Instant Chat Bullying at work

Orville

I also don't see how they can say that because they were using a chat system that makes it an off the record function. i wonder if they were calling the company owner an effing you know what if that would be dismissed as a off the record function..?

But hey, that's just me.

System

I imagine its because its a private means of communication. There is no real difference between using chat to talk about someone and using a work phone to talk about someone.

If they monitor one then they really should monitor both (and take recordings of all calls).

Orville

goater78 wrote: »

I imagine its because its a private means of communication. There is no real difference between using chat to talk about someone and using a work phone to talk about someone.

If they monitor one then they really should monitor both (and take recordings of all calls).

I totally agree, personally i think that within the workplace, you give up any rights to privacy with regards to gossip etc.

If as the op said there are many posts about her on the screens, then i think it only right they report it. The HR or IT department should then investigate it and if their is any inappropriate comments going on about another member of staff they should then act.

marybelle01

Orville wrote: »

Unless of course you were from india for instance and they were calling you a packi, or coloured and calling you black whatever.. Personally i think that even talking about someone even if it is saying they don't like you in the wrokplace is wrong. if you are going to express your personal opinions about someone, do it outside the office.

And how can you not convict people of tampering with your lunch..? If they have actually gone into your lunch box and done whatever, moreso if they don't like you, to me that is gross misconduct.

It might not be nice, and in principle I agree with you - but what exactly did they say? The OP said he saw his name. Could have said anything in actual fact. And it still isn't a lot different from having a go about someone with your mates during the fag break, or whatever. May not make you a nice person but it isn't bullying. For all we know the collegaue was e-mailing the manager to make a complaint that the OP wasn't working hard enough or something. I don't know. The point is - neither does the OP. It wasn't directed at him and wasn't a comment made to him.

And what I meant is that expressing a view, even if it is a critical one, does not prove they had anything to do with tampering with the lunch box or the work. It doesn't mean that they did it. I really don't like David Cameron and I frequently talk about him "behind his back" - if anything happens to his lunchbox, it wasn't me that did it!

System

marybelle01 wrote: »

It might not be nice, and in principle I agree with you - but what exactly did they say? The OP said he saw his name. Could have said anything in actual fact. And it still isn't a lot different from having a go about someone with your mates during the fag break, or whatever. May not make you a nice person but it isn't bullying. For all we know the collegaue was e-mailing the manager to make a complaint that the OP wasn't working hard enough or something. I don't know. The point is - neither does the OP. It wasn't directed at him and wasn't a comment made to him.

And what I meant is that expressing a view, even if it is a critical one, does not prove they had anything to do with tampering with the lunch box or the work. It doesn't mean that they did it. I really don't like David Cameron and I frequently talk about him "behind his back" - if anything happens to his lunchbox, it wasn't me that did it!

It sounds like your checking out Dave's lunchbox

Orville

marybelle01 wrote: »

It might not be nice, and in principle I agree with you - but what exactly did they say? The OP said he saw his name. Could have said anything in actual fact. And it still isn't a lot different from having a go about someone with your mates during the fag break, or whatever. May not make you a nice person but it isn't bullying. For all we know the collegaue was e-mailing the manager to make a complaint that the OP wasn't working hard enough or something. I don't know. The point is - neither does the OP. It wasn't directed at him and wasn't a comment made to him.

And what I meant is that expressing a view, even if it is a critical one, does not prove they had anything to do with tampering with the lunch box or the work. It doesn't mean that they did it. I really don't like David Cameron and I frequently talk about him "behind his back" - if anything happens to his lunchbox, it wasn't me that did it!

LOL... i know where your coming from. But i still think that if there are "many" mentions of you then there must be something behind it. IT or HR could still investigate it and if there is nothing in it, just say it was a professional matter. What if they did investigate it and something was found..?

wantsajob

LegalBeagle wrote: »

OP you are essentially talking about them in this forum behind their backs.

Hmmm but he/she is not using identifiable names, or directing personal attacks at them to people in the same room/building, or putting chewing gum in their sandwiches/chucking their work in the bin.

CFC

Orville wrote: »

LOL... i know where your coming from. But i still think that if there are "many" mentions of you then there must be something behind it. IT or HR could still investigate it and if there is nothing in it, just say it was a professional matter. What if they did investigate it and something was found..?

Nobody would investigate on the evidence of 'I saw my name mentioned on their screen several times'. You have to have good reason to monitor email or chat logs, or a policy of random checks - and they DO have to be random, in that case.

trevorsminted

Who cares anyway let them write what they want, saddos!

CFC - i would actually say yes to my childrens fingerprints being taken and stored in case ever required!

sniggings

goater78 wrote: »

I thought that "black" was the socially acceptable term these days and "coloured" was frowned upon?

some black people prefer that some prefer coloured and most yanks prefer African American, which I don't under stand, as it is supposing all Aficans are Black which is not the case and also is based on you being able to look at someone and know they were born in the USA when they could have been born some place else.

I stick to black unless told otherwise.