It sounds like the OP has had to deflect this woman’s attempts at preaching more than once, and the e-mail he (she) got is just the latest round. Obviously, cwthree is bothered by it or s/he wouldn’t have posted here looking for advice.
That said, the OP is being much more gracious than I would be. By the third or fourth attempt, I’d be having some serious discussions with management and Human Resources. Attempts at evangelism in the workplace are not appropriate behavior and this woman needs to understand that. If the consequence for her inappropriate behavior is her being disciplined or fired, well, it’ll teach her not to do that again.
For the record, I think you did the right thing in ignoring it this time. She probably didn’t mean anything, and it’s possible she simply doesn’t understand what Jews for Jesus is about and thought it would be appropriate.
It usually works out for the best if you assume someone had good intentions when they did something that might or might not be offensive, until you know otherwise.
I don’t see any reason to bring it up for a single offense, though if she says something about it to you, it might be an opportunity to ask her politely not to send more.
I don’t know much about Jews For Jesus, what’s “stealthy” about it? It can’t be that they are converting Jews to Christianity, that’s obvious from the name.
I’m cool with that. So make the lecturing and the religion the focus of the complaint, already. Don’t put on this prissy attitude about “misuse of company emails” unless you’re going to come down equally on all such misuse, is all I’m saying. I pity those who can’t field a little witnessing without feeling they need to hide behind HR’s big guns, but if they have to, let’s call this spade by its right name.
What I find balsy is that she isn’t even a member of JFJ. So why is she advocating? I almost find it as a ‘oh how quaint, they have Jews for Jesus now’.
You’ve been witnessed, and work isn’t a place for that. I’d be annoyed.
But you *can’t * say that. Because then the religious people get all up in arms, and call persecution. I’ve seen it happen. So best is to claim misuse of company e-mails and hope like hell they’ll quit it and you don’t actually have to go to the boss and complain so he has to curtail all frivolous company e-mails.
That is fucking uncool, man. If the OP wants to ignore this, so be it; it aon’t what I would do. But narc-ing on a first offense? The appropriate action is to politely but firmly tell the person that you’re not interested. Then, if it continues, it’s harrassment and it’s appropriate to escalate. But to get someone in trouble with the bosses for what she sees as an innocent friendly overture and which no one has ever taken the time to tell her it isn’t – well, I’m just glad I don’t work with anyone that selfish.
Heh. “Oops, the plain truth won’t get me what I want. I’d better dress it up like something else, and hope there aren’t any negative consequences for my cowardice and dishonesty.”
But legally, it won’t be “documentation” that this e-mail was not appreciated unless you notify the co-worker that it was.
In fact, if you just file it away without also sending a “thanks, but no thanks” message to the sender, it could very well be interpreted in the future (if it comes to that) that such messages were indeed not offensive to you.
I am not a labor attorney, nor an EEOC expert, but I’ve seen enough cheesy videos on workplace harassment (screened on an annual basis by our HR department) to I feel that I know at least one thing on the topic.
And that something is this: You must speak up right away if something is offensive to you. Do it politely, but firmly. Otherwise, someone evaluating a case in the future would have to take into account that one (or perhaps several) such messages were apparently accepted by you without objection. And that could not be helpful to your case.
So, I would advise you to open the e-mail, and if its message is unwelcome religious material, then reply with a polite but unequivocal message that you’d prefer not to receive any religious messages at work. Whether you cc or bcc a supervisor is a judgment call that only you can make.
But send a reply e-mail for sure, and document, document, document.
Yes, sure. The proper sentence for a second well-intended but tasteless e-mail would of course be death, but lacking that option, having someone fired is appropriate :rolleyes:
Count me amongst people who would easily be confrontationnal in such a situation, but are unlikely to involve the HR. Issues like this can be solved without resorting to global nuclear war.
Yes. This is the way the world works, unfortunately. I don’t call giving them one chance “cowardice”, though. They get one chance to quit it and grow up and stop trying to force their religion on other people, and then after that, yeah, I’ll report it.
I’m not repeating all those. I like smileys but that hurt my eyes.
Do, by all means. All I was saying was that, if what you really want to moan about won’t stick, fussing about and pretending you’re really complaining about something else entirely sorta reeks of humbug. Double if what you actually complain about is something everyone else:
(a) does, and
(b) hopes the boss won’t ban in the light of the complaint.
Hey, this looks like shaping up into another one of those cat-declawing threads!
Ok, I’m not entirely sure what humbug means in this discussion. I thought it was something you say about Christmas. Anyway, I don’t deny that it’s not the most direct route but it’s called office politics!
“I understand that while we are not supposed to use company resources for private things, a little of that is going to go on, and I don’t think anyone really minds.”
I got agreement.
“And no one really minds a little humor now and then, right?”
More agreement.
“But when someone sends out 4 to 10 e-mails every day, and each one contains either proselytizing, sexual content, or large attachments, then that is over the line, correct?”
Strong agreement.
I think I presented my case well, covered my own ass, and brought the problem to the attention of management. This would have been ideal had it not been for the fact that the damn e-mails are still coming!
Not the second time, but if the person does not stop after being asked to by me 2 or 3 times, then I might take it to HR. Then if the person doesn’t stop after being warned by HR, then it’s up to HR how many warnings they get.
If a person is too stupid to stop after being to asked multiple times to stop by both the person and by HR, then the company isn’t really losing much, is it?
In response to those who think I run some kind of draconian sweatshop, I don’t. Yes, I happen to be a boss, not the boss but I am the one who does all the policy stuff here.
First, I have no idea what cwthree’s company policy is on use of email, internet resources, etc. I was relaying the steps that had been taken where I work to stem the problem of personal use of email. The measures we took were in response to complaints about persons sending glurge and a whole lot of other junk email. We put a stop to it by stating in policy that company email is for business only. Why would that be a problem? By policy, the first time is a reminder of what the policy is. The second offense results in an official warning. Subsequent offenses can range from suspension of email priviledges, to suspension and yes even firing for refusal to follow policy.
We do allow the use of the internet for personal reasons within reason. Everybody knows that all this is subject to monitoring. There are filters in place to block inappropriate websites and all that. I do not care if someone surf’s the web some on the job. I do care if they are trying to run a business from work. I do care if somebody is sending glurge and useless email that clogs up inboxes. I do want to know if somebody violates policy. I have yet to fire somebody for abusing email or internet priviledges but I have issued some warnings. So far that’s done the trick.
The point is, if this email is a violation of policy where cwthree works then it should be reported so it won’t continue. If it isn’t stopped it will continue. It may have been well-intentioned or a momentarily brain fart on the part of the sender for all I know, but if it violates policy it should be stopped. If it isn’t a violation of policy, then I’m all for cwthree politely stating that she does not want this type of email. If the person doesn’t stop after being asked then it could become a HR problem. IMO this type of email is never appropriate in the workplace.
You know, I think this would be a good banner for the top of the SDMB, right under the “fighting ignorance” tagline. I know I could use an occasional reminder of this sentiment.
:eek: 
:rolleyes: