I was verbally assaulted at work

Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
121

I read into during a recent field groundwater sampling event some sense that the error would have an effect that would make the team look bad - to the outside.

People get really narked when they think someone is showing up their group.

From experience I have found that people do not blow up when they’ve decided that a person is for the high jump - the time to worry is when someone says nothing.

From experience, I’ve found that it always wise to admit an error, preferably with self criticism eg: ‘sh/t that was dumb of me’.

While I don’t like or condone people being rude or angrily aggressive at work, especially in front of other people (which did not happen in this case), I find it interesting that he treated her as if she were a marine.

122

You find it interesting? I find it appalling. If someone treated me “like a marine” at work, I would probably leave and not come back. Nobody gets to yell at me and call me a “fucking worthless piece of shit.” Nobody.

123

[QUOTE=FRDE]
It sounds like the OP did something really dumb, probably in front of a client.
[/QUOTE]
(my bolding)
or

Which one is it?

124

[QUOTE=featherlou]
You find it interesting? I find it appalling. If someone treated me “like a marine” at work, I would probably leave and not come back. Nobody gets to yell at me and call me a “fucking worthless piece of shit.” Nobody.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t be the one to leave if someone called me a “fucking worthless piece of shit!” Someone may end up leaving depending on what the proper channels decide, but it wouldn’t be me!

I guess it depends on the environments you’re used to, but I’d be stunned and furious if someone spoke to me that way. Yeah, I’d be scared, probably because it’s absolutely unheard of in the offices where I’ve worked.

Sure, we’ve had heated disagreements. I’ve also had to address people who’ve messed up projects I’ve worked on (sometimes badly and, yes, sometimes in front of clients), and they’ve come away with a firm understanding that it should never happen again. However, in neither situation has anyone resorted to aggressive shouting, using profanity, or calling someone names.

I’ve had to deal with situations where people who worked for me are “bitching at each other.” It’s a pain in the ass to deal with but, as a manager, you have to stop it. Things don’t run smoothly and they have little chance of getting better while all that carping is going on. But it’s never been a case where someone yelled “you’re a worthless piece of shit” at a coworker. That’s something I’d have to take to HR. It’s close to a perfect example of some of the things HR requires managers to report.

No, I don’t think it’s something that warrents calling the police, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see someone fired over an outburst like that. And it would be justified.

125

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
Emphasis mine. If you’re going to stand by the OP’s every word, I’d suggest you be the one to call the police. Now. Because the something in the OP’s gun sounds suspiciously like premeditated murder to me.
[/QUOTE]

Emphasis mine - two seconds googling shows that Hoppe’s 9 is a GUN CLEANING PRODUCT, not a gun, not a bullet, not a weapon of any sort. The OP was saying that the act of cleaning her guns helped her calm down, perhaps that the the chemicals in the cleaning solution have a calming effect on her.

You’re too het up on the idea that the OP is some hysterical freakjob who’s going to go all columbine on this guy because he “took her to task”.

Has this got a personal reason for you to be so vitriolic? Did you perhaps “have a discussion” with someone and end up getting fired for it?

126

[QUOTE=Loach]
Which is what I was commenting on. Any other of your quotes came after that post.
[/QUOTE]
Only if 60 comes before 58. Stop trying to make this about whether she went into the room willingly. That is not in dispute. The question is whether she remained in the room willingly. If she was cornered, the obvious answer is “No.”

Which no one but you has suggested. Is an intent to rape/rob/murder a necessary element of an intent to imprison falsely?

Again, I have not said anything about a punishment. I have been discussing the crime. Maybe your beef is with someone else.

Or torture them. “He cornered me,” in the absence of evidence to the contrary, has a specific meaning. She was maneuvered into a corner. Add his threatening and intimidating language, and his menacing stance, and you have someone who is physically being prevented from moving.

Perhaps, but either one can be an element of imprisonment.

