Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_ism5dx6 wrote

[deleted]

9

dignitytogether OP t1_ism5ngp wrote

Most people aren’t in a union. If you’d like to read about what’s happening, join the subreddit and read up about it.

−6

[deleted] t1_ism6b2v wrote

[deleted]

1

ImmoralityPet t1_ismqg38 wrote

>I’m all set, thank you!

Proceeds to go to that sub and post insults.

You're literally a bully, lmao. No wonder you don't like it. Absolutely no reason for you to even interact with that sub except that you wanted to bully some people.

1

GiveBells t1_ism7yea wrote

you are clearly not as progressive as you think you are lmao. “survival of the fittest”? ever consider that in almost every case of workplace bullying or harassment the employee is shit out of luck as union membership is below 13% in the US?

0

r0k0v t1_ismcyqx wrote

It ain’t always as simple as just standing up for yourself my guy. It isn’t always survival of the fittest either. I’ve been in a situation as a muscular 6ft tall dude of having an older guy try to push me around. Mainly he acted like a dick because he was intimidated by me and I pushed him and challenged him when he was using faulty engineering logic. I set him straight several times, he didn’t change his behavior. Then I escalated to my boss, he didn’t do shit. After that I successfully ignored him for over a year.

All it took was one incident where I stood up for myself and tried to set him straight for things to escalate. Instead of being reasonable the dude threatened to fight me, a fight which he very clearly would have lost. I backed away from it and reported it. The company’s HR didn’t do anything despite him having a known bad attitude. If management won’t do shit, and a douchbag never thinks their in the wrong, what recourse do you have?

For some bullies the only way to set them straight is to put them in their place, sometimes physically. If The workplace isn’t middle school though and unfortunately it’s not appropriate to teach douchebags a lesson by force. As much as I would have wanted to that, that would have been assault and would have been completely inappropriate.

So kindly go fuck off with your mightier than thou tough guy attitude, it isn’t always that simple. Clearly you haven’t had the mis fortunate of working with a real asshole.

0

racdiepo t1_ismg2ok wrote

It’s fun to see how angry the slaves get

Get back to your peasant life, idiot

0

dignitytogether OP t1_islcymd wrote

Employers are not explicitly liable for the psychological harm of their employees, nor do they want to be. Employers choose to avoid a perceived threat of liability over human well-being.

Sign up for a Saturday, October 22 Lives Lost to Workplace Bullying and Mobbing protest in your area or start one:
https://actionnetwork.org/events/lives-lost-to-workplace-bullying-and-mobbing/

Sign the petition to pass the Workplace Psychological Safety Act:
https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/pass-the-workplace-psychological-safety-act/

3

DUIguy87 t1_isnk6n3 wrote

Account hyper focused on only one topic. Active in multiple state subs. Requests petition be signed by handing out personal info. Posts have all the grassrootsy style join us we’re doing X thing. New accounts popping up and going after dissenters…

Lets keep things above board here so someone who genuinely wants to do the right thing doesn’t cause themselves heartache by following your links; or worse be later asked donate to some scam 501 charity that exists only as some sociopath’s slush fund.

Who’s paying you OP?

12

redditspacer t1_islqp1s wrote

Must you spam this everywhere?

6

Kill_Religion_ASAP t1_islsv9x wrote

What kind of miserable person gets angry at people who are doing the heavy lifting for labor rights?

Are you that sad?

Do you want Uncle Bezos or Townie Mike or Healthcare Karen to fuck you over that badly?

What is it, Internet King?

0

LochnessIntelChief07 t1_iso0up3 wrote

Lol you consider this post on Reddit the “heavy lifting” for labor rights?

Edit: r/lookatmyhalo

3

OldKingsHigh t1_ismx48h wrote

Did you really just make a second account to defend yourself?

You know new accounts are tagged on some clients.

1

FTHomes t1_islylut wrote

You've got my vote

2

One-Coast8927 t1_isnzyy4 wrote

This law is a great way to make employers hire less women, less gay people and trans people given that mental health related issues are predominantly found in this 3 subsectors of the population. Why would a right minded person hire someone who is more probable to cause me legal issues in the future, even if I'm at fault or not.

−1

dignitytogether OP t1_iso084v wrote

That’s already happening.

3

One-Coast8927 t1_iso0f7g wrote

And this will give those employers yet another reason. A valid one even.

1

dignitytogether OP t1_iso0jb5 wrote

So what’s your solution instead?

2

One-Coast8927 t1_iso0pll wrote

I've got nothing, but is definitely not this law. It's better to do nothing that to make something that will worsen things.

1

dignitytogether OP t1_iso0se8 wrote

So you’re saying sexual harassment law has that effect then? Do you have data on that?

2

One-Coast8927 t1_iso0wdq wrote

What? Since when are we talking about sexual harassment? This things are completely different

3

dignitytogether OP t1_iso0z7n wrote

You’re saying a law that protects women will make employers hire fewer women.

