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

Southend1

goonarmy wrote: »

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.

Yes I have read the whole thread, including posts by OP. Nothing changes the fact that unwanted touching is ALWAYS inappropriate in the workplace.

Would the rape of a woman be acceptable because the victim happened to dislike men?

anamenottaken

The OP's problem is not really with touching, nor is with having his desk area re-arranged.
The problem is that he wants the colleague to realise that he is not to be treated as a subordinate and not do anything which can be construed as exercising any kind of workplace authority over the OP.

The OP has been given various views on being assertive, not aggressive, in how to deal with the situation - dealing with the manifestations of the dominance actions (as he perceives them) so that they stop.

goonarmy

ValHaller wrote: »

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.

The focus im persuing is the form of acceptability. The ops prejudice occupys the whole of the first paragraph with almost double figure put downs. All this before broaching the subject of what he sees is the issue.

goonarmy

Southend1 wrote: »

Yes I have read the whole thread, including posts by OP. Nothing changes the fact that unwanted touching is ALWAYS inappropriate in the workplace.

Would the rape of a woman be acceptable because the victim happened to dislike men?

You are mistaking tancity for valid points. Again the sexual issue you seem intent on persuing shows you have missed the point by a country mile.

ValHaller

goonarmy wrote: »

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.

We have read his posts. And NO, Proposition A is NOT invalidated by OP's attitude. Proposition A is something of an absolute.

Otherwise, if we accept your moral relativism on that, we could also look at the scenario of the girl touched up by the office pervert and argue from your position that because she has contempt for the office pervert - ie she thinks she is better than him - the she has no grounds to object to him touching her up. I know you won't like that and you will say I am twisting things. Well, yes I am - and that is the problem with not respecting OP's desire not to be touched because you don't like his reasons. You are opening things up for the office pervert to twist.

Seriously, your line of thinking opens up some terrible precedents.

ValHaller

goonarmy wrote: »

The focus im persuing is the form of acceptability. The ops prejudice occupys the whole of the first paragraph with almost double figure put downs. All this before broaching the subject of what he sees is the issue.

You are not wrong there. But it does not make an iota of difference. OP's wishes on touching in the workplace must be respected, ultimately for the sake of everyone.

goonarmy

ValHaller wrote: »

We have read his posts. And NO, Proposition A is NOT invalidated by OP's attitude. Proposition A is something of an absolute.

Otherwise, if we accept your moral relativism on that, we could also look at the scenario of the girl touched up by the office pervert and argue from your position that because she has contempt for the office pervert - ie she thinks she is better than him - the she has no grounds to object to him touching her up. I know you won't like that and you will say I am twisting things. Well, yes I am - and that is the problem with not respecting OP's desire not to be touched because you don't like his reasons.

Seriously, your line of thinking opens up some terrible precedents.

Your confusion is prolific.
At no point has any girl been touched by any perverts.

The issue is the ops perception.
And yours with your macial insight to my thought processes.

ValHaller

Southend1 wrote: »

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.

It does not come clearer than that. My position too.

Southend1

goonarmy wrote: »

You are mistaking tancity for valid points. Again the sexual issue you seem intent on persuing shows you have missed the point by a country mile.

Sorry, what is tancity?

The point is that as Val says, if you accept that A) is ok because of then you could easily argue that it's ok for someone to fondle/rape/kill/eat/etc because of some other belief their victim holds.

And yes I'm taking it to extremes, but only to prove the point.

duchy

ILW wrote: »

Odd as it may seem, it appears I come from a more tolerant era. Agreed some things may make one feel slightly uneasy, but I would not make a fuss about it.

That'll be the same era that a male boss could inappropriately touch or deliberately brush female employees or make comments about their figures and the women were expected to tolerate it. Yes the world has moved on and nowadays it isn't appropriate to make unwanted physical contact in the workplace ever.

The fact YOU don't mind it is irrelevant . Someone commented the OP may have Aspergic tendencies .....maybe he does...an awful lot of engineers do and anyone with those kind of tendencies can have sensitivity to touch and proximity.... Another good reason to avoid physical contact.

Frankly the toucher sounds like he knows what game he is playing. In this situation the next time he did it I would be tempted to say . Please don't touch me I'm not attracted to you .