Should I report naughty friend

stoneill · 12-10-2020 08:09AM

Don't borrow his mouse.

Piehead · 12-10-2020 02:08PM

Half thinking of warning the girls informally for the scheduled video call tomorrow. Maybe they should go audio only.

Feisar · 12-10-2020 02:17PM

Piehead wrote: »

Half thinking of warning the girls informally for the scheduled video call tomorrow. Maybe they should go audio only.

Noble of you and all however what do you have to go on that it's true? It'll you that'll get a call from HR when this gets back around.

12-10-2020 02:28PM

Piehead wrote: »

Half thinking of warning the girls informally for the scheduled video call tomorrow. Maybe they should go audio only.

I would contact HR about you. Should be an interesting investigation when your friend denies ever saying anything and you get accused of spreading rumours which severely impact his reputation.

Piehead · 12-10-2020 02:55PM

Dav010 wrote: »

I would contact HR about you. Should be an interesting investigation when your friend denies ever saying anything and you get accused of spreading rumours which severely impact his reputation.

On a no names basis of course. Don’t worry that portly deviant neckbeard won’t be named by me.

Mrs OBumble · 12-10-2020 03:06PM

Piehead wrote: »

On a no names basis of course. Don’t worry that portly deviant neckbeard won’t be named by me.

That just makes you look worse. Seriously, say nothing.

And start thinking of your female colleagues as women, not girls. You aren't in school any more.

Feisar · 12-10-2020 03:14PM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

That just makes you look worse. Seriously, say nothing.

And start thinking of your female colleagues as women, not girls. You aren't in school any more.

No no, they are girls that need saving by our white knight here.

sbsquarepants · 12-10-2020 03:32PM

Mr.S wrote: »

Ahh yes let's just ignore blatant sexual misconduct in the workplace.

The guy is a creep and if OP's post is genuine, should be told to management. It's weird as ****.

It's not in the workplace it's in his house (it's actually in the OP's imagination i think, but the point holds)

Have at i say. Let he who is without **** cast the first stone.

I'm sure we've all wanked over someone we've worked with. I've done it both figuratively and literally to be perfectly honest.

It's just how i roll.

Sardonicat · 12-10-2020 03:35PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not in the workplace it's in his house (it's actually in the OP's imagination i think, but the point holds)

Have at i say. Let he who is without **** cast the first stone.

I'm sure we've all wanked over someone we've worked with. I've done it both figuratively and literally to be perfectly honest.

It's just how i roll.

So you take the lad in out in a meeting and give yourself a tug while staring at a female colleague?

sbsquarepants · 12-10-2020 03:38PM

I would not. These were strictly after hours incidents;)

Although with the meetings they have in this place, it would probably be the most productive thing that happened if did:D

Sardonicat · 12-10-2020 03:46PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I would not. These were strictly after hours incidents;)

Although with the meetings they have in this place, it would probably be the most productive thing that happened if did:D

Well, I think you get my point. There's a difference indulging in a 'private daydream' about a work colleague (which is not confined to men, BTW ) and masturbating to a colleague who is working in real time. It's deeply creepy and demeaning (if true)

sbsquarepants · 12-10-2020 03:55PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

Well, I think you get my point. There's a difference indulging in a 'private daydream' about a work colleague (which is not confined to men, BTW ) and masturbating to a colleague who is working in real time. It's deeply creepy and demeaning (if true)

I'd very doubt it's veracity, but then again i have also seen some strange shít, so who the hell knows these days!

Either way it's not like he's whipping his lad out in a crowded office and running around like he's doing the 4 x 100m relay.

Sardonicat · 12-10-2020 04:02PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'd very doubt it's veracity, but then again i have also seen some strange shít, so who the hell knows these days!

Either way it's not like he's whipping his lad out in a crowded office and running around like he's doing the 4 x 100m relay.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you there. The colleague is on a zoom meeting, working and assuming that anyone in the meeting is doing the same, not treating her like some masturbatory material while she is doing her job.

bb1234567 · 12-10-2020 04:03PM

It is deviant behaviour as his admission would make it seem like he get's off on the thrill of the danger aspect. The fact it may end up in him exposing himself to colleagues if he slips up by accidentally turning the camera on is just a dangerous position to be putting himself and this can quickly turn into a sexual offence.

