The issue of course is that young pretty women have seen guys go from flirting to verbally abusive faster than Clark Kent becomes Superman. You can’t control his reaction to being told that his words are inappropriate.
So women should do what feels safest IN THE MOMENT. If that is saying “I find that offensive, do not do it again” then that’s good. If that is to not say that, and get a third party involved immediately, do that. If its to do both because you think that retaliation on the part of the harasser is possible, do that. If it feels right just to let the guy down easy, because he isn’t trying to harass, he just feels clueless (which has also happened to me, the guy had no ill intent, just an unreciprocated romantic interest clumsily expressed), do that.
And** Dangerosa** brings common sense to the table; Bravo! I totally agree with everything you said. And I do hope that the OP’s daughter has a good outcome, as it seems likely she will.
You want some more common sense - after the woman who is in the situation choses what’s appropriate to the situation, having the details of the situation at her disposal which we may not be aware of, we should resist the temptation to after the fact armchair quarterback her decision, which can easily sound like “blame the victim.”
We need to get over the idea that going to a person in authority as the first resort is somehow weak or inappropriate or something spoiled little kids do. That’s the reason we put people in authority.
Back in the day, some bad car dealerships used to always operate as a shell corporation owned by a shell corporation inside of a shell corporation inside of a shell corporation. The principles could be husbands, wives, uncles, aunts, grand parents, executors of the estates of
long dead relatives, but all within the same family. They were set up this way because they KNEW they were going to be sued; it was their business model.
Many of the ones I saw operated way over the line on a daily basis: 35% APR contracts, semi-worthless insurance coverages sold at 500 times their value, demo-cars that the owner’s kid wrecked after prom repaired & sold as new the next week,
Corporate dba name changing on the sign outside on on the stationary yearly, etc.
Maybe times have changed.
Why is this relevant? Because some bad dealerships are created with a corporate structure that shows on a balance sheet that they have no assets that you can touch, so Civil is often a waste of time even if the win is a slam-dunk.
If you win, the salesman gets fired, the corporation goes bankrupt / out of business, another corporation rents the building and assumes the floor-plan, the sign on the door changes, Uncle Charlie now runs the place, and the other salesmen now laugh at you every time you drive by.
The Worst of the car dealerships can’t be touched by suits, so they really don’t care. My honest & heart-felt advice to the OP: get your kid the Hell out of there and never let her list it on a resume.
Boy Count Blucher, I pretty much disagree with every single thing you have said here. I think “Maybe times have changed” is an understatement; I don’t think the “times” you reference ever existed. Maybe you knew a dealer like that once, but I am sure there were not a lot. And I am equally sure there are NONE like that now. There may (MAY) be a used car lot like that someplace but the dealers are affiliated with car manufacturers and the manufacturers do not put up with that kind of BS. OP: most car dealers are not crooks at all and your daughter can put it on her resume all she likes.
Wow. Just… Wow. So, what I personally saw with my own eyes never happened? You don’t say.
I’m sure the few years I worked at the company which floor planned them never happened either? Riiiiiight. :dubious:
I knew MANY dealers like that “once” and ALL were new car dealers affiliated with Big Three manufacturers. (Dealerships ran about 5 honest ones out of 10 in those days) One of the biggest ones was banned from selling cars in the state of NJ in a case that blew out the
local headlines for a week. That doesn’t mean they don’t sell cars there any more, oh no. There are two dealerships still there on that major highway in NJ that leads to one of the bridges into NYC: one on the east bound side and one directly across from it on the west bound side.
Different owners? Maybe… its been a while.
This is the only statement of yours that I can’t personally verify.
Thank you! I needed that good laugh. MAYBE now they don’t.
Occasionally the dealers and their top sellers would come into the office to brag to us & we were told to nod out heads and keep working. It was usually part of some negotiation to extend the floorplan or open a new lot, but it was also used
for “bragging rights” as they liked to call it. (Back in the day, when salesmen of some of the worst dealerships really “took” someone, they would tell us that they earned "bragging rights”. The slick haired guys with perfumed wrists
loved to brag about their scams almost as much as they liked cashing their commission checks.) On one such occasion, a top salesman who was berating us suckers for working for an hourly wage tried to clue me in:
“Detroit…? laugh Detroit doesn’t have have any idea what we do… and That’s How We Like It! As long as we move enough metal, we’re golden. We sell them, you try to collect them… and if you can’t, then you repo them and sell them at the Hatfield Auction.
And you know what? Then we buy them back from the Auction… And Then We Sell Them Again!!! Its the American Way…!" laughter
Look. If you want to say its not like that now, fine. If you want to say you aren’t convinced? Fine. But don’t you Dare tell me what did or didn’t happen when I was in the room. We only live 20+ states away from each other anyway, hence YMMV.
There are- those “buy here, pay here, we finance everyone” used car lots are not only that sleazy- they are more sleazy. They specialize in the following scam:
They sell you a car- they dont care about your credit- in fact the worse the better.
You miss a payment, they repo. They then sue you for the amount you owe, then resell the car to another sucker. Never buy a car from one of those places.
Actual new car dealers like that? Hmm, *maybe *Toyota. They have the scammiest salesmen (but good cars). Never buy a car from a Toyota dealer. But today- maybe not.
If I am a scumdog, and I can grab your ass without fear of consequences, and I feel like doing so, what’s to stop me?
This is the whole point of “natural consequences” in the first place; used to be a punch in the chops was considered an appropriate response for this. Nowadays, it’s legal consequences.
Punch in the chops is more immediate, and much easier on court dockets.
Not all attention is unwanted; sometimes two people meet at work, are attracted to each other, expression that attraction, date, and everyone is happy. No harassment.
The idea was, if harassment is defined as “unwanted attentions or advances”, the “unwanted” component has to be established.
And different people have VERY different comfort levels with different ways of expressing attraction. Sure, if you feel unsafe saying something to the guy, maybe you should go to your boss, or to HR. And maybe that was true in this case. But in general, I think it is best to tell the guy directly that you don’t appreciate the behavior before you escalate it.
Unfortunately, women familiar with being cursed at, insulted by, and been made the object of various obscene gestures by random men whose attentions and advances they have only ignored, not even repulsed, just walking down the street, might be a tad reluctant to “incite” that type of behavior in the work place.
In real life, we can separate out “potentially unwanted” advances from “obviously unwanted” ones. “Hey, would you like to go out sometime” or “could I get your number” are not really in the same ballpark as what ivydaughter is putting up with.
You pull the old dinosaur aside the very first time you see him do it and point out, as diplomatically as possible, that what he is doing just isn’t done any more and explain why. Old dogs don’t learn new tricks if no one bothers to teach them.
Just for a reference, here is what the US Army teaches its soldiers (and for that matter, DoD civilians) every year (mandatory training).
While it shows examples of expressing dissent to the harasser, the training is also clear that they do not have to…that going to your supervisor first is a viable option.
So in general, the US Army agrees with most everyone here…who da thunk it?
