How about disarming her? Grab her wrist, get her arm behind her back, slam her into a wall…
Oh - T_SQUARE was serious? Okay.
Just in case you are continuing to consider the litigation angle.
I once was a contractor filling in for a woman who made a sexual harrassment claim against her boss. I don’t know the details of the claim, other than her other coworkers thought she was nuts - including the female coworkers.
She lost her job. For a while she had the sweet “get paid to not work while we investigate” deal, but eventually, she was just let go. She went through several lawyers - they were all taking the case based on what they anticipated the settlement to be, but they’d drop her when they discovered her case was pretty baseless. Eventually (and it didn’t take long), she had to pay for legal time. She never got a settlement - they called it even over paying her for four months she didn’t work during the investigation - but did end up with five figure legal bills from what I heard through the gossip tree.
Perhaps worse, the Twin Cities is a pretty small market - the HR people know one another. The IT people know one another. She pretty much ended her career right there. I was vaguely involved in her story, and I heard her name from time to time after that - the story being retold to me.
What your boss did was inappropriate - and involving your boss and being inappropriate, talking to HR was an appropriate action. The police thing - overreaction. Threating to sue - I hope you didn’t imply that to HR - also an overreaction. Unless there is context here we don’t know about (she’s left a horse’s head on your porch in the past, she’s gone off the handle at other employees), you should have stopped with contacting HR. And even then, you should have taken a “soft gentle” approach “I’m not comfortable with this behavior…this is what happened.” They then decide if its inappropriate and what action to take. For something of this, your expectation should be that someone will talk to her about her sense of humor and professionalism in the workplace, and maybe the two of you will work with a 3rd party on establishing a better working relationship. You don’t get fired over sick jokes involving going “bang” with your fingers - unless there is more going on here than that.
Oh jeez, I think you might be right. If so, my bad. Consider me wooshed for the day.
We can’t all be perfect, I guess. 
A man my sister worked with reported her for sexual harassment when she told a joke in the office. He was the only guy in the office, it was pretty much all women. This was a guy that used to ask her out constantly. Nothing came of it but it did cause her some embarrassment.
It makes me wonder what’s up with the OP that he is so scared he’s shaking over something like that. It’s absolutely bizarre that anyone would even consider going to HR over a joke like this, much less the police. It really makes me think the OP has some sort of mental pathology. Short of some massive background that’s totally missing, what in the world is the state of mind that makes something that’s obviously an innocent joke - the kind that mentally healthy people make all the time - into a death threat in someone’s mind?
Nice to see all the other people reinforcing whatever psychological disturbance the OP is suffering from, incidentally. Here’s a hint, guys. You’re not doing someone a favor by “validating” their feelings regardless of what they are - in this case, that’s a grave disservice to the OP. And second, shit like this can have a lasting impact on someone’s life. HR probably has a policy of taking reports of threats very seriously (because of the tacit assumption that people won’t make such reports in ridiculous circumstances as the OP did.) This may end up causing major problems in the life of a completely innocent person. That’s not cool.
I sure hope so. He freakin’ needs it.
Could be you are in the wrong workplace. Why should corporate culture be forced to change for one person, if the company thinks the existing conditions are OK. I don’t mean sexual or any other harrasment, just the level of decorum.
In other words, what “rights” do you have in this?
Talking to HR was appropriate. Police? No.
Why wouldn’t he be? I mostly agree with his post.
Interesting. Was the boss Bengali? Because what he said is Bengali for “Mother Kali, give me strength.” It’s sincerely uttered by the millions of people, mostly Bengalis, who actually worship Kali on a daily basis.
It just occurred to me that this line might have come from Temple of Doom. I hadn’t remembered that, but if that’s the case, then it’s also interesting that the producers depicted in such a light an actual religious practice. What if that line had been replaced by “Jesus, give me strength” or “Allah, give me strength”? It would be an interesting social experiment.
Well, shit. :mad: 
Making fun of an actual religious practice, no matter how badly garbled by Spielberg and Lucas, just isn’t quite as fun.