2

One-Coast8927 t1_iso133w wrote

No. I'm saying that a law that protects people with mental health issues, will cause employers to hire less people that are prone to mental health issues. That's basic logic.

2

dignitytogether OP t1_iso162s wrote

Then my statement would also be true.

2

One-Coast8927 t1_iso1hre wrote

No. Sexual harassment is a result of a trasable act. Ex. I touch your butt. Mental health is a result of multiplicity of acts, factors, and events. If I say you're ugly, you may or may not get suicidal, that depends on how other aspects of your life influence my statement. Aspects that I don't know of because it's part of your private life.

1

dignitytogether OP t1_iso1oq2 wrote

Sexual harassment is also words.

1

One-Coast8927 t1_iso2325 wrote

Also sexual harassment is not worsen by out of work factors. While mental health is

1

dignitytogether OP t1_iso5ur1 wrote

This bill goes after behaviors, so it shouldn’t matter. But we can agree to disagree.

1

One-Coast8927 t1_isoikdt wrote

The matter persist. It's not traceable, due to the multiplicity of factors and events that affects mental health issues. With our current knowledge of social behavior you can't say with exactitude how much does work influence the mental health problem and how much is it influence by factors outside of work. If the workplace is just the last drop, will you appoint all the liability to the workplace or only 1% of the guilt? Let's say I hire a new guy. He had some underlying mental health issues that no one knows about. Then I say something that cause him to go suicidal. A prima facie is my fault, but in reality I was just the very small tiping point. How can you evaluate if I share just 1% or 100% of the fault.

1

dignitytogether OP t1_isoisey wrote

That’s not how the bill is designed though. It focuses on employer behavior and holds them accountable for it, regardless of health harm and just like sexual harassment law.

1

One-Coast8927 t1_isoj38v wrote

But the behavior is subjective. I may say or do something not cover on the bill at prima facie, that causes mental health issues on some people.

1

One-Coast8927 t1_isojb9y wrote

And is not like sexual harrasment at all. So stop comparing it to it.

1

dignitytogether OP t1_isojfqk wrote

It is, but I’m not going to continue this conversation is you’re not actually interested in keeping an open mind. Take care.

1

One-Coast8927 t1_iso0yte wrote

I love it how you bring in other issues because you can't counter my logical answer.

2

danmac1152 t1_ispc9bl wrote

Maybe if a lot of people actually put some effort, care, and pride in their job then people won’t have to get on them about sucking. Granted some people are genuinely targeted for silly reasons. But I’ve seen more than a few times, that negative, unmotivated, never heard of responsibility or accountability type of person, cry how they’re being bullied when spoken to about their performance

−1

dignitytogether OP t1_isq39v7 wrote

Most people are targeted for being high performers, not for being low performers.

2

PuritanSettler1620 t1_islvrkw wrote

Sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never hurt you.

−5

Head_Zombie214796 t1_ismreh5 wrote

so say you, but the guy who committed suicide can never have a comback against that

10

dignitytogether OP t1_islvu7p wrote

Tell that to a therapist.

5

PuritanSettler1620 t1_islwad7 wrote

Im going to be honest I don't support your law. I think if people are mean to you at work that sucks but it's not your workplaces job to figure that out. If they are physically harming you then call the police but if they are just saying mean stuff ignore them or quit.

1

dignitytogether OP t1_islzdk4 wrote

So with that logic, you don’t support anti-discrimination law?

8

PuritanSettler1620 t1_islzqv5 wrote

I do support anti-discrimination laws, (in most cases) because God created us all equal, but I don't support anti-bullying.

−2

dignitytogether OP t1_islzvpt wrote

That’s illogical

13

PuritanSettler1620 t1_ism0oxo wrote

how so?

8

dignitytogether OP t1_ism103a wrote

They both involve abusive mistreatment of employees.

8

PuritanSettler1620 t1_ism1gc2 wrote

If you are denied a job or treated substantively differently because of your skin color, that is an indefensible and bigoted act. If someone is mean to you that is a part of life.

10

dignitytogether OP t1_ism1lwq wrote

What if the abuse has a discriminatory impact, but you can’t prove discriminatory intent that the courts now call for?

5

PuritanSettler1620 t1_ism23eq wrote

Then what you have is a hunch not a case

5

dignitytogether OP t1_ism33ne wrote

No, that’s actually how anti-discrimination law started.

4

PuritanSettler1620 t1_ism3aab wrote

Yeah but in this country we believe you are innocent until proven without a reasonable doubt guilty, a standard I think ought to be extended to employers.

1

dignitytogether OP t1_ism3ddj wrote

That is included in the proposed legislation.

5

PuritanSettler1620 t1_ism3oqo wrote

I looked up the proposed legislation, it is an extension of the nanny state in an effort to "disrupt social hierarchies at work" and is a pseudo socialist attempt to hamper the opperations of business in this commonwealth. I will be writing to my State senator to vote against this bill and amendment.

1

DismalSpread100 t1_ismyc0f wrote

Employers should not be held liable for pussies feelings. If you don't like your job leave.

−6