some new bosses implement pointless new crap just because they cansome pick a lapdog
some pick a scapegoat.
Ask them to specifically define the unusual behaviour and explain how this unusual behaviour coincides with the presence of a new boss and remind them that everything that is being said is being documented
then kill everyone.
:D
(some pick a scapegoat.
Ask them to specifically define the unusual behaviour and explain how this unusual behaviour coincides with the presence of a new boss and remind them that everything that is being said is being documented
then kill everyone.
:D
discomeats This canoe,
Fri 14 Aug 2009, 2:14,
archived)
Unfortunately,I'm taking your advice to a certain extent.
That extent happens to be 100%.
(Although astonishingly, my employers' code of conduct actually has a clause that explicitly forbids carrying firearms in the workplace. Wow.)
(That extent happens to be 100%.
(Although astonishingly, my employers' code of conduct actually has a clause that explicitly forbids carrying firearms in the workplace. Wow.)
Sea Tramp the thinking woman's 8 Ace,
Fri 14 Aug 2009, 2:20,
archived)
honestly manthe "unusual behavior" needs to be explicitly described.
and then you can decide during this meeting if you find it defamatory or not.
Is this the result of an attempt of constructive dismissal against a person who the new manager has taken an active, selective, personal and deliberate dislike over.
making them sweat a bit, making it look strongly like a personal victimisation is clearly ongoing and a hostile working environment is being facilitated by innapropriate commentary that would inevitably effect morale and effectiveness of the team, which you're part of, after all. An effective manager doesn't fester negative employee relationships by passing surrepticious commentary about any behaviour they find contrary to their unexpressed expectations, they approach such issues directly and appropriately with the individuals concerned before it reaches the point where formal documented meetings have to be held
unless of course you come in pissed up all the time and puke in photocopiers, then you're probably fucked :D
(and then you can decide during this meeting if you find it defamatory or not.
Is this the result of an attempt of constructive dismissal against a person who the new manager has taken an active, selective, personal and deliberate dislike over.
making them sweat a bit, making it look strongly like a personal victimisation is clearly ongoing and a hostile working environment is being facilitated by innapropriate commentary that would inevitably effect morale and effectiveness of the team, which you're part of, after all. An effective manager doesn't fester negative employee relationships by passing surrepticious commentary about any behaviour they find contrary to their unexpressed expectations, they approach such issues directly and appropriately with the individuals concerned before it reaches the point where formal documented meetings have to be held
unless of course you come in pissed up all the time and puke in photocopiers, then you're probably fucked :D
discomeats This canoe,
Fri 14 Aug 2009, 2:36,
archived)
Yep, all good advice. Many thanks for it.This is journalism we're talking about. I've good a good, solid understanding of defamation/slander/libel, but nowhere near as good an understanding as the bloke who's made the unqualified remark in the letter.
Basically, it's an attempt to put a foot on my head and assert 'authority', even though I've thrived without active 'authority' from above for years.
I don't think I want a job where someone's determined to exercise fine control over me all the time. Not now. I'm 36, ffs.
There was a wave of redundancies two weeks ago. I'm really wishing I'd accepted the pisspoor payout, cos it would've been better than this.
(Basically, it's an attempt to put a foot on my head and assert 'authority', even though I've thrived without active 'authority' from above for years.
I don't think I want a job where someone's determined to exercise fine control over me all the time. Not now. I'm 36, ffs.
There was a wave of redundancies two weeks ago. I'm really wishing I'd accepted the pisspoor payout, cos it would've been better than this.
Sea Tramp the thinking woman's 8 Ace,
Fri 14 Aug 2009, 3:00,
archived)