I’ll ask you again. Do you think he did what he did by accident? Or did he mean to do it?

127

I thought I would come in and post a non-update. As of Friday, nothing had been done. The branch manager will be back tomorrow, Monday. I’ll see where it goes from there. I was only in the office for a few hours in the morning, so who knows.

Now to get on to some of the comments made by our friend lev here. To me coming home and cleaning my guns to calm down would be no different to me than saying I came home and cleaned my house to calm down (but since I am not a Suzy Homemaker- house cleaning is a low priority for me. I will do it but don’t like to). In fact, gun cleaning is a very focus oriented task. You have to take it apart, carefully. Clean each part. Lubricate all parts that need it. Then put it all back together, carefully.

The insinuation that I am going to go shoot somebody is completely asinine. I am a responsible, law abiding gun owner.

Also, the comments made about the 1 less field reading than should have been making us look bad to clients/team/whomever. Stuff like that happens all the time. Equipment dies/malfunctions- no big deal. It makes no one look bad, no one gets pissy. The clients don’t care that there was one less read, all they care about is money and environmental compliance. The reads are only for our use. They are to determine if we are pulling “stagnant” water from outside of the well casing from the formation or if we are actually pulling/moving “new” water into the well from the formation. [office space]It was the equivalent of not using the new coversheet for the TPS reports.[/os]

If there are new developments, I will post on Monday, after work.

128

[QUOTE=FRDE]
From experience, I’ve found that it always wise to admit an error, preferably with self criticism eg: ‘sh/t that was dumb of me’.
[/QUOTE]

FRDE, she did admit to her error, and further stated she’d be more careful to “Ok in the future, I will do it the correct way”. That’s a direct quote from the OP. Note that she was very careful not to correct him when he stated the procedure incorrectly when telling her how to do her job, (and he’s not a geologist IIRC) she just made a neutral statement that she’d pay more attention and not mess up again.

129

I’d just like to throw out that, as described, the behavior of the ex-marine wouldn’t be tolerated in a military setting either. That kind of behavior, in fact, could have gotten him into a lot of trouble in a military office. I wasn’t a Marine, but I did work in a Navy office. My husband wasn’t a Marine, either, but he worked in Navy offices for 26 years. Yelling at coworkers, cursing at coworkers, and physically intimidating coworkers would have been considered UNSAT in any office either of us ever worked in. At a minimum, this type of behavior would have resulted in a counseling session in which the supervisor would have written down the specifics of the incident, explained to the perpetrator how and why such behavior was inappropriate, and the documentation would have been saved in the perpetrator’s file just in case he pulled this shit again.

I’ve never been in combat, but I’d guess this type of crap wouldn’t be considered appropriate there, either. You’re supposed to be fighting with the enemy, not each other.

130

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Only if 60 comes before 58. Stop trying to make this about whether she went into the room willingly. That is not in dispute. The question is whether she remained in the room willingly. If she was cornered, the obvious answer is “No.”
[/Quote]

Ok I see you used one term in post 58 and then made a mistake in post 60 and later. I’ll admit to your mistake and the fact that I missed it. No I am not making this about whether she went into the room willingly. You are throwing around specific criminal charges. I am saying you don’t have enough for those specific criminal charges. I am disputing your specific points and this happens to be one of them.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

Which no one but you has suggested. Is an intent to rape/rob/murder a necessary element of an intent to imprison falsely?
[/QUOTE]

You are not reading my posts very well. I never implied that it was a necessary element. I was responding to your outrage over my use of the term “discussing business”. I used the term specifically to separate it from the idea that he went in there to do anything to harm her physically. You don’t like the term I used, fine substitute the one I gave you or come up with your own. My point was that he went in there to yell, not do any harm. At least it can never be proven otherwise. The fact that this happened in a public place, where others could hear what was going on makes any argument to the contrary much harder to prove.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

Again, I have not said anything about a punishment. I have been discussing the crime. Maybe your beef is with someone else.
[/QUOTE]

You are saying he is guilty of a crime. Sorry but the punishment goes along with it whether you said so or not. If you think he is guilty of a serious crime for what he did then off to jail he goes. Do you believe what he did deserves a few years in prison? I don’t. I think he should be fired.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

Or torture them. “He cornered me,” in the absence of evidence to the contrary, has a specific meaning. She was maneuvered into a corner. Add his threatening and intimidating language, and his menacing stance, and you have someone who is physically being prevented from moving.

