Another vote for completely and totally inappropriate.
Of course they can’t, you need torches too. (Honestly, angry mobs just aren’t what they used to be)
I would have to say it is innappropriate. People are going to be talking about it anyway, there really is no need to add fuel to the fire.
The “innocent until proven guilty” principle is not an issue here, since the article is publically available and presumably states all the required disclaimers. So simply posting an article on a bulletin board doesn’t do anything that the newspaper hasn’t.
That said, I think it’s harmful to post that information in the workplace because it encourages gossip and possibly harrassment. Employee morale and productivity are also at stake.
BTW, I completely agree with ya’ll. If not evidenced already in my anecdote.
The thing is, this piece of paper has been up for over 2 weeks and to my knowledge there have been no complaints or effort to remove it from anyone including the accused. I think that’s weird. I’m a contractor here so it isn’t really in my court to take any steps to “rectify” the situation, especially since I haven’t witnessed any problems, so to speak.
It should come down and it should never have been posted. If for no other reason, this is of no benefit to the company if customers, vendors, or auditors are on site for any reason.
This is not, however, the very definition of “hostile work environment.” That may be one of the least-understood terms in HR. Hostile work environment refers to harassment of someone based on their membership in a legally protected class. The hostile work environment concept evolved to give women a way to sue for sexual harassment that was pervasive in the work environment (jokes, innuendoes, pin-ups, pranks) but did not involve actual touching or *quid pro quo * (threats or promises for sexual favors). The concept now extends to minorities, religions, disabilities and other legally protected classes. However, it does not cover the large amount of hostility in the workplace that is not based on membership in a protected class. Accused offender is not a protected class. If the posting were hostile to women, as women, that would be a component of a hostile work environment. But one incident of anything rarely makes an environment. [\hr rant]
I am suprised that HR lets that stay up.
The odds are high that no-one from HR has actually seen it. Like I said, big company.
Last time I checked, the US Constitution was still intact and the judicial system in Milwaukee County was still functioning. Everyone is entitled to their day in court, regardless of the alleged crime. Or has mob rule taken over there?
And the longer it remains posted, how much liability is the big company possibly in for once the accused lawyer’s find out?
Is that true? Or is it a hypothetical? And, what if someone is framing the accused?
I would say it’s inappropriate. It’s up to HR to discuss with him any absences from work-related events that may include children until the trial is over.
Says who? If the person who posted it was female, the accused could very well claim hostile work environment.
Hypothetical to the extent that the wife’s friend works here. Everything else is true.
If he was being framed then the girl, the wife, the wife’s friend and his own admission of guilt are all in question.
Which is why I’m puzzled why everyone keeps saying he’s innocent before proven guilty. That’s not changed simply because an article is posted on a bulletin board.
Question–this might be really obvious, but why is he not allowed to have contact with his own wife?
They could, if they were arguing this was a pattern of harassment of them because they are female. The concept applies to men and women equally, but the harassment needs to be because of the person’s maleness or femaleness. But I have a hard time seeing this guy arguing it is a pattern of harassment against him because he is male. Are other male employees subject to similar harassment? Is he the only male in a predominantly female environment?
ETA - That looked like I was agreeing that a female could successfully argue hostile work environment. That wasn’t what I meant. I mean that a female would face the same difficulty in arguing that as a male would.
I suppose it’s because while a jury can be told to made a judgement based solely on an allowed amount of evidence and presentation, office coworkers aren’t always going to do the same on their own volition.
Do you think that she doesn’t know or isn’t following the story in the newspaper or online herself? Is this the only way the article poster can think of to keep her informed of the current situation of the story?
Unless your office employs 10 year olds who do need to be warned, I can’t think of a useful purpose to posting the articles.
She turned in the evidence.
I think it’s totally inappropriate. Also, has anyone every read an article in the paper about an event that they have witnessed. When I was in college there was a little chem lab incident where campus police didn’t follow the proper procedures at all and it turned into a big mess (no one was hurt and there was no damage), but if you read the article on the front page of the city paper the next day, you’d think we’d burned the damn building to the ground. The article may well by sensationalized and overly inflammatory and has no place in an office.
Because she’s part of the accusation.