Lunch with Colleagues - don't know what to do

Frogletina

JC63 wrote: »

Are you sure she didn't leave the tip in cash? When I pay a restaurant bill by card I only put the cost of the bill on the card and leave the tip in cash.

This is getting silly. Thingy had already said that she didn't have enough cash on her to pay her share of the bill.

So even if she did give a tip in cash it would have been less than her share, and therefore it would have been less than the total tip given by the group which at this point was still on the table.

Remember, she picked up the cash after paying by card (instead of going to the cashpoint), put it in her bag and went out of the restaurant with the rest of them.

coolcait

aliasojo wrote: »

Ah, I feel that you are stretching things a tad now.

I do wonder why anyone ever posts anything if they are to be immediately subject to disbelief.

I know when coolcait (whose opinion I respect so please don't get me wrong) first encountered my more personal posts, she did question whether I was posting truthfully. Simpy because my 'way' of being so open online was so far removed from hers and her beliefs about what was wise to do,that she found it difficult to believe my comments and that anyone would put so much of themselves out there.

Understandable, BUT I'm as straight as they come and my life is usually so full of stuff to moan about that I've never felt the need to make things up. So in my case particularly, coolcait's concern as to my honesty was misplaced.

All we ever have to go on, is the info that an OP gives us. Whilst asking for clarification can be wise, I do think it's a bit silly to perhaps start casting aspersions over the OP's truthfulness ortake on things, given that we know nothing of the people involved.

Btw, I have wine and nibbles now. I'd share if I could.

On a point of order, m'lud!

Stream of consciousness openness is very much a characteristic of your writing.

My first disagreements had less to do with doubting that you were "telling us your truth, as you saw it". It was more along the lines of Burns' insightful observation:

"Wad some Power the giftie gie us. To see oursels as ithers see us"

Always difficult to try and give that giftie (not being a Power and all that ), but especially so when you're trying to put that perspective to a mum - with regards to how one of her children might have been feeling, following a slightly fraught mum/kid interaction! :eek:

Then, as on this thread, my approach has been effectively to say - "look at it from this angle". Then, as on this thread, that approach has not always been as successful as I might wish...:o

I have set out my reasons for believing that gibson could be the one to come off the worst if a complaint is made. Because - no matter how truthful she may be; no matter how accurate she may be about what took place - she lacks concrete proof to support the allegations she is making. And that may be her downfall.

Because, if a complaint is made about gibson's actions in this matter, there is a very clear trail of actions and behaviours which points to her being the source of this particular allegation - and a main player in taking the decision to exclude/ostracise the colleague she has dubbed 'thingy'.

And that trail of actions and behaviours is/might be/could be presented as evidence of bullying.

So, I really don't think that it is helpful for people to encourage gibson to go down that route. I think it exposes her to a lot of risk.

The story of the forgotten scarf does make me think: "of all the people, in all the world, to walk into that restuarant in search of a forgotten scarf... it had to be the one who has previously been accused of bullying" .

However, even if I take it at face value, someone investigating an allegation of bullying might want to delve a little deeper into that series of extraordinary coincidences. And gibson's artless comment - that the restaurant manager would give her a belated receipt for the tip she left, because he's very friendly - actually pushes her onto even more precarious ground. An investigator might ask - how independent is the restaurant manager's view, if they're that friendly?

Nicki posted earlier today with the three best ways - in her view - for gibson to have handled this situation. I agree with that analysis.

I'm really quite shocked by the number of people who - apparently - would be quite willing to ostracise a colleague on the basis that "Wotsit says that gibson says that thingy stole the tip when everyone went out to lunch before Christmas". My first question in that situation (surprise, surprise) would be "Where's the proof?".

As an aside, the risks of being identified on MSE are far greater nowadays than they once were. From gibson's other posts, she works in a largish organisation. So, more people to recognise the story. gibson has also posted about an instance where she sent an email to a customer, which probably 'did not meet the standards of professionalism required by this organisation'.

I reported this whole thread to MSE the minute I saw that they had put it on as the MMD - because of the potential implications for gibson if she is identified as a result of this. Yet, here it remains, as clear evidence that reporting a post doesn't necessarily mean that it will be removed! :rotfl:So, let's consider that myth debunked. :beer: (21 December 2012 being an auspicious date for debunking myths!)

Not that any of that helps protect gibson's position, sadly.

If gibson were to be identified, I suspect that her behaviour would be more likely to be seen as 'bringing the company into disrepute'. As she has brought this story into the public domain. Plus anything that she has previously said on MSE.

This thread seems to have made people more aware of the fact that everything they post stays on here, and that can lead to an accumulated mass of data which identifies them in real life. I'm surprised that it has taken so long for this realisation to dawn.

On this board alone, and based only on the instances I have seen, this past year has seen a poster identified from a few apparently random facts, and named under both her board name and real name. Another two posters identified themselves by linking to another site, where they had basically posted the same comments as on MSE - but under their own names. This meant that when a further poster was identified as being linked to them - in the middle of a harrowing thread - that immediately identified that poster in real life.

Please take care with the information you give out, folks.

Now, back to the drinks and nibbles. I have pink cava, turkish delight, and some kind of weird nut collection - gotta love Christmas fayres!

suki1964

Can't believe this thread is still alive 10 days after the op bowed out

mountainofdebt

On a point of order relating to Coolcait's post.....


.....I am surprised, that this thread has been highlighted in the weekly email if only for the way its been presented in said email "should I expose thieving colleague" when whilst the facts point at the colleague not paying her way, nothing has been proven in a court of law.

I very rarely post as a OP .....but when I did I was so aware that circumstances could identify me I was very cagey as to the full background, but I still felt that I was identifable.

mountainofdebt

suki1964 wrote: »

Can't believe this thread is still alive 10 days after the op bowed out

Blame Martin .....he gave it new life

aliasojo

coolcait wrote: »

I'm surprised that it has taken so long for this realisation to dawn.

I just wanted to say......











:rotfl:


Other points taken.

aliasojo

Frogletina wrote: »

This is getting silly. Thingy had already said that she didn't have enough cash on her to pay her share of the bill.

So even if she did give a tip in cash it would have been less than her share, and therefore it would have been less than the total tip given by the group which at this point was still on the table.

Remember, she picked up the cash after paying by card (instead of going to the cashpoint), put it in her bag and went out of the restaurant with the rest of them.

Aha!

Good point.

laxxxmi

milvusvestal wrote: »

Firstly, £20 seems rather extravagant for a tip, no matter how many of you were sitting at table.

Are you kidding? So if there were 20 people you consider £1 each to be excessive? Meanies like you are the reason that some restaurants slap 12% on as a service charge!

Oompa_Loompa_2

coolcait wrote: »

If the colleague you call 'Thingy' raises another grievance against you, you could be totally stuffed.

You seem to have an issue with the OP calling this person 'Thingy', you've mentioned it twice. Why is that a big deal? Gosh, I could think of worse names... Poor OP if they'd chosen 'Thiefy'! :rotfl:

Oompa_Loompa_2

I may be a little late in contributing, but if I had been at that table, I would have thought it was pretty rude of Thingy (being a last minute addition to the table), to pick up a lot of cash and just inform a group of people she'd settled the bill! Sorry, but it wasn't right of this person to do so - the right thing to do would have been to ASK if it was acceptable to all the members of that group to pay by card and thereafter TAKE THEIR MONEY.