I do consider it harmless though at least in it's current form, don't see how it's any different to somebody **** to pictures on instgram or facebook. So long as he takes precautions that he does not disturb other employees ie.themgetting a flash of his dick on screen, then what he does in his home is completely up to him. You're under no obligation to show yourself on screen, your employ doesn't have a right to peer into your room. It's a violation of privacy and not noecessary to do your work.

People probably do things in the privacy of their home that woud disgust you all the time. You'd have to be really naive to think otherwise, and you've no right to know about it or judge if they are not intending for anybody other than themselves to see it. Just because he's doing it during work hours doesn't make it a punishable offence

bb1234567 · 12-10-2020 04:12PM

Piehead wrote: »

Half thinking of warning the girls informally for the scheduled video call tomorrow. Maybe they should go audio only.

This could come off so oddly and badly , really. It could sound like you're making it up as it's so bizarre. It'll also just put the women on edge and because it's so hard to imagine this occurring if you can't actually see the guy it may sound like you're just stirring crap up. Even if they took it serously it may reflect badly on you as they'll think it's weird your close enough friends with a guy like him that he would share this private information with you. It's just a total mess, I'd really advise not stepping in that pile of ****

JeffKenna · 12-10-2020 04:23PM

Who among us hasn't rubbed against a colleague and had a little relief in the bathroom after. Stones and glass houses I think.

Feisar · 12-10-2020 04:33PM

JeffKenna wrote: »

Who among us hasn't rubbed against a colleague and had a little relief in the bathroom after. Stones and glass houses I think.

I’d ride the harp of a ha’penny. However, no I never done the above.

Gruffalux · 12-10-2020 04:34PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

This could come off so oddly and badly , really. It could sound like you're making it up as it's so bizarre. It'll also just put the women on edge and because it's so hard to imagine this occurring if you can't actually see the guy it may sound like you're just stirring crap up. Even if they took it serously it may reflect badly on you as they'll think it's weird your close enough friends with a guy like him that he would share this private information with you. It's just a total mess, I'd really advise not stepping in that pile of ****

Yeah I think it is best to say nothing. The messenger is ALWAYS shot.

Sadly I have learned from this thread that **** to colleagues while they are addressing work issues on screen does not seem to be bizarre at all to some people.

I don't agree that one cannot have any oversight from an employer or even colleagues via camera for work meetings - you would have to be there in front of them in the office anyway, so how is via camera an invasion of space? Otherwise people could be in their week-old jocks ripping up a bong and their workmates would be none the wiser.

12-10-2020 04:45PM

Sardonicat wrote: »

So you take the lad in out in a meeting and give yourself a tug while staring at a female colleague?

His house, his rules.

bb1234567 · 12-10-2020 04:48PM

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yeah I think it is best to say nothing. The messenger is ALWAYS shot.

Sadly I have learned from this thread that **** to colleagues while they are addressing work issues on screen does not seem to be bizarre at all to some people.

I don't agree that one cannot have any oversight from an employer or even colleagues via camera for work meetings - you would have to be there in front of them in the office anyway, so how is via camera an invasion of space? Otherwise people could be in their week-old jocks ripping up a bong and their workmates would be none the wiser.

It's not that I'm against that but it's just very sudden to expect this of everybody. We aren't suppose to leave our house which limits places to work anywhere outside your home and many people do not live in places suitable for working environments and may not be something they want to share personally on camera with colleagues. You'r expected to present yourself at the office, nothing more, this is new territory and everybody's circumstances are very different. for example somebody who lives in a small roomshare.Do they tell their roomate to F off for the day? How would they feel about being in the sightline of their roomates work chat.What if private company info is leaked to this outsider because he is in the work group chat(bedroom) essentially now and there's nothing you can feasibly do about that for the most part. Will the employee be liable if senstive info was leaked as he is working in this subpar environment he never asked to work in but now is forced to? There's so many circumstances that need to be accounted and allowed for and are being dismissed by a majorit who probably live in pretty spacious homes where things like this are non issue for them.

