Lunch with Colleagues - don't know what to do

tara747

I agree with those who would bring it out into the open - discuss with management so that they are aware (and may be able to advise on how to approach Thingy), but she can't be allowed to get away with it and then possibly accuse the rest of bullying because they don't invite her to future lunches! That is just wrong. And clearly the OP would not want to include Thingy in future, and why should she??

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

Have I got news for you - this is exactly how the travel industry works.
If you are a couple you pay less
If you are on your own you pay a single person's supplement which means your holiday is very much more expensive on a per person basis than the couple next to you on the plane/in the hotel etc.

Er, no. You only pay one airfare. Yes, if you're on a package you may pay a supplement on a room which works out at more than half the double rate, but hey, I can't remember ever going on a package holiday This is the 21st century!

meritaten

well, the other women are not going to stand up and say 'we are excluding thingy cos she is a thief!' they dont know about it! only the OP and one of her colleagues. this is one reason I advised Gibson to tell everyone at that lunch! to damn late for Gibson to explain if thingy makes an accusation of bullying yet again!

IDProtected

Don't all gang up on her, she might feel as if she is being bullied. For all you know, she may have a terrible problem that those few pounds may have helped to solve.

Take her to one side and ask if there is anything you can do to help her, that would be much kinder.

Merry Christmas!

:xmassign:

Hermia

Deleted_User wrote: »

I've been in a very similar situation... I went to a wedding earlier this year quite far away and was sharing car hire with two couples, so there were 5 of us.

Petrol money came to £80. Between 5 of us, that should be £16 each. When we were putting our money in, the 'head' girl who was organising everything told me I owed about £26. I asked why, and she said I should imagine her and her fiance as 'one', and the other couple as 'one', so we're each paying a third.

It was a bit of an uncomfortable situation where no one came to my rescue, but I was unsure as to why I should pay more than everyone else, just because I was a singleton. When I pointed it out, I could tell the girl wanted to put up a fight and started looking uncomfortably at everyone else. But she backed down thankfully so we each paid our fair share. Surely I'm not being unreasonable here?!

I once went out to dinner with two couples and when the bill came they suggested it was shared between three! I wasn't having this especially as the two husbands had eaten twice as much as the women and one had had the most expensive main on the menu. I think they were so used to seeing themselves as a 'we' rather than two people that they saw nothing wrong with it. What I had eaten came to £18, but a third of the bill came to approx £65 and they genuinely couldn't seem to see why it was unfair for me to subsidise them. I wasn't invited again!

coolcait

aliasojo wrote: »

Well being the simple soul that I am, that smacks of pc correctness gone wrong.

There is something far wrong in this world if a group of people can't deliberately exclude someone they find difficult to tolerate because of their behaviour, in case they are seen as bullying them.

Absolutely crazy.

(Assuming the person in question is actually unpleasant and/or difficult to be with for whatever reason, that is.)

Deliberately excluding someone can be a form of bullying.

The people who are doing the excluding will often say that i) it's all the excluded person's mind or ii) that they have good reason for excluding the person.

Sometimes that's true; sometimes it's just the excuses used by the bully/bullies.

Speaking more generally (not just to aliasojo! ):

In post 12, the OP said "I think she [the colleague] would say it was a mistake and that I was trying to make trouble for her and that I work behind her back to try to catch her out all the time"

And, from then on in, the OP proceeded to act in a way which would back up that kind of allegation from the colleague.

All the OP has to back up her allegation of theft is:

- an account of how the payment was calculated among the ten participants; an account of how much money was on the table; an account of how 'x' said that she had paid for it on her card, and then collected the cash

- an expectation that the other participants at the lunch will back up these accounts

- a copy of the bill, showing how much was owed to the restaurant for food and drink

- a tale of having seen a receipt for someone else's card payment, which covered the amount owed for food and drink. No copy of said receipt (and if the OP did have a copy of someone else's financial transaction, that could be a whole other can of worms)

- a tale of having paid a further 30 quid for the allegedly missing tip, but no receipt to back that up.

- a carefully constructed tale of having returned to the restaurant to collect a forgotten scarf (or card, as was said in one post - probably a slip of the finger). It maybe genuine, but it could also fit the profile of trying to make trouble for [the colleague] and that [the OP] works behind [the colleague's] back to try to catch [the colleague] out all
the time

- an email showing that the OP shared the concerns/accusations with another colleague. Without having tried to have a quiet word with either 'x' - to seek clarification, or a manager - to seek guidance

- the possibility that the other colleague will deny that she ever had any conversations about other occasions when 'x' has allegedly failed to pay a bill. Or that the other colleague may suggest that those conversations took place prior to the OP coming forward with this accusation.

- the possibility that other colleagues, when asked why 'x' has been excluded, will say that it's because she stole the tip at the Christmas lunch!! And that they can't be expected to hang around with thieves. They know that this happened because OP told the other colleague all about it...

Even if it is true that 'x' took the money, gibson doesn't have any real proof of that. If people start excluding 'x', based on stories told by gibson, then guess who will be in trouble.

I'll also make a real attempt to swim against the tide on this one.

Imagine that 'x' had genuinely overlooked paying the tip, or had actually paid it. But was never taken aside and given the chance to explain any of that before the OP started the accusations flying around. Imagine you were 'x' in that situation. How would you feel?

[Note - the accusing email appears to have been sent before the OP challenged 'x' in a corridor. I'm not sure that challenging someone in a corridor counts as 'being taken aside and given the chance to explain']

yvonne13_2

I have to just say to all the posters that think by putting laxatives ect in the woman's food or looking for revenge is far worse than the crime itself.
I hope it was mentioned in a moment of madness and not something you would actually do as that is a very serious matter.

We had a similar situation a few years back at work where some clever person decided to get revenge by putting razor blades in a doughnut, their nasty revenge back fired when the doughnut got swapped and they bit into it themselves.

Sambucus_Nigra

Personally, I think posting the Moral Money Dilemma without the full story AND posting a link to the actual thread and not an MSE version of it - is bullying. but what do I know?

tara747

yvonne13 wrote: »

I have to just say to all the posters that think by putting laxatives ect in the woman's food or looking for revenge is far worse than the crime itself.
I hope it was mentioned in a moment of madness and not something you would actually do as that is a very serious matter.

We had a similar situation a few years back at work where some clever person decided to get revenge by putting razor blades in a doughnut, their nasty revenge back fired when the doughnut got swapped and they bit into it themselves.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

duchy

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Personally, I think posting the Moral Money Dilemma without the full story AND posting a link to the actual thread and not an MSE version of it - is bullying. but what do I know?

I think that was entirely inappropriate.
I realize from the recent quality of the MMDs that they are struggling for material but even so.

Personally they have become so pathetic now I'd like to see the MMDs scrapped.

Nicki

I am utterly amazed that some posters think deliberately excluding someone from work based social outings is not bullying!

Transport this to the school setting and apply it to your children. Your 10 year old daughter is left on the sidelines at every playtime and never invited to birthday parties, etc because one strong character in the playground dislikes her and has taken it upon themselves to tell untruths about her/put the worst possible interpretation on everything she does and broadcast it widely. Do you all HONESTLY not think that is utterly classic bullying behaviour (and by coincidence also what has happened in this case). Can I just point out once again for anyone who missed it, that even before this incident a strenous attempt had been made to exclude "thingy" from the lunch by someone who had no knowledge at that time of the other gossipy allegations against her, and who pointedly snubbed her at the lunch itself by ostentatiously choosing the seat furthest from her.