No, I feel exactly the way I posted. I should be able to go to HR and make a complaint if I didn’t want and/or like the “playful punch”
Well, sure, but you also said that they should have HR act against them. That means more than just a report, more than just a “LHOD doesn’t like being punched in the arm, don’t do that anymore”, that means discipline. And, as your buddy pantastic points out, she committed assault and battery. LHOD works in a school, and elementary school at that. If this person is a violent criminal, they shouldn’t be allowed continued access to children.
Did I? I don’t remember posting that.
Refresh your memory.
Playing bafflement to a question indicates disagreement.
Well, if you want to stretch a question into being a definitive posting on my thoughts on what HR should do in the face of a complaint of unwanted playful punching, then go ahead.
If you want to actually know what my thoughts are, they are: Yes, I should be able to go to HR and file a complaint. If 2 or more people do the same thing, then, yes, HR should take aside Joe Blow and tell him that they have have received several complaints about his unwanted playful punching, so he should probably knock it off. And if he doesn’t, then yes, HR should be able to take more measures to curb unwanted playful punching in the workplace.
Unless there is some sort of biological imperative that Joe Blow must playfully punch his colleagues, then a visit from HR should do wonders to curb unwanted playful punching in the workplace.
Now, to avoid all that messy HR business, Joe Blow only has to do one thing - stop playfully punching people.
Well sure, you should be able to go to HR and file a complaint. That’s what HR is for. To file complaints. You can file a complaint to HR that Janice from accounting won’t let you eat her yogurt out of the staff fridge too.
The question is, is HR going to take action against them?
So, you are saying that if there is a pattern of unwanted behavior, that HR should step in to curb that behavior. Agreed. But that is different from saying that he should be able to go to HR and unilaterally have action taken against her for the one incident.
Thank you for clearing up your position, rather than just continuing to pick at your misunderstandings of others.
Does this also hold in the case where Joe Blow is working with other people that do not mind being punched in the arm playfully?
Strange that you would say this, since I would hope that there are some things that happen in an office that HR should take action against even if it is just one incident.
Not sure. How does Joe Blow know that they don’t mind being punched in the arm playfully. Did they explicitly tell him that it was okay? Or did they just not say anything when he did it?
And are those some things playfully punching a co-worker in the arm?
If not, then your response has no contextual connection to what I said.
Their response was to laugh, and punch him back.
LHOD described an apparently innocuous action, and I pointed out that it could lead to completely unexpected injuries. As you said, my cite “covers completely unexpected injuries from otherwise innocuous actions.” The applicability is, rather than ludicrous, quite obvious. I have no idea why you’re telling me something obvious that I never gave any indication that I disagreed with and framing it with ‘you understand… right?’, or what attempted murder has to do with this case, you seem to be angrily arguing with some post that I didn’t make and don’t see anything like in this thread.
If by ‘act against’ you mean ‘tell the co-worker not to do it again, and note that they told co-worker to cut it out in a file’, absolutely. I’m really surprised that anyone, much less multiple people, would think that punching co-workers in the arm is something that HR would be completely fine with. Since there’s so much pendantry going on, I’ll note LHOD would generally need to actually articulate a reason why the punch bothered him for HR to take the action, if he went up and said “this happened and I have no objection to it whatsoever I’m just reporting it for an example on a message board” then I’d expect HR to tell him to stop wasting their time.
It’s not nonsense, it’s the way the actual law handles the situation of ‘playful’ punches that result in unexpected injury. No one has been able to find any serious lawyer or other legal authority to back the ‘handshake=rape’ nonsense.
Could be. Wouldn’t bother me if that was the one rule marked in 24 point bolded text in my company handbook “Absolutely no playful punching in this office. Any instance of playful punching is grounds for immediate termination”
I wouldn’t be bothered since I don’t find the need to playfully punch anyone. But I guess to some people, a workplace where you are not allowed to playfully punch people before you even know if they mind is the worse place to work in the history of workplaces.
Well, he lucked out then. I hope he never playfully punches someone who takes offense.
Now, I’m off to playfully punch everyone on my floor! Wish me luck. I might offer some hugs too if I’m feeling generous.
Where is ‘fired and brought up on charges’ coming from, exactly? No one has actually said anything remotely like that, no one has even said that LHOD should go to HR in the first place.
