Where the fuck were you seven years ago when I could have put this sage advice into practice? Bloody hell.
No offense, tdn, but if you think fingerbanging is done anywhere near the chest, your social radar is much further off than I previously estimated. 
You overreacted, dude(ette? Which is it? I do think it matters with regard to perspective). A lot.
Best to let this thread go.
Some people have no sexual imagination.
This is one of the main reasons I work for myself. It seems evident to me that most capitalistic institutions are set-up in a hierarchy such that it is generally more important to consider the needs of highers-up to keep than happy than an employee on a lower-tier (like, say, an entry-level position.) Of course, it is in the interest of productivity to keep everybody happy, but in a situation where a disposable worker and a mid-level boss or executive are at odds, who do you think is more important to the company and shareholders, providing the disposable worker will not be a lawsuit liability?
What part of this is inconsistent with what I said? Employers have an obligation to provide a non-hostile workplace as defined by law. Non-consensual ass-grabbing falls clearly within the parameters of unwelcome sexual advances, which like death threats, are illegal.
But when your dealing with behavior that’s merely annoying, as opposed to illegal, there’s no reason for a company to accommodate an annoyed entry-level employee rather than an annoying boss.
Count Blucher apparently wouldn’t know subtle animosity if it jumped up and bit him on the ass, since he seems to have thought the “finger incident” comprised a death threat. :rolleyes:
I wouldn’t put too much stock in the severity of the alleged infractions he previously reported to HR.
I’m still trying to figure out how anyone could take this woman’s gesture seriously as a death threat. That’s a level of social confusion that would make me think of picking up agoraphobia as a hobby.
It’s not, but you said:
“the primary mission of any company is to make money, not to provide a warm safe huggy environment”
Huggy? No. Warm? In the sense of environmental control, yes. Safe? Absolutely. I did not get that last part from your post.
Part of the safe work environment is the assurance that you will not get fired if you disagree with a boss (or don’t let the client win at golf) or don’t play along with the office pranks, or don’t participate in things like office potlucks, even if you are the greenest of mail clerks. This is obviously a very grey area (just look at the discussion we’re having over it), but basic human rights and basic human dignity are not just for the 100 million-dollar book runners.
Is this what we’re arguing, because I don’t see that in this thread. What human rights violations are occurring in any of our scenarios, whether hypothetical or real?
I think that if he is genuinely feeling uncomfortable about something that occured between he and a co-worker that he already feels threatened by then talking to HR is reasonable. This is not to say that he should go through all the steps of filing a formal complaint, but HR ought to be made aware of potential conflicts. I think anything more than mentioning this particular incident to HR is probably over the top, but if there is allready genuine hostility there may be more to it than meets the eye.
Its interesting we haven’t heard from the OP in a while.
He mentioned that if it came to a legal dispute, he wouldn’t post so as not to jeopardize his position.
He’s not posting.
Perhaps he’s not posting because he’s been involuntarily committed.
Or perhaps he’s not posting because someone shot him with TWO finger guns. You don’t just walk away from somethng like that. :dubious:
Thread closed at the request of the OP.