That would be humiliating to have to display your dire home living situation like that to all your colleagues but it's the reality for many people renting in ****holes inDublin .

It's expecting something from everyone that was not necessary when they took up the job, and the circumstances with covid make it even more difficult for a lot of people and some people are makinglight of this. It's totally new territory and boundaries need to be set, they havn't been yet in a lot of cases.

AndrewJRenko · 12-10-2020 05:30PM

anewme wrote: »

A lot of employees are very happy working remotely and would like to continue to do so in some capacity when life resumes.

It is the Negative Nellie's such as this, who will ruin it for everyone. Never happy.

I'd rather turn on the fookin camera when in a meeting than sit for hours in traffic on the N7 five days a week on top of my work week. . I believe 90 per cent of people would feel similar.

Blended work options gives people the opportunity for for a work life balance. It is a watershed moment for those who know the torture of a commute.

But still some people object to being "videoed" which is reality is nothing worse than being there in person.

Meetings are easier when you can see who you are talking to, it also keeps you in touch with colleagues.

As Mr. Tayto says, always one.

Even if it is 90%, what about the other 10%? Are they expected to lose their basic privacy rights because their colleagues have chosen to trade in their privacy?

Feisar · 12-10-2020 05:42PM

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Even if it is 90%, what about the other 10%? Are they expected to lose their basic privacy rights because their colleagues have chosen to trade in their privacy?

While I see your point, don’t you think it is a bit pedantic? Call me up on a work call and all you’ll see is a blank wall behind me. What privacy am I giving up? And Teams has a function that allows one to set a background. So only ones face/body is seen.
Having said that another poster said something about changing company policy to make video mandatory. I’d be dead against that. I don’t like the idea of companies taking things like that for granted.

bb1234567 · 12-10-2020 05:57PM

Feisar wrote: »

While I see your point, don’t you think it is a bit pedantic? Call me up on a work call and all you’ll see is a blank wall behind me. What privacy am I giving up? And Teams has a function that allows one to set a background. So only ones face/body is seen.
Having said that another poster said something about changing company policy to make video mandatory. I’d be dead against that. I don’t like the idea of companies taking things like that for granted.

It's not just the privacy (which will differ with each person) but the fact companys just have this expectation you can provide a suitable environment for their work to take place within is a given. What if you live in a house where your housemates people play loud rock music all day..they're musicians. This will disturb your colleagues working with you via zoom. And yet theres nothing you can do about it (lets say for the sake of argument). Should a worker potentially suffer consequences for circumstances outside of his control, such as making his colleagues distracted by the music in order to get his work done.Your employer orginally made a deal with you that you work in an environment that they have have control over and have dictated is suitable and appropriate, and you accepted that. Those were the terms. The terms were not that maybe this will change and you make your house like this environment when I want you to.

It's unnreasonable for your empluer to now expect you to provide this working enrvironmet for them free of charge that lives up to their expctations of quality (being quiet and your voice audible for example), when this was never agreed when you took up your job with them. If they want this, this should have been stipulated originally before contract was made. And of course you can't just backtrack now as maybe he never would have applied for the job if that were the case. And now this change may put his career in jeopardy because of these new rules?

Of course I'm picking an extrme exmaple to play devil's advocates. But the clear guidelines you need to work within to maintain the job in a new wfh environment have not been clearly set, and that is completely 100% necessary and should not be casual at all when you may mistakenly do something in this environment that may unknowlingly put your livelihood on the line.

Godeatsboogers · 12-10-2020 06:06PM

Someone should tell him about this new thing, called porn. Whys he scraping the barrell having a **** to videos of women's faces?

Feisar · 12-10-2020 06:10PM

bb1234567 wrote: »

It's not just the privacy (which will differ with each person) but the fact companys just have this expectation you can provide a suitable environment for their work to take place within is a given. What if you live in a house where your housemates people play loud rock music all day..they're musicians. This will disturb your colleagues working with you via zoom. And yet theres nothing you can do about it (lets say for the sake of argument). Your employer orginally made a deal with you that you work in an environment that they have have control over and have dictated is suitable and apporportuate, and you accepted that. Those were the terms. The terms were not that maybe this will change and you make your house like this environment when I want you to.