No, this is all nonsense. This started because LHOD said that what happened should not be a “warnable” offense to HR. Now “warnable” is not a standard word, but I think it’s reasonable interpret it to mean “HR should be able to issue a warning to co-worker”. So the discussion was explicitly about the person getting a warning, which the “don’t do that anymore” would fit, and which you actually seem to think is appropriate. Also verbal and written warnings are forms of discipline in HR parlance, so while it’s clear that you mean something more than a verbal warning in the quoted sentence, verbal and written warnings are normally considered types of discipline when discussing HR.
Using vague terms like “Have HR act against them”, that in normal usage would include “acts” like “tell them to knock it off”, then later insisting that the “acts” can only mean more severe like firing and pressing charges, isn’t really having a discussion.
Okay, you work in this office. A newer employee that you are assigned to mentor is telling an anecdote about her previous employment, and in the process, playfully punches you in the arm.
Do you report her to HR for immediate termination?
Let me know if you ever meet any of those people, they sound a bit odd.
He won’t, as he is actually capable of considering context and non-verbal communications when he interacts with other human beings.
Good luck. I assume that you have considered the context and non-verbal communication of everyone on your floor first, as just doing that out of the blue without those considerations would likely cuase someone offense.
It has nothing to do with the scenario I described. If you mistakenly believe it does, you need to reread the scenario. As I said earlier, either you’re deliberately misrepresenting the actual situation for your own rhetorical benefit, or you’re recklessly disregarding it; either way, it’s not worth the effort to repeat myself. Your “brittle bone” nonsense is irrelevant.
You were the one bringing up criminal codes as if they were relevant. Is it the case, or is it not the case, that LHOD had an assault and battery committed upon his person by his co-worker?
Yep. It’s in the handbook. So I’m required to notify HR. I assume she read the handbook and knows the rules. If she didn’t, that’s on her. If she did, and still playfully punched, I don’t want someone like that working in my office.
I sure did! And it seemed to me that everyone was looking for a little playful punch. You know, to lighten up the mood on a Wednesday. Turns out, not everyone appreciated it. So I just apologized and went on my way. I’m pretty sure everything will be alright. Afterall, who doesn’t like a little playful punch every now and again?
The offers of hugs didn’t go as well. I just offered a hug to everyone, and didn’t even touch them. Some people had the nerve to report me and I got told to stop being creepy. Turns out, offering hugs to people can be considered offensive. Who knew?
No, it’s a sophisticated hologram.
I’m not seeing it. Do I need special glasses or anything?
I work in a place with a 100% relaxed dress code (witness Barefoot Bob), everyone goes by their first name even the 20% or so who have the title Dr. or Professor. We’re coming up on the time when they recognize people with 5, 10, 15, 25, 35, and 40 years of service. Roughly 100 people this year. That’s a lot of time to know each other pretty well. we know each other’s kids, dogs, and spouses. And Ex-spouses. We have potlucks and baby showers and celebrate birthdays with coffee break treats brought from home.
So at lunch time, I observed the card players (no touching), the women’s lunch bunch who were going over one woman’s redecorating photos (no touching), the He Man Woman Hater’s table (no touching) and half a dozen other groups. All i all probably fifty people I watched at lunch. Saw one physical interaction. Two guys came around the corner at the same time. One laughed and gave the other a “good ol’ boy” slap on the back while holding his shoulder with the other hand. Nothing else.
No one is jumping aside to avoid being touched. No one shrieks and runs away. But so far, I see people who joke, laugh, work, and cut up without needing to physically touch each other.
Yes, you is the impersonal you and I realize that it’s your female co-worker who did the play punch.
No one needs to be fired or hauled over the coals. I don’t think all or even most touching is about sexual domination or harassment. I absolutely do NOT understand why some people continue to do it when so many others say it makes them uncomfortable. I’ve always associated that unnecessary touching with little old ladies who pinch your cheeks. I have a cousin who was born about 70 years old and she always puts her hand on your arm when she talks to you. Creeps me right the hell out.
Question for the touchers: do a lot of people touch you first during conversations?
The fact that criminal codes show that the behavior is not considered harmless by the legal system is relevant. Pointing out a legal fact is not, however, the same thing as saying that I “feel that LHOD’s assaulter should have been fired and brought up on charges then” to use your words. I don’t know why some people in this thread post as though there is zero middle ground between ‘completely OK, HR can’t warn you about that behavior’ and ‘fired and brough up on charges’, it just doesn’t match reality.