[/QUOTE]

The absence of evidence means you have no case. This is the closest that the situation comes to becoming false imprisonment. Not close enough. When you take in the totallity of the circumstances it doesn’t fit. At the very least it would be impossible to prove.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

Perhaps, but either one can be an element of imprisonment.
[/QUOTE]

If it can be proved.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

I’ll ask you again. Do you think he did what he did by accident? Or did he mean to do it?
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think he tripped and accidentally started yelling at her. I think he purposely belittled and intimidated her. I don’t think he wanted to imprison her. If there were criminal charges filed I would say it should be for harrassment. I believe that LG is doing the proper thing and letting the big boss handle it. If he doesn’t do something concrete to rectify the situation then she should go through civil procedures. No one should be made to work in a situation like that.

Through are discussion here it feels uncomfortably like I am being lumped in with some of the ridculous statements made in this thread. FTR I don’t think LV did anything wrong. I think she did what she could at the time as is so far doing the right thing after. I think the asshole is 100% wrong and should be fired. I don’t think he should be charged with a serious crime like false imprisonment or kidnapping. I don’t think it meets the level of probable cause for charges to be filed. I don’t see any possibility for a case to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I think he could be charged with harrassment, possibly assault if that is a state where the law states an assault can occur without physical contact. Just a personal opinion but I don’t think LV will get much satisfaction by going through the criminal courts in any case.

131

[QUOTE=Loach]
Ok I see you used one term in post 58 and then made a mistake in post 60 and later. I’ll admit to your mistake and the fact that I missed it.
[/QUOTE]
I made a mistake? You quoted my question in your first response to me! Please re-read more carefully.

That’s pretty much why we have trials, right?

Who has claimed that he went in there to harm her physically? Again you attack a position no one has maintained. Why make such an extreme juxtaposition (calling it ‘discussing business’ when it clearly was not, and then contrasting that with rape?) Why not just say what you mean?

Is the intent to do harm a necessary element of false imprisonment? If not, why do you keep dragging it in, red herring style?

Really? Anyone convicted of a crime that has prison as a sentence always goes to prison?

Her testimony counts as evidence, does it not?

You are the one who suggested that there was a difference. Nothing that cannot be proven counts for shit anyway.

132

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
I made a mistake? You quoted my question in your first response to me! Please re-read more carefully.
[/QUOTE]

In one post you said she wasn’t in the room willingly which is incorrect. In another you said you thought she couldn’t leave the room willingly. One was a mistake. It was yours. My mistake was not seeing that one quote came before the other.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

That’s pretty much why we have trials, right?

[/QUOTE]

Wrong. We have trials when there is probable cause for charges to filed and the prosecutor believes he has enough evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

Who has claimed that he went in there to harm her physically? Again you attack a position no one has maintained. Why make such an extreme juxtaposition (calling it ‘discussing business’ when it clearly was not, and then contrasting that with rape?) Why not just say what you mean?

