does not own the law, only the company, and he wouldn't be the first and won't be that last to find that out the hard way. And your attitude only proves that you are a troll, an idiot, and possibly both.

I think you have overstepped the mark here.

While The Law is spot on about homophobic remarks which are made with vehemence, The Law is also out of step with workplaces where everyone is happy with what they and their colleagues are and everyone feels free to give as good as they get. z1a is clearly talking about the latter situation - and if the gay people and the jews and the blacks and whoever else are happy with the situation, The Law should butt out and leave people alone. And The Lawyers should butt out too. We can do without your sort making happy workplaces places of fear and suspicion.

And finally, if you prove that someone is a troll and an idiot, this takes you beyond the point at which they are only possibly both a troll and an idiot. So what is clouding the fine legal logic?

ILW wrote: »

Can you still call someone a !!!!!!?

As long as they are not a !!!!!!, you can do it with impunity.

SarEl

DVardysShadow wrote: »

While The Law is spot on about homophobic remarks which are made with vehemence, The Law is also out of step with workplaces where everyone is happy with what they and their colleagues are and everyone feels free to give as good as they get. z1a is clearly talking about the latter situation - and if the gay people and the jews and the blacks and whoever else are happy with the situation, The Law should butt out and leave people alone. And The Lawyers should butt out too. We can do without your sort making happy workplaces places of fear and suspicion..

"As long as they are happy with it"? And who decides that? You? This sort of culture in the workplace is the reason why the law exists - because people are not happy with it and were too intimidated, unsupported and scared to to anything about it. Simply because someone does not complain, or has not complained, does not mean they are happy with it - it means the workplace is an unhealthy and intimidating place in which small minded people use the excuse of humour to attack others. Was there a poll in these workplaces - "do you mind very much if we bully or harass you because we think it is funny?" Is there a "health warning" before people who are black/gay/female/disabled apply for jobs there "we don't observe the law in this workplace and please expect to be picked on because of physical or other chracteristics - please only apply if you think this is funny".

People in these circumstances feel isolated and intimidated. These laws do not exist because of lawyers - they exist because people fought for the right to go to work and not be treated in this way. Cases on this sort of "humour" happen because employees bring them - they obviously do not appreciate the "banter".

The people who make workplaces full of fear and suspicion are the employees (and employers) who treat other employees in this way and make their working lives hell.

DVardysShadow

SarEl wrote: »

"As long as they are happy with it"? And who decides that? You? This sort of culture in the workplace is the reason why the law exists - because people are not happy with it and were too intimidated, unsupported and scared to to anything about it. Simply because someone does not complain, or has not complained, does not mean they are happy with it - it means the workplace is an unhealthy and intimidating place in which small minded people use the excuse of humour to attack others. Was there a poll in these workplaces - "do you mind very much if we bully or harass you because we think it is funny?" Is there a "health warning" before people who are black/gay/female/disabled apply for jobs there "we don't observe the law in this workplace and please expect to be picked on because of physical or other chracteristics - please only apply if you think this is funny".

People in these circumstances feel isolated and intimidated. These laws do not exist because of lawyers - they exist because people fought for the right to go to work and not be treated in this way. Cases on this sort of "humour" happen because employees bring them - they obviously do not appreciate the "banter".

The people who make workplaces full of fear and suspicion are the employees (and employers) who treat other employees in this way and make their working lives hell.

You have argued on the 'some men are Greeks, therefore all men are Greeks' fallacy.

What you say is perfectly valid for the places where the workplace exchanges are laced with malice. But I know workplaces where people bring attention to their gayness or their blackness in most outrageous ways and relish the banter. It is far from the case that all banter which draws attention to people's differences is bad banter.

At the same time, there is a danger that if some people welcome this banter about their own differences, you cannot assume that someone else with the same difference will welcome it. Again the 'Greeks' fallacy.

As for who decides, it is not me, but at least I don't fall into the 'Greeks' fallacy, so it might be better if I did it than if you did it. Because your blanket one size fits all approach to this is plain wrong. You can only make ALL such banter wrong if you educate those who do welcome banter about themselves not to accept or encourage it.

Emmzi

DVardysShadow wrote: »

What you say is perfectly valid for the places where the workplace exchanges are laced with malice. But I know workplaces where people bring attention to their gayness or their blackness in most outrageous ways and relish the banter. It is far from the case that all banter which draws attention to people's differences is bad banter.

What about the other gay guy? The one in the corner, who is thinking about coming out, but knows he doesn't want to handle things the same way as the outrageous guy?

Legislation is about protection. I'm in favour. Be outrageous on your own time, professional in the workplace. So there isn't riotous laughter all the time - it's fine by me. I'd take that, so as not to hurt anyone else.

DVardysShadow

Emmzi wrote: »

What about the other gay guy? The one in the corner, who is thinking about coming out, but knows he doesn't want to handle things the same way as the outrageous guy?

Legislation is about protection. I'm in favour. Be outrageous on your own time, professional in the workplace. So there isn't riotous laughter all the time - it's fine by me. I'd take that, so as not to hurt anyone else.

I explicitly acknowledged that issue.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

... At the same time, there is a danger that if some people welcome this banter about their own differences, you cannot assume that someone else with the same difference will welcome it. Again the 'Greeks' fallacy.

Yes the law exists to protect the guy in the corner of the messroom - or even the one who does not want to go in.

But to criminalise and demonise those who give the king of banter sought be those in the centre of the messroom makes an !!! of the Law.

And to bring it home to this thread, if a employers bring disciplinaries against innocent people like the OP [never mind sanctioning or dismissing them], it will bring even more difficulties to this area of the Law.

For what it is worth, I believe that the manager involved here and his employer have done a disservice to different people, in that they have made gays people to be feared. Not for mythical Gay Plague type hatred, but for very factual ability to put someone through the wringer of a disciplinary.

Emmzi

DVardysShadow wrote: »

I explicitly acknowledged that issue.

Yes the law exists to protect the guy in the corner of the messroom - or even the one who does not want to go in.

But to criminalise and demonise those who give the king of banter sought be those in the centre of the messroom makes an !!! of the Law.

To me it seems you are holding 2 contradictory viewpoints at the same time.

You protect people or you don't.

You don't.