Dignity at Work

Acc72

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

So "WHO" decides then? Why is f-tard offensive, and bad apple is not ? Can you show me the rule book please?

It does not matter what you or I think is offensive.

In this case, those involved in the disciplinary process will decide.

AP007

Even if you put 'I hate my company' on Facebook or Twitter or somewhere else you are very silly for one and even more so if your page is not private and you have added your company too your list of friends or someone you work with which is even worse!

UsernameAlreadyExists

imoneyop wrote: »

Legally, the very fact that a discriminatory term was used is enough. It doesn't have to be directed at a particular person. If someone felt that they were being discriminated against by the use of the term then that would be enough.



https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/how-you-can-be-discriminated-against

and I still read that as the person would NEED to have the protected characteristic in order to be discriminated against.
If I, for example, called you a cripple to your face ... and yet you're weren't. How could I possibly be discriminating against you?

I am, of course, assuming that no-one in the packing depot is afflicted, and that in fact, they are merely being lazy/crap at their job, of packing.

ILW

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

and I still read that as the person would NEED to have the protected characteristic in order to be discriminated against.
If I, for example, called you a cripple to your face ... and yet you're weren't. How could I possibly be discriminating against you?

I am, of course, assuming that no-one in the packing depot is afflicted, and that in fact, they are merely being lazy/crap at their job, of packing.

So would you consider it acceptable to use the word n*****R in the same context?

emmah89

having worked with people with disabilities, the word "retard" is offensive- i remember taking part in a course and having to work in groups and decide which words would be acceptable and what wouldn't be. it was interesting to see what other people thought, and everyone agreed retard was unacceptable- though in the likes of america it would be acceptable. i think the OP doesn't have a leg to stand on personally, however it will be up to the disciplinary committee to decide!

imoneyop

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

and I still read that as the person would NEED to have the protected characteristic in order to be discriminated against.
If I, for example, called you a cripple to your face ... and yet you're weren't. How could I possibly be discriminating against you?

Try reading it again - the first bullet point refers to direct discrimination (i.e. against someone with the characteristic). The bit I highlighted is about using general discriminatory terms.

So if you called me a cripple then I would consider you creating an offensive environment for me to work in.

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

I am, of course, assuming that no-one in the packing depot is afflicted, and that in fact, they are merely being lazy/crap at their job, of packing.

Rather an assumption to make isn't it - particularly when the OP used a widespread method to use the term, where he has no control over who sees it and whether they are directly affected.

zzzLazyDaisy

imoneyop wrote: »

Legally, the very fact that a discriminatory term was used is enough. It doesn't have to be directed at a particular person. If someone felt that they were being discriminated against by the use of the term then that would be enough.



https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/how-you-can-be-discriminated-against

The above point is exactly right.

Further, there is also such a thing as 'discrimination by association'. In other words, say a person who received that e-mail has a mentally disabled child, and is offended by the use of the phrase 'f-ing retard' (or the abbreviation) as a derogatory term, that is in itself sufficient to amount to unawful discrimination on the grounds of disability (in much the same way as the use of the word n*gger would amount to unlawful racial discrimination).

The point that some person on an internet forum would not find the phrase offensive is irrelevant in law. The question is does the recipient find it offensive? Presumably the answer to that question is 'yes' since a complaint has been made against OP.

kws

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

If I, for example, called you a cripple to your face ... and yet you're weren't. How could I possibly be discriminating against you?

In my opinion the fact that you and the OP seem to think that calling colleagues cripple and f-tard is acceptable speaks reams about the two of you.

Fortunately for the rest of us who live and work in the civilized world there are rules in place to deal with people with attitudes like yours.

Don't you think it's about time you left the 1970s behind and moved into the modern world?

gb12345

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Further, there is also such a thing as 'discrimination by association'. In other words, say a person who received that e-mail has a mentally disabled child, and is offended by the use of the phrase 'f-ing retard' (or the abbreviation) as a derogatory term, that is in itself sufficient to amount to unawful discrimination on the grounds of disability

Just to back this up with a real life example.

I worked in the payroll department of a medium sized manufacturing firm. We had a visit lined up for senior pupils from a special needs school and the shop floor supervisor sent an email round to all the staff (about 200 people, many of who he didn't know) saying "don't forget the cripples are visiting tomorrow".

Half an hour later he was summoned to the HR department and shortly after that it was announced that he had resigned.

One of the people who received the email had a child with Downs and had immediately lodged a complaint to HR.

zzzLazyDaisy

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

I am, of course, assuming that no-one in the packing depot is afflicted.

It also logically follows that no-one in the packing department has a relative who is mentally disabled - since that would amount to unlawful discrimination by association, but the reality is that neither you nor OP could possibly know that.

In any event, it is not simply about what the law says, that is just the base line.

What is equally important is what the employers employee handbook, rules and procedures say. All large companies and many smaller companies have very clearly defined rules about Equal treatment and dignity at work. Those procedures normally make it clear that a deliberate breach of those rules and procedures is likely to be viewed as gross misconduct.

Given that OP has titled the thread 'dignity at work' it seems like a fair bet that he has breach the employers rules and procedures by his conduct.

In that case he is at serious risk of losing his job.