[/QUOTE]

I can only think that you are purposely being obtuse to make a point. You showed outrage that I used a term. I explained why I used the term. I used it to contrast against a more extreme example. I never said you or anyone claimed there was any threat of physical harm. Your case would be stronger if there was. I am saying what I mean and I have said it several times.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

Is the intent to do harm a necessary element of false imprisonment? If not, why do you keep dragging it in, red herring style?
[/QUOTE]

The only time I brought it up was in response to you. To explain the reason why I used the phrase “discuss business”. It is not a necessary element but it certainly would make the case stronger.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

Really? Anyone convicted of a crime that has prison as a sentence always goes to prison?
[/QUOTE]

No but you are throwing around crimes that are serious felonies in most jurisdictions. The possibility of a prison sentence would be very high. You don’t charge someone with a serious felony and expect a slap on the wrist. If you want him charged with a felony expect jail time. Do think he deserves it?

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

Her testimony counts as evidence, does it not?

[/QUOTE]

Of course. So does his. And his testimony has the same weight as hers. The OP hasn’t even said if she agrees with your position.

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]

You are the one who suggested that there was a difference. Nothing that cannot be proven counts for shit anyway.
[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you mean. Are you saying you agree with me that this a loser of a case in court? It is.

133

[QUOTE=Loach]
In one post you said she wasn’t in the room willingly which is incorrect.
[/QUOTE]
If you can show me where I have made such a claim, I will bow out of this thread willingly.

134

Here’s hoping you get a good result from your boss today, LV.

Say, all the ads are for bulimia and anorexia now - you are eating and keeping your food down, right? :smiley:

135

[QUOTE=LVgeogeek]
Now to get on to some of the comments made by our friend lev here. To me coming home and cleaning my guns to calm down would be no different to me than saying I came home and cleaned my house to calm down (but since I am not a Suzy Homemaker- house cleaning is a low priority for me. I will do it but don’t like to). In fact, gun cleaning is a very focus oriented task. You have to take it apart, carefully. Clean each part. Lubricate all parts that need it. Then put it all back together, carefully.

The insinuation that I am going to go shoot somebody is completely asinine. I am a responsible, law abiding gun owner.
[/QUOTE]

You don’t really need to explain yourself to me, I’m not accusing you of anything or insinuating anything. I was trying to make a point to other posters. If you haven’t read everything I’ve said and you’re only going to focus on my “insinuations” then just say so. I’m done here.

Since you’re addressing me directly, let me ask you another question. You said you wanted to kick his ass but figured you couldn’t take him so went home and started cleaning your guns instead? Is this normal? When you’re verbally attacked you respond with a physical attack? But only if you think you can take the person?

And no, going home and cleaning your guns after you’ve said you were assaulted is not the same thing as going home and vacuuming the living room, or going for a jog or something.

I’m still trying, vainly it appears, to make a point here. You’ve been there two years and he’s been there six months, you want his job, you’re going to HR and try to get him fired, you’re thinking about going to the police if HR doesn’t give you what you’re after, you’re evidently prejudiced against Marines, you’d have kicked his ass if you could have but instead went home and cleaned your guns.

I’m not trying to slander you or make false insinuations about you, I’m talking about perceptions.

136

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
If you can show me where I have made such a claim, I will bow out of this thread willingly.
[/QUOTE]

Reread post 60 where you ask if I think she was in the room willingly. Of course she was, she went in first. No need to bow out.

It comes down to this. I have charged several people over the years with improper restraint. This case does not fit the criteria. Of course I don’t work in Nevada so I’m no expert on Nevada law. I could look try to look up their exact law but without knowledge of how it has been interpreted in the past the cite would not be very useful. Bottom line, through my training and experience I have concluded that the serious criminal charges you have mentoined should not apply here. Do you think the asshole in question should be charged with a serious felony with the probability of jail time? Nitpicking over a word or sentence in each others posts is meaningless. Other than that I think we are mostly in agreement.

137

[QUOTE=LVgeogeek]
Also, the comments made about the 1 less field reading than should have been making us look bad to clients/team/whomever. Stuff like that happens all the time. Equipment dies/malfunctions- no big deal. It makes no one look bad, no one gets pissy. The clients don’t care that there was one less read, all they care about is money and environmental compliance. The reads are only for our use. They are to determine if we are pulling “stagnant” water from outside of the well casing from the formation or if we are actually pulling/moving “new” water into the well from the formation. [office space]It was the equivalent of not using the new coversheet for the TPS reports.[/os]
[/QUOTE]

I think I can see what is behind his fury.

