Is it acceptable to address someone as "slacker" in the workplace?

Superfuse

Dakta said:

Ath_Wat said:

Dakta said:

I voted no but I made the decision based on my own circumstances which is a professional setting where you don't say such things to people. You also are expected to be mindful that the context sent is not always context received and you factor both in before opening the mouth.

I have worked on building sites and other areas where insults were traded as humour, and you do let it roll off your back but there's normally rarely much risk of it being taken in the wrong context.

I lie actually, I don't know if he used the word slacker or something similar but once had a manager in my professional setting who did publicly call people such things particularly in team meetings, it had a profound effect, eroded team morale - literally cut team contribution in wider meetings to zero and eventually someone upstairs cottoned on and one day someone sat in a meeting on unrelated grounds and a couple of days later he disappeared. 

So, for one, you have applied conditions to the question which are not present.

Secondly, even in your circumstances is the scenario I outlined above acceptable or not?

I thought the reasoning for my answer were pretty clear, the question didn't provide a context, one is needed so I formed my answer in context with my own experiences which is pretty much going to be standard.

If that isn't desirable the questions need to be written better, more concise, etc.

On its own 'Is it acceptable to address someone as "slacker" in the workplace?' is not really a meaningful question, anyone with any amount of work experience will know that the context can change its acceptability. 

I was very happy with your comment. Thank you. Happy for people to draw on their own experiences when voting.

Ath_Wat

Dakta said:

Ath_Wat said:

Dakta said:

I voted no but I made the decision based on my own circumstances which is a professional setting where you don't say such things to people. You also are expected to be mindful that the context sent is not always context received and you factor both in before opening the mouth.

I have worked on building sites and other areas where insults were traded as humour, and you do let it roll off your back but there's normally rarely much risk of it being taken in the wrong context.

I lie actually, I don't know if he used the word slacker or something similar but once had a manager in my professional setting who did publicly call people such things particularly in team meetings, it had a profound effect, eroded team morale - literally cut team contribution in wider meetings to zero and eventually someone upstairs cottoned on and one day someone sat in a meeting on unrelated grounds and a couple of days later he disappeared. 

So, for one, you have applied conditions to the question which are not present.

Secondly, even in your circumstances is the scenario I outlined above acceptable or not?

I thought the reasoning for my answer were pretty clear, the question didn't provide a context, one is needed so I formed my answer in context with my own experiences which is pretty much going to be standard.

If that isn't desirable the questions need to be written better, more concise, etc.

On its own 'Is it acceptable to address someone as "slacker" in the workplace?' is not really a meaningful question, anyone with any amount of work experience will know that the context can change its acceptability. 

But that is exactly what I am saying.  But the OP is arguing that because people have answered "No" to the poll based on context they have supplied themselves, that most people think the word is never, ever acceptable.

Ath_Wat

Superfuse said:

Dakta said:

Ath_Wat said:

Dakta said:

I voted no but I made the decision based on my own circumstances which is a professional setting where you don't say such things to people. You also are expected to be mindful that the context sent is not always context received and you factor both in before opening the mouth.

I have worked on building sites and other areas where insults were traded as humour, and you do let it roll off your back but there's normally rarely much risk of it being taken in the wrong context.

I lie actually, I don't know if he used the word slacker or something similar but once had a manager in my professional setting who did publicly call people such things particularly in team meetings, it had a profound effect, eroded team morale - literally cut team contribution in wider meetings to zero and eventually someone upstairs cottoned on and one day someone sat in a meeting on unrelated grounds and a couple of days later he disappeared. 

So, for one, you have applied conditions to the question which are not present.

Secondly, even in your circumstances is the scenario I outlined above acceptable or not?

I thought the reasoning for my answer were pretty clear, the question didn't provide a context, one is needed so I formed my answer in context with my own experiences which is pretty much going to be standard.

If that isn't desirable the questions need to be written better, more concise, etc.

On its own 'Is it acceptable to address someone as "slacker" in the workplace?' is not really a meaningful question, anyone with any amount of work experience will know that the context can change its acceptability. 

I was very happy with your comment. Thank you. Happy for people to draw on their own experiences when voting.

So if all the people answering are supplying their own context and answering based on a different context, what value does your poll have?  You have someone there saying that they have answered "No" even though they think it is dependent on context. They therefore should have said "Depends", but you are happy with that?  

Dakta

No

I don't know what the OP is trying to prove, but we answered with what info we had and they seem happy with it

Seems a reasonable outcome

edit: Just to add if I had to chose from the options available (which I did lol), it would still be no even knowing context could vary the answer because even on a building site where such things are commonplace, it's still a bit rude so i think no's a reasonable position to take even if it's accepted in some place. I don't expect a world where people are polite to their colleagues or fail to say things that could technically be construed wrongly on building sites anytime soon but meh, if it did it's probably be a overall positive even if I don't feel that strongly about it.

Ath_Wat

Dakta said:

I don't know what the OP is trying to prove, but we answered with what info we had and they seem happy with it

Seems a reasonable outcome

edit: Just to add if I had to chose from the options available (which I did lol), it would still be no even knowing context could vary the answer because even on a building site where such things are commonplace, it's still a bit rude so i think no's a reasonable position to take even if it's accepted in some place. I don't expect a world where people are polite to their colleagues or fail to say things that could technically be construed wrongly on building sites anytime soon but meh, if it did it's probably be a overall positive even if I don't feel that strongly about it.

That's still not the correct answer to what the question asks, though, is it.  It wasn't what do you think ought to be the case, it was "is it acceptable".  

Your own words were
"On its own 'Is it acceptable to address someone as "slacker" in the workplace?' is not really a meaningful question, anyone with any amount of work experience will know that the context can change its acceptability."
which is precisely the third option, "it depends", but you persist in ignoring that option and giving a flat "No".  I don't understand it.

Dakta

No

Doesn't matter, OP was happy with it

Lots of threads on here don't make much sense to me, world still spins.

Ath_Wat

Dakta said:

Doesn't matter, OP was happy with it

Lots of threads on here don't make much sense to me, world still spins.

The OP is happy with it because they want to be reinforced in their conviction it is never acceptable.  It is clear that you don't think that, so how is it a positive thing that they are under the impression from your poll answer that you do?

Dakta

No

I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree, otherwise thread will just get ruined

Spendless

From your other thread which I've copied and pasted. Exactly what was said was

"Still here at 8:30pm, you slacker? You should get yourself home"

Since the sentence started with the word still, I'm going to guess that your official finish time is a lot earlier than 8.30pm. They are referencing that you have been at work far longer than you are expected to. I now read this as the 'you slacker' bit as an irony comment meaning the opposite if you've put lots of hours in and 'You should get yourself home' as recommending you go home and get some rest.

Ath_Wat

Spendless said:

From your other thread which I've copied and pasted. Exactly what was said was

"Still here at 8:30pm, you slacker? You should get yourself home"

Since the sentence started with the word still, I'm going to guess that your official finish time is a lot earlier than 8.30pm. They are referencing that you have been at work far longer than you are expected to. I now read this as the 'you slacker' bit as an irony comment meaning the opposite if you've put lots of hours in and 'You should get yourself home' as recommending you go home and get some rest.

That is my example of a situation where the word is acceptable, not what actually happened.