It's unnreasonable for your empluer to now expect you to provide a working enrvironmet for them free of charge that lives up to their expctations of quality (being quiet and your voice audible for example), when this was never agreed when you took up your job with them. If they want this, this should have been stipulated originally before contract was made. And of course you can't just backtrack now as maybe he never would have applied for the job if that were the case. And now this change may put his career in jeopardy because of these new rules?

Of course I'm picking an extrme exmaple to play devil's advocates. But the clear guidelines you need to work within to maintain the job in a new wfh environment have not been clearly set, and that is completely 100% necessary and should not be casual at all when you may mistakenly do something in this environment that may unknowlingly put your livelihood on the line.

Point taken. I’ve lived with some serious headbangers over the years myself. I remember one particular spot and when I arrived one Sunday evening it was literally coke and hookers, so your example isn’t that extreme!
(I declined on all counts.)

Feisar · 12-10-2020 06:12PM

Godeatsboogers wrote: »

Someone should tell him about this new thing, called porn. Whys he scraping the barrell having a **** to videos of women's faces?

If this tale is true I’d say yer man has problems. He probably feels inferior and in his head he is violating these women in some way and is getting off on that.

Gruffalux · 12-10-2020 06:25PM

Feisar wrote: »

If this tale is true I’d say yer man has problems. He probably feels inferior and in his head he is violating these women in some way and is getting off on that.

Yes, because it is qualitatively different than **** about someone one knows in ones own private time, which is bog standard - in this situation there is the huge element of the immediate presence (albeit digital) of the person and that they cannot see the wanker, so the wanker has an edge on them.
The subject of the lust is innocently talking towards everyone's space, including the wanker, as is intended by ''team'' meetings, and the wanker therefore has a real element of power. The woman or girl is compelled, almost trapped, to be there by their work requirement, but the other is not compelled to reveal themselves by privacy barriers (as others are arguing). This is incredibly unfair and an imbalance of power completely open to abuse - and really calls into question whether anyone at all should have their camera on in these team meetings. If anyone knew someone was **** over them in real time during a work meeting they would be disgusted and feel very invaded.

AndrewJRenko · 12-10-2020 06:31PM

Feisar wrote: »

While I see your point, don’t you think it is a bit pedantic? Call me up on a work call and all you’ll see is a blank wall behind me. What privacy am I giving up? And Teams has a function that allows one to set a background. So only ones face/body is seen.
Having said that another poster said something about changing company policy to make video mandatory. I’d be dead against that. I don’t like the idea of companies taking things like that for granted.

Don't design policies (or products or services) around your needs. Design them around everyone's needs.

One of my colleagues regularly has her partner in the kitchen behind her. While she doesn't have a problem with it, some people do have a problem with having their partner on show.

12-10-2020 06:32PM

Feisar wrote: »

If this tale is true I’d say yer man has problems. He probably feels inferior and in his head he is violating these women in some way and is getting off on that.

He is? There must be an awful lot of inferiority and violating going on in the world if that is the case. Women do it too ya know.

Sardonicat · 12-10-2020 06:46PM

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yes, because it is qualitatively different than **** about someone one knows in ones own private time, which is bog standard - in this situation there is the huge element of the immediate presence (albeit digital) of the person and that they cannot see the wanker, so the wanker has an edge on them.
The subject of the lust is innocently talking towards everyone's space, including the wanker, as is intended by ''team'' meetings, and the wanker therefore has a real element of power. The woman or girl is compelled, almost trapped, to be there by their work requirement, but the other is not compelled to reveal themselves by privacy barriers (as others are arguing). This is incredibly unfair and an imbalance of power completely open to abuse - and really calls into question whether anyone at all should have their camera on in these team meetings. If anyone knew someone was **** over them in real time during a work meeting they would be disgusted and feel very invaded.

It's like a creeper peering in through a crack in your curtains while you're sitting there watching the news and getting off on knowing he can do this without you knowing.

Should I report naughty friend

Comments