LV reckons that they might as well get their samples from the nearest toilet bowl, which is possibly factually correct, but is not the way to run a business, especially one with cynical clients who view the whole thing as a formality.

Probably, if running such an operation, I would employ martinets who do things exactly by the book.

In his position, after getting the parting shot from the doorway, I would probably have followed her into her office, closed the door, sat down and said in my silkiest voice: ‘your attitude is not suited to this job, keep it up and we will all be f/cked’

LV, you missed a trick, at any sign of ‘intellectual’ confrontation, sit down, do not act aggressive and try to be constructive.

If you had convinced him that what he had told you to do was also wrong, and you told us in the OP that it was, then he and you would probably be devising a series of checks that would slicken things up.

138

[QUOTE=FRDE]
I think I can see what is behind his fury.

LV reckons that they might as well get their samples from the nearest toilet bowl, which is possibly factually correct, but is not the way to run a business, especially one with cynical clients who view the whole thing as a formality.

Probably, if running such an operation, I would employ martinets who do things exactly by the book.

In his position, after getting the parting shot from the doorway, I would probably have followed her into her office, closed the door, sat down and said in my silkiest voice: ‘your attitude is not suited to this job, keep it up and we will all be f/cked’

LV, you missed a trick, at any sign of ‘intellectual’ confrontation, sit down, do not act aggressive and try to be constructive.

If you had convinced him that what he had told you to do was also wrong, and you told us in the OP that it was, then he and you would probably be devising a series of checks that would slicken things up.
[/QUOTE]

Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us?

139

[QUOTE=Loach]
Reread post 60 where you ask if I think she was in the room willingly. Of course she was, she went in first. No need to bow out.

[/QUOTE]
In your mind, is a question the same as a claim?

Please look again at the post of mine that you quoted. For the umteenth time, being in the room is not the same as going into the room. If someone breaks into my house and ties me up, am I in the house willingly? Yes, I know he did not tie her up. I only mean to illustrate the difference between going into a room, and remaining in there willingly. My post #58 asked if she remained in there willingly. You responded to that post and quoted it. I then asked if she were in the room willingly. Clearly it was a continuation of the post you quoted. I have corrected you on this before, but somehow in your mind you have twisted this into me making an affirmative statement. Frankly, it makes me question the rest of your arguments.

140

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
In your mind, is a question the same as a claim?

Please look again at the post of mine that you quoted. For the umteenth time, being in the room is not the same as going into the room. If someone breaks into my house and ties me up, am I in the house willingly? Yes, I know he did not tie her up. I only mean to illustrate the difference between going into a room, and remaining in there willingly. My post #58 asked if she remained in there willingly. You responded to that post and quoted it. I then asked if she were in the room willingly. Clearly it was a continuation of the post you quoted. I have corrected you on this before, but somehow in your mind you have twisted this into me making an affirmative statement. Frankly, it makes me question the rest of your arguments.
[/QUOTE]

The important question is the one you are not answering:

If you want to quibble over something else fine. Yes you asked a question and did not make a statement. I believe you did not write it clearly enough. You asked if I thought she was in the room willingly. Of course she was. You meant did I think she stayed in the room willingly. It seems from the OP that she didn’t have time to think about it one way or the other. She made no move to leave, made no comment about leaving and gave no indication that she even thought about leaving. A very short time later her boss came it and told the guy to leave the office. Yes she was in the room willingly at that point. If it had gone on longer, if the asshole did something specific to keep her in there or even verbally told her she couldn’t go then I would be with you on this. Here is the quote from the OP:

So answer the important question and stop quibbling. He should have been fired. He should not have the threat of a prison sentence hanging over him.