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

ValHaller

goonarmy wrote: »

the fault lies with the op and his attitude to others.

OP may have issues, but it is not his fault that the other guy is touching him, nor do his shortcomings excuse people from the need for basic respect towards him in the workplace.

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

Just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

It does not come clearer than that

goonarmy

ValHaller wrote: »

OP may have issues, but it is not his fault that the other guy is touching him, nor do his shortcomings excuse people from the need for basic respect towards him in the workplace.

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

Just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

It does not come clearer than that

Oh i see we are breaking new ground with this post, youll be added to the ignore list.
The ops attitude to others is the key problem. THE issue.

RichardD1970

goonarmy wrote: »

Oh i see we are breaking new ground with this post, youll be added to the ignore list.
The ops attitude to others is the key problem. THE issue.

The OP's percieved attitude IS a problem.

BUT, that does not excuse someone touching him in a manner which he doesn't like/finds inappropriate.

The fact he doesn't mind the BOSS touching him in the same way for what ever reason is neither here nor there.

ValHaller

goonarmy wrote: »

.... the ignore list.
The ops attitude to others is the key problem. THE issue.

OP's attitude may be an issue. But it is not to be used as an excuse to permit unwanted touching,

What you are ignoring is

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

Just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

It does not come clearer than that

and you can't make that go away.

Missme

The OP may exhibit some of the introverted characteristics that a criminal profiler might attribute to a mass murderer - especially when triggered by the pat that broke the camel's back - but that isn't the point here.

People should keep their hands to themselves regardless of how benign their intent. Mr Thinks He's Senior may pat everyone and their aunty on the back (as a unconcious 'toucher' I can remember a friend telling me the circumstances in which I did it) but it's really only acceptable where there's a relationship that allows it.

So, I'd agree with goonarmy about the OP, as others do to a degree, with the qualifier that Mr THS needs to think of other ways to assert himself and the OP needs to address the issue directly and not fester on b*llsh*t.

yvonne13_2

I don't like change....OP what are going to about "touchgate"....an internal pat on the back?

goonarmy

ValHaller wrote: »

OP's attitude may be an issue. But it is not to be used as an excuse to permit unwanted touching,

What you are ignoring is

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

Just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

It does not come clearer than that

and you can't make that go away.

Sadly you havent made it onto the ignore list yet. Been busy. Sooooo..... the op is the problem. End of.:rotfl:
But do keep flogging that dead horse dear.

goonarmy

RichardD1970 wrote: »

The OP's percieved attitude IS a problem.

BUT, that does not excuse someone touching him in a manner which he doesn't like/finds inappropriate.

The fact he doesn't mind the BOSS touching him in the same way for what ever reason is neither here nor there.

The excuseing fact is the toucher doesnt know its unwanted attention. Therefore he isnt perciveing him self doing wrong. I imagine if asked he'll stop but who knows? The fact he(op) doesnt mind the boss touching is both here and there. What if the op works for god awful apple store or similar with a intrinsic touching ethos, highfiving and all that american esq tosh(by the by i hate this)? Or even if the the boss has set a precedent of physical contact, followed by a precedent of responding well to that contact by the op himself. Remind me why the toucher, who considers himself-rightly or wrongly, an authority figure wouldnt expect replication to be ok?
And finally with the op's out look if the toucher won the lotto on a wednesday his physical contact, which would be rejected on a wednesday, might possibky be appricated on a thursday.
At the end of the day the ops out is wrong and some sort of complex might be the cause. If this escalates there could be all sorts going on. " he's beneath me and doesnt deserve to touch me/be treated in a pofessional manner/ breathe the same air as me/live." Extreme(for the benefit of southend) but you dont know, it could happen.

ValHaller

goonarmy wrote: »

the op is the problem. End of.

But do keep flogging that dead horse

OP may well have a problem and if he did not have an issue perhaps the touching would be OK. You might call it a dead horse, but the hole you want to pick in the following is that A is not true. And it remains live while you continue to try and pick that hole.

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

Just because may be the case that doesn't mean A) is invalidated.

It does not come clearer than that

Southend1

Val I don't think he's ever going to give this one up!

Ps- I'm flattered at how many times my post has been quoted in this thread now