You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Shocking double standards over workplace foul-mouthed insults
In what world is it acceptable for a man to describe a female colleague as a “f***ing ****” during a workplace argument?
The world we have created, apparently, according to an industrial tribunal.
A world where words and terms once considered outrageous profanities are common parlance and objectors are expected to suck it up.
Be careful what you wish for. How swiftly the f word has shifted from a shocking wince-making superfluous word to everyday language; from not so long ago, the punctuation of the inarticulate – dimbos who struggled to converse without swearing, or out to shock – to totally permissible in the workplace.
Unless your workplace is the Westminster bubble where swearing at a worker breaches Parliament’s bullying and harassment policy.
Two concurrent cases showed a rank double standards in society this week.
Reform UK MP Lee Anderson was ordered to apologise for breaching Parliament's bullying and harassment policy after he “verbally insulted” the guard twice when asked to show his pass as he tried to enter the Parliamentary estate in November 2023.
Anderson initially dismissed the allegations and called the investigation biased but later admitted using inappropriate language, citing “challenging personal circumstances” that day.
Following the ruling by the Independent Expert Panel, Anderson apologised to the Commons and the officer.
Meanwhile, 200 miles away up north in Manchester, tribunal judge Jetinder Shergill this week ruled that the sacking of a delivery driver for describing a female colleague as a “f***ing ****” during an argument about her weight was unfair dismissal because the f-word is so commonplace “in the public sphere, adding the caveat, particularly in the north of England.
No, the north is not a super-hotbed of profanity, every other region is as good at it too.
The woman – who said she felt “violated and shocked” and in tears after the “aggressive” onslaught in a conversation about attending a weight loss club and doughnuts - reported him to management Booker, which led to his sacking.
She said he had also said to her: “No wonder it takes you 19 weeks to lose a stone. It hasn’t taken me 19 weeks.”
However, the judge disagreed with his sacking and the driver will now receive compensation after his ruling that this workplace was “lawless and toxic” and rife with comments like this with a “dysfunctional” team withy managers who were “part of the problem”, said the judge. The sacking without warning was “harsh” and unfair, he said.
Presumably, the assumption here is that we all have a choice where we work and if the woman didn’t like the culture where this type of insult was perfectly normal, she should have left or challenged the culture and tried to change from within.
The judge did say that “swearing should not be acceptable in a workplace, although common everyday experience, particularly in the north, is that the F-word is used quite often, spoken in the public sphere.”
What about the insult thrown at the woman? Does this mean that, because she accepted a job in the business, she must accept what is thrown at her or quit.
In this case, it looks like the message was that the driver should have been given a warning and not sacked for the ‘offence’ and the ruling was against the management rather than condoning the behaviour.
However, the overriding message is that in businesses that have developed their own toxic culture, everyone in it must accept – and expect - the otherwise unacceptable behaviour - unless you’re protected in the Westminster bubble. That can never be right.
An uncomfortable precedent at best; a shocking plummeting of standards and expectations in reality. We should despair.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/shocking-double-standards-over-workplace-060500415.html
Comments
Police say they will not prosecute people who drive off from petrol stations without paying because they might not be “having a great day”.
Supt Fran Harrod, of Lincolnshire Police, urged petrol station owners to pursue matters through civil action instead. The senior officer stated the force had “finite resources” to investigate cases and had to prove there was intent to steal.
Ms Harrod was responding to concerns about a lack of enforcement after the owner of a petrol station in the Lincolnshire resort of Mablethorpe said drive-offs were killing her family business.
Kavita Pilani said her garage had suffered 50 thefts in six months and called on the force to “stop saying that this is not a crime” because it was “encouraging” people to do it.
Mrs Pilani, who has owned Empire Garage with her husband Sanjay for 10 years, said drive-offs had increased over time and this year had been the worst yet.
People were filling their tanks with “nothing less than £80 or £90” of fuel before driving off without paying. She said she had CCTV of suspected offenders and had reported every incident, but the police “don’t do anything about it”.
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/police-refuse-prosecute-petrol-thieves-205704429.html
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-sacked-despite-cctv-showing-192030808.html
It is simply the case that any workplace has different rules for different circumstances.
Let's start with the Lee Anderson one, for starters. Because Westminster is a lot like everywhere else in this regard. And I will show why.
Firstly, there are times when swearing is not permissible. For example, in the House while debating. Particularly when the cameras are on. But everywhere has times like this. I recall an example when a Junior Solicitor used some particularly offensive terms towards 1 of her Managers. I tried to save her job. The Senior Manager tried to save her job. The trouble was not her language-but the fact that she had said it right in front of Clients.
There will be times when industrial language can be used. Provided it is commonplace. Provided it is not used to bully. So (for example) if a group of MPs are discussing something after a few pints in a Commons bar, it's going to happen.
But then there is a 3rd category. When people use their position to use such language to belittle people. Let's use my former career as an example. If I was talking to a Senior colleague about losing a case, I would have used colourful language. If I am mentoring a Trainee Solicitor, I would already have made a judgment call as to what language to use. And it would normally not have been in front of others. Whereas if I spoke to the Security Guard, or the 18 yr old Temp Receptionist on her 1st day in that way, I would expect to be called out for that behaviour. Just like 30p Lee.
Finally, previous actions are always important. If someone has dropped the f-bomb at work 99 times without incident, he is going to do it the 100th time. If an employee finds it to be bullying, he needs to be told. If you are cleaning up the workplace, people need to be told. Starting with advice and/or Warnings. Not Summary Dismissal.