Problem at work, need some quick advice....

ValHaller

Poppie68 wrote: »

Seriously what are you going on about?


I have said several times now that can be seen as inappropriate but you seem intent on arguing. I just think that the op does'nt have an issue with inappropriate patting on the back unless it is done by someone he deems inferior and to me this seems like discrimination to me and not a problem with touching. You keep bringing other factors into it when other posters are discussing this op inparticular and his issue.

The problem here is that as far as I see it and probably Southend too, the touching issue is pretty much absolute (apart from any action to prevent injury to OP). We can all recoil in horror or disapprove in one way or another at his apparent attitude, but the bottom line is still absolute. However a number of posters seem to be attacking his line of thinking - which is fair enough - while failing to acknowledge that his rights over touching take priority over any judgement on his value system.

An example in point is my exchanges with goonarmy. Once goonarmy accepted the point about touching the exchange was resolved. It is important to stand by the principle of respect by not touching when it is not welcome and critically, not to let it become something which can be swept aside by moral evaluation of the underlying thinking - not only for the protection of OP but in order not to undermine the idea that the individual's wishes in respect of touching should not be overriden

Southend1

ValHaller wrote: »

The problem here is that as far as I see it and probably Southend too, the touching issue is pretty much absolute (apart from any action to prevent injury to OP). We can all recoil in horror or disapprove in one way or another at his apparent attitude, but the bottom line is still absolute. However a number of posters seem to be attacking his line of thinking - which is fair enough - while failing to acknowledge that his rights over touching take priority over any judgement on his value system.

An example in point is my exchanges with goonarmy. Once goonarmy accepted the point about touching the exchange was resolved. It is important to stand by the principle of respect by not touching when it is not welcome and critically, not to let it become something which can be swept aside by moral evaluation of the underlying thinking - not only for the protection of OP but in order not to undermine the idea that the individual's wishes in respect of touching should not be overriden

Thanks Val, my thoughts exactly but put much more eloquently than my tired mind can manage tonight

goonarmy

Southend1 wrote: »

The issue OP seems to have with "inferiors" is completely separate.

It is ALWAYS unacceptable in the workplace for someone to touch you if you don't want to be touched by that person, no matter what your reason is.

Its entirely the opposte to seperate. Its the reason he objects. Sole reason.

Southend1

goonarmy wrote: »

Its entirely the opposte to seperate. Its the reason he objects. Sole reason.

The reason does not matter in terms of determining whether the behaviour should stop. Only the fact that he finds it inappropriate.

UNWANTED TOUCHING IN THE WORKPLACE IS ALWAYS WRONG.

Apologies for shouting but this seems to be going over some peoples heads here.

goonarmy

ValHaller wrote: »

That's what you needed to say.

What you should be careful about is using OP's reasoning to devalue his concerns about being touched at work. OPs; rights not to be touched transcend our opinions on his reasoning.

Your focus on the touching is incorrect in the ops own words. His issue is that someone beneath him touches him and moves his stuff. The key word is not the verb touch but the adjective beneath. And therein lies the issue.

ILW

Southend1 wrote: »

The reason does not matter in terms of determining whether the behaviour should stop. Only the fact that he finds it inappropriate.

UNWANTED TOUCHING IN THE WORKPLACE IS ALWAYS WRONG.

Apologies for shouting but this seems to be going over some peoples heads here.

Sure it never used to be an issue, (unless violent or of a sexual nature).

goonarmy

Southend1 wrote: »

The reason does not matter in terms of determining whether the behaviour should stop. Only the fact that he finds it inappropriate.

UNWANTED TOUCHING IN THE WORKPLACE IS ALWAYS WRONG.

Apologies for shouting but this seems to be going over some peoples heads here.

Your simplest veiws and arguement ad abusrdium discredit you. No one says the unwanted touching is acceptable. Some say it isnt that bad etc etc. I have repeatedly said its unacceptable. However the issue really isnt a pervy coworker. It is the op. And his out look.

Southend1

goonarmy wrote: »

Your simplest veiws and arguement ad abusrdium discredit you. No one says the unwanted touching is acceptable. Some say it isnt that bad etc etc. I have repeatedly said its unacceptable. However the issue really isnt a pervy coworker. It is the op. And his out look.

Nobody said the coworker was pervy?

Some posters are trying to say that if OP accepts touching from one person he should accept touching from all people. Regardless of his reason for not wanting to be touched by a particular person, his wish not to be touched should be respected.

I'm not arguing with anyone who agrees that

A) unwanted touching is always unacceptable
OPs views on "inferior" people seem to indicate he has a poor attitude towards some coworkers.

All I'm saying is that just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

ValHaller

goonarmy wrote: »

Your focus on the touching is incorrect in the ops own words. His issue is that someone beneath him touches him and moves his stuff. The key word is not the verb touch but the adjective beneath. And therein lies the issue.

The subtle distinction is that while his attitude to those 'beneath him' may be wrong, his issue with the touching has to be respected. And while you continue to post in terms which suggest that his attitude to 'inferiors' means that his dislike of them touching him is not an issue, you are bringing the point about touching into focus.

goonarmy

Southend1 wrote: »

Nobody said the coworker was pervy?

Some posters are trying to say that if OP accepts touching from one person he should accept touching from all people. Regardless of his reason for not wanting to be touched by a particular person, his wish not to be touched should be respected.

I'm not arguing with anyone who agrees that

A) unwanted touching is always unacceptable
OPs views on "inferior" people seem to indicate he has a poor attitude towards some coworkers.

All I'm saying is that just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

Surely A is invaldated if you criteria is the value of a person is assigned by the op. Have you read his posts? He seems to think he is better than his boss, the entire IT dept, the co-worker in question and posters on here "you'll have to look that up". His slant means that the acceptability is also called into question.