I’m sorry, but I couldn’t help visualizing Gedde Watanabe when I read that.
Yes, I’d be in the wrong workplace, probably. But I’d say that the onus is on the employer to make corporate culture clear to new hires.
My point is that people shouldn’t have fun at work, or operate at whatever level of casualness the company feels is apropriate. I take issue with individuals who are totally willing to chastise coworkers for not taking things “in good fun,” without examining the fact that their idea of good fun might not jive with everyone else’s.
Here’s a lame example of the behavior that I’m talking about:
Let’s say at company ‘X,’ the marketing department likes to joke around by putting whoopee cushions on people’s chairs. Johnson hates it. If coworkers consistantly put whoopee cushions on Johnson’s chair, and then laugh every time, knowing he doesn’t like it, then they are the jerks, not Johnson. If Johnson goes to HR because other people are whoopee cushioning eachother, while leaving him alone, then he’s the jerk.
Continuing to put the whoopee cushions on Johnson’s chair against protestations from Johnson makes the joke be about being a jerk to Johnson.
Does that make sense? And if whoopee cushions are part of the corporate culture, then that should be made explicit during the hiring process.
And my use of the word “rights” was in the loosest sense. Replace that word with, “I would not be crossing any lines of appropriate social behavior with coworkers.”
presses submit, even with misgivings about a poorly implemented analogy involving whoopee cushions
Your average person has the right to work in a workplace that you feel in comfortable in, within the limits of good judgement. Just because you’ve always gotten away with things that were questionable doesn’t mean you always will, or should.
T_SQUARE’s post sounded so over-the-top, good ol’ boys network that I assumed (hoped?) he was joking.
It’s seems pretty tame compared to other workplaces I’ve seen, especially small newsrooms.
When girls at work wink at me I report them for sexual harassment. People say I’m insufficiently socialized, but I think I have the right to make my environment as joyless and miserable as it needs to be so that I can be comfortable.
I’ll forgive you the whoopee cushions and grant that you have a point. I still think that the social contract a company has with its workforce needs to take in the majority, not the fringes, but hell, that’s just me. I think they should still call it a Christmas party and I am a Jew.
I really agree that companies must inform new hires of more than just job descriptions and benefits and really make the effort to hire people that fit the corporate culture because the end result is everybody being happier and more productive when there is a fit.
In your example I feel bad for Johnson, but going to HR and “fixing” the problem from his perspective is just making a problem for everybody else. No, it’s not fair, not to any of the workers including Johnson. The worst part is that now the other workers will be looking for different ways to make Johnson uncomfortable, and that’s really sad.
Again, I see this as competing rights. And I must ask who determines “good judgement” and what is “questionable?” Shooting rubber bands? Shutting down at 4:00 on a Friday to share a few beers? I have known people that would have complained at either, and those folks just are not popular with their co-workers if they are going against corporate culture.
Are you saying that an individual has the “right” to change corporate culture? Again, I don’t mean for things that are illegal, just the way the corporation does business.
I was not joking one bit. Of course a commodities trading floor is a little different environment than say, a lab or a law firm, I would imagine.
The fact is, an office is not grade school. Everyone is not “equal.” Everyone’s point of view isn’t “valid”. In my story, if a big swinging dick gas trader wants to throw a football around the office then football throwing it shall be. Some peon who isn’t even good at their job has no right to dictate any kind of policy, provided no laws are being broken. The swinging-dick might very well be an asshole, and in fact probably is. But one shouldn’t expect to dictate corporate culture to others who are way more valuable to the company. They should join in or leave.
For the record, my position at the company was much, much closer to peon than swinging dick.
Let’s not forget that the real issue here is the right to poke your coworker in the chest vs the right not to get poked. A “culture” that promotes the former is a problem.
I imagine, too, from your description here.
Well, you’ve certainly shot down my good ol’ boys network theory. I think I’ll just go back to assuming you were kidding.