Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Would you do this to a colleague?

Options
123457

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,713 ✭✭✭Wanderer2010


    It's not just people on her own team she's pushing work onto. No one where I work objects to helping others out, taking on a bit extra now and then or occasionally taking on more senior work. But there is a limit. People also have their own jobs to do, and there's only so many hours in a day. Also, if someone is being paid more than you are, they are expected to be also taking on more responsibility than you.

    You are telling this to the wrong audience, and your tetchy replies speak of a thin skinned person who cant take any advice that contradicts their own mindset. Pull her aside, tell her that you cant do her work and its as simple as that then just refuse if she leaves work for you. You need to be more assertive, the answer is nothing to do with who goes or who doesn't go for a meal.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,709 ✭✭✭c68zapdsm5i1ru


    The thread was about the meal and was not started to seek advice about how to handle my colleague. My 'tetchy' replies are in answer to people who are jumping to conclusions, inventing their own scenarios and pulling the thread off topic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    The thread was about the meal and was not started to seek advice about how to handle my colleague. My 'tetchy' replies are in answer to people who are jumping to conclusions, inventing their own scenarios and pulling the thread off topic.

    I'm having an office party and I'm not inviting you.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭PeterParker957


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Yeah, so that's bullying right there.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,713 ✭✭✭Wanderer2010


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Its illegal to make someone redundant for the stupid reasons you have outlined. I hope he sued your company.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,281 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Its illegal to make someone redundant for the stupid reasons you have outlined. I hope he sued your company.

    Yes, yes, I'm sure his boss made him redundant with the reasoning that nobody liked him. I'm sure all the paperwork said that. Thats probably how it happened alright.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 242 ✭✭RainMakerToo


    ‘To lower morale and production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions. Discriminate against efficient workers; complain unjustly about their work’ ...

    Seems relevant :)

    Saw it here earlier: http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20171211-the-world-war-two-guide-to-office-warfare


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,786 ✭✭✭wakka12


    Was he beaten up for having @ssburgers syndrome? If not, why feel the need to include that? I fought often enough in the schoolyard - got beat up about a third of the time. I lived....

    adds: sorry, i should have wrote that 'i survived' instead #imasurvivor #walklikebeyonce

    Your friend must be in a very nice school..lots of children who are very sweet and nice are bullied for being ugly or quiet or fat or too effeminate or masculine for their gender or just softies in general or a multitude of other reasons other than being mean themselves.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,744 ✭✭✭marieholmfan


    wakka12 wrote: »
    Your friend must be in a very nice school..lots of children who are very sweet and nice are bullied for being ugly or quiet or fat or too effeminate or masculine for their gender or just softies in general or a multitude of other reasons other than being mean themselves.

    Don't respond to him. He isn't worth the electrons.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,713 ✭✭✭Wanderer2010


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    What exactly was this meeting you called about? That to me sounds like an ambush and from the outside there was certainly nothing genuine in it. As if ye really wanted to change things. That to me sounds like the writing was already on the walls and you wanted evidence that you tried to extend an olive branch.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,271 ✭✭✭Lollipop95


    OP - Invite her. I can't believe everyone in the office is 35+! I'm 22 and this just ranks of childish petulance on your colleagues side. Honestly I left school 3 years ago and this sounds like something a bunch of 15-16 year olds would do.

    As others have said, she can't be THAT bad to justify this and there are other (more mature!) ways to address her behaviour. If your colleagues insist on organising the lunch (if I were you I'd tell them that you think that it's a horrible idea) then I suppose there's nothing you can do about it. But I certainly wouldn't go to it if I were you


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,247 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    Snowflake central in here...

    Person A is an asshole.
    People B, C, D, E, F, and G find that asshole difficult.
    Person A is eventually isolated by their own crappy behaviour. Not because people are choosing to isolate them, but because nobody likes an asshole so it's a natural progression.

    =

    Person A is being bullied.

    Loads of old crap. Sure, in the OP's example, organising an official staff do and excluding this person would have been very unpleasant and unfair.

    But the thread has now turned to a situation where if someone is a prick and is therefore treated like they are a prick, then they are the victim.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    Snowflake central in here...

    Snowflakes are people who can't bear normal levels of warmth. That would be cold fish like you who don't understand what it takes to be decent and compassionate.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,910 ✭✭✭begbysback


    Did u just make up that definition of snowflake?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    begbysback wrote: »
    Did u just make up that definition of snowflake?

    No more than did the people who originally derided normal people with normal decent manners as being fragile because they insisted that other people have normal decent manners.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,247 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    Speedwell wrote: »
    Snowflakes are people who can't bear normal levels of warmth. That would be cold fish like you who don't understand what it takes to be decent and compassionate.

    Lol

    #triggered


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    Lol

    #triggered

    Did you just make up that definition of "triggered"?


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,281 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    DrPhilG wrote: »
    Snowflake central in here...
    Calls people snowflakes...
    Sure, in the OP's example, organising an official staff do and excluding this person would have been very unpleasant and unfair.

    Then repeats just what everybody else had been saying. :pac:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Speedwell wrote: »
    Snowflakes are people who can't bear normal levels of warmth. That would be cold fish like you who don't understand what it takes to be decent and compassionate.
    And what would you call people who resort to ad hominem replies?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    And what would you call people who resort to ad hominem replies?

    Depends on what you would call people who resort to ad hominem attacks then criticise people who reply.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,647 ✭✭✭lazybones32


    Speedwell wrote: »
    Depends on what you would call people who resort to ad hominem attacks then criticise people who reply.
    I would call a person who replies with ad h's "Speedwell". From now on i will reference you when i see it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭Speedwell


    I would call a person who replies with ad h's "Speedwell". From now on i will reference you when i see it.

    I can use the publicity. ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,247 ✭✭✭✭DrPhilG


    Calls people snowflakes...

    Then repeats just what everybody else had been saying. :pac:

    Did you miss the point or are you deliberately twisting my post?
    DrPhilG wrote: »
    Sure, in the OP's example, organising an official staff do and excluding this person would have been very unpleasant and unfair.

    But the thread has now turned to a situation where if someone is a prick and is therefore treated like they are a prick, then they are the victim.

    I separately referenced the original question, and the assorted examples given since then, most recently the story told here:
    ....... wrote: »
    There was an absolute nightmare of an individual in my last job.

    This resulted in the poster being accused of bullying by PeterParker and told by Wanderer2010 that their company should be sued!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,177 ✭✭✭PeterParker957


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I stand by my assertion that the BEHAVIOUR described in the post was an example of bullying. I specifically did not call anyone "a bully" and made no accusations.

    Because the target isn't a nice person that negates nothing.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement