Supposedly HR is a good career apparently. Has high rates of satisfaction.

If you're shiiit you can still make it to HR Business Partner in time or just have a decent chill career as a payroll analyst

comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted about a minute ago
I've already shot them an email back detailing how their decision is against their own policy, complete with page numbers for ease of verification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah this is what I did when I had an issue. For me it did not lead anywhere in the end, but at least it made the organisation look a bit stupid.

comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 5 minutes ago

I've already shot them

comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 47 minutes ago
Odd situation at work, whereby I reported my manager a few months back for breaking some rules... Two weeks later he took me in to the office because he had "Some complaints" about my behaviour. And handed me the company policy for bullying and harassment, and said he had highlighted the relevant parts that applied to me.

This includes physical or verbal intimidation, unwanted sexual advances/touching etc.. he wouldn't tell me who the complainants were, when the alleged breaches took place, nor would he give me any examples of it, but was "advising me to correct my behaviour"

So I've proceeded to take it up with HR. who having spoken to me, and indicating it was quite serious accusations, then spoke to the manager and have told me it's okay because he was following an "informal procedure"

Their policy clearly states that several of the accusations he's highlighted SHOULD NOT be dealt with informally.

Fuming.. it seems to be HRs belief that my manager can just allow these accusations against me, warn me about my behaviour and then just sweep it aside.

Now I know these events didn't take place, I know he's done it to try and assert authority over me because I've reported him twice for his misdeeds.. beggars belief that they would allow this to stand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it possible that HR recognised that he was bullshiiiiting both you and them, have given him a quiet talking to, and have then tried to do a quiet sweeping job?

comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 minutes ago
I've already shot them an email back detailing how their decision is against their own policy, complete with page numbers for ease of verification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Remember years go my ex was doing really well at work (had received glowing reports etc). But when she informed her boss she was pregnant, was sacked the following week, citing under performing, disruptive conduct. She chose not to pursue the matter as it was causing her so much stress.

comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 11 minutes ago
That's crazy insert.

Did your boss have a witness present, and/or record the meeting? Seems a bit fishy as understand (in regard to disciplinary/conduct matters) firms are required to report/record to protect both parties.

In that if you were being a d1 ck and were dismissed as a result they are required to provide you with details to protect themselves from an unfair dismissal claim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I took a union rep in

None of my accusers want to take the process any further apparently.

Someone I sexually assaulted only wanted an informal warning

Its all rather amusing
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would record every meeting on your phone also.

To rely on it you have to tell them but without telling them it’s just good to have an exact record of what was said so your note taker was just really good at taking notes. 😉

Other than on being hired and when delivering/attending training programmes, I’ve never, ever had any contact with HR at any of the businesses I’ve worked at/for, and honestly, I’m quite glad about that

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think you are kidding Mr.... (U3126)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 minutes ago
I've already shot them an email back detailing how their decision is against their own policy, complete with page numbers for ease of verification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Remember years go my ex was doing really well at work (had received glowing reports etc). But when she informed her boss she was pregnant, was sacked the following week, citing under performing, disruptive conduct. She chose not to pursue the matter as it was causing her so much stress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

^ Motherfackers

I think between all of us argumentative people, we could sort this out for you no probs Insert

comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 47 minutes ago
Odd situation at work, whereby I reported my manager a few months back for breaking some rules... Two weeks later he took me in to the office because he had "Some complaints" about my behaviour. And handed me the company policy for bullying and harassment, and said he had highlighted the relevant parts that applied to me.

This includes physical or verbal intimidation, unwanted sexual advances/touching etc.. he wouldn't tell me who the complainants were, when the alleged breaches took place, nor would he give me any examples of it, but was "advising me to correct my behaviour"

So I've proceeded to take it up with HR. who having spoken to me, and indicating it was quite serious accusations, then spoke to the manager and have told me it's okay because he was following an "informal procedure"

Their policy clearly states that several of the accusations he's highlighted SHOULD NOT be dealt with informally.

Fuming.. it seems to be HRs belief that my manager can just allow these accusations against me, warn me about my behaviour and then just sweep it aside.

Now I know these events didn't take place, I know he's done it to try and assert authority over me because I've reported him twice for his misdeeds.. beggars belief that they would allow this to stand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it possible that HR recognised that he was bullshiiiiting both you and them, have given him a quiet talking to, and have then tried to do a quiet sweeping job?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the way I see it

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Who do you think ... (U3126)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 3 minutes ago
I've already shot them an email back detailing how their decision is against their own policy, complete with page numbers for ease of verification.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Remember years go my ex was doing really well at work (had received glowing reports etc). But when she informed her boss she was pregnant, was sacked the following week, citing under performing, disruptive conduct. She chose not to pursue the matter as it was causing her so much stress.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's disgraceful

comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 47 minutes ago
Odd situation at work, whereby I reported my manager a few months back for breaking some rules... Two weeks later he took me in to the office because he had "Some complaints" about my behaviour. And handed me the company policy for bullying and harassment, and said he had highlighted the relevant parts that applied to me.

This includes physical or verbal intimidation, unwanted sexual advances/touching etc.. he wouldn't tell me who the complainants were, when the alleged breaches took place, nor would he give me any examples of it, but was "advising me to correct my behaviour"

So I've proceeded to take it up with HR. who having spoken to me, and indicating it was quite serious accusations, then spoke to the manager and have told me it's okay because he was following an "informal procedure"

Their policy clearly states that several of the accusations he's highlighted SHOULD NOT be dealt with informally.

Fuming.. it seems to be HRs belief that my manager can just allow these accusations against me, warn me about my behaviour and then just sweep it aside.

Now I know these events didn't take place, I know he's done it to try and assert authority over me because I've reported him twice for his misdeeds.. beggars belief that they would allow this to stand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it possible that HR recognised that he was bullshiiiiting both you and them, have given him a quiet talking to, and have then tried to do a quiet sweeping job?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the way I see it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Same but I think that’s also disgraceful. The manager should be disciplined

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 47 minutes ago
Odd situation at work, whereby I reported my manager a few months back for breaking some rules... Two weeks later he took me in to the office because he had "Some complaints" about my behaviour. And handed me the company policy for bullying and harassment, and said he had highlighted the relevant parts that applied to me.

This includes physical or verbal intimidation, unwanted sexual advances/touching etc.. he wouldn't tell me who the complainants were, when the alleged breaches took place, nor would he give me any examples of it, but was "advising me to correct my behaviour"

So I've proceeded to take it up with HR. who having spoken to me, and indicating it was quite serious accusations, then spoke to the manager and have told me it's okay because he was following an "informal procedure"

Their policy clearly states that several of the accusations he's highlighted SHOULD NOT be dealt with informally.

Fuming.. it seems to be HRs belief that my manager can just allow these accusations against me, warn me about my behaviour and then just sweep it aside.

Now I know these events didn't take place, I know he's done it to try and assert authority over me because I've reported him twice for his misdeeds.. beggars belief that they would allow this to stand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it possible that HR recognised that he was bullshiiiiting both you and them, have given him a quiet talking to, and have then tried to do a quiet sweeping job?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the way I see it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Same but I think that’s also disgraceful. The manager should be disciplined
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Out of interest - what did manager do initially do that made you feel the need to report his behaviour?

Yeah it sounds like HR are trying to save face for your manager and prevent any further escalation.

It's a shame though. As your manager sounds like they deserve to be caught out.

comment by puNPE (U22712)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 54 seconds ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 47 minutes ago
Odd situation at work, whereby I reported my manager a few months back for breaking some rules... Two weeks later he took me in to the office because he had "Some complaints" about my behaviour. And handed me the company policy for bullying and harassment, and said he had highlighted the relevant parts that applied to me.

This includes physical or verbal intimidation, unwanted sexual advances/touching etc.. he wouldn't tell me who the complainants were, when the alleged breaches took place, nor would he give me any examples of it, but was "advising me to correct my behaviour"

So I've proceeded to take it up with HR. who having spoken to me, and indicating it was quite serious accusations, then spoke to the manager and have told me it's okay because he was following an "informal procedure"

Their policy clearly states that several of the accusations he's highlighted SHOULD NOT be dealt with informally.

Fuming.. it seems to be HRs belief that my manager can just allow these accusations against me, warn me about my behaviour and then just sweep it aside.

Now I know these events didn't take place, I know he's done it to try and assert authority over me because I've reported him twice for his misdeeds.. beggars belief that they would allow this to stand.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it possible that HR recognised that he was bullshiiiiting both you and them, have given him a quiet talking to, and have then tried to do a quiet sweeping job?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's the way I see it
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Same but I think that’s also disgraceful. The manager should be disciplined
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Out of interest - what did manager do initially do that made you feel the need to report his behaviour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovered Insert whiling away on JA606 all day long.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60707646?at_custom4=twitter&at_campaign=64&at_medium=custom7&at_custom2=twitter&at_custom3=%40BBCPolitics&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D

Interesting ruling against the Met Police.

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 6 hours, 39 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
Sorry but isn’t NY an absolute crime reduction success story?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure on any figures etc, but as a small state conservative do you really support throwing obscene amounts of taxpayer money at an issue to fix it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they had huge crime issues gun crime & homicide so yes.

Small state doesn’t necessarily mean small police force.


https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%3A%2F%2Fd6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net%2Fprod%2F970b2e80-c6c9-11ea-af37-b51a0627fdfd-standard.png?dpr=1&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&source=next&width=700


They’ve done really well, it’s really not something to criticise but applaud.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Major crime is up 38% in NYC this year.
And I'm sure I've seen criticism of NYC crime stats in here from you, JS and others. But keep the toys.

comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 4 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 1 hour, 24 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 13 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Insert random username (U10647)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
Sorry but isn’t NY an absolute crime reduction success story?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure on any figures etc, but as a small state conservative do you really support throwing obscene amounts of taxpayer money at an issue to fix it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they had huge crime issues gun crime & homicide so yes.

Small state doesn’t necessarily mean small police force.


https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%3A%2F%2Fd6c748xw2pzm8.cloudfront.net%2Fprod%2F970b2e80-c6c9-11ea-af37-b51a0627fdfd-standard.png?dpr=1&fit=scale-down&quality=highest&source=next&width=700


They’ve done really well, it’s really not something to criticise but applaud.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They banned assault weapons in 1994, gun control works.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn’t agree more although I thought handguns were used in far more crimes than assault weapons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just noted the correlation of the big drop in murders in your link to the ban.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye the real drops came following assault weapons ban. It’ll be multi-dimensional, but again we were talking about the militarisation of the police, and criticising that. Satters - do you support the militarisation of police?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you mean crazy weaponry then no not really. But I think the police needs to be a preventative force rather than reactionary like we have here.

I’m pretty confident that handguns are the majority of guns used in murders, for pretty obvious reasons really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How do tanks and APCs fight handgun crime?

comment by bmcl1987 (U14177)
posted 44 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60707646?at_custom4=twitter&at_campaign=64&at_medium=custom7&at_custom2=twitter&at_custom3=%40BBCPolitics&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D

Interesting ruling against the Met Police.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

A Russian court has designated Meta an ‘extremist organisation’ allowing the govt to take stronger measures against Meta platforms.

All access to FB and Insta to be blocked.

Anyone else find the idea of an ‘extremist organisation’ headed up by Mark Zuckerberg amusing?

WhatsApp must be down for them too

I have a significant amount of respect for Rory Stewart and often think he talks a lot of sense.

What do you think of these proposals?

https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1502260704639950851

comment by IvanGolacIsMagic (U5291)
posted 7 minutes ago
I have a significant amount of respect for Rory Stewart and often think he talks a lot of sense.

What do you think of these proposals?

https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1502260704639950851
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's the sort of bloke I could have a pint with. Same with Clarkson