What do you think would be the likely outcome of this?
Discussion
At work last week (I work in IT), a lad (A) was "testing" some CCTV software by apparently zooming in to try and look through peoples windows etc, and generally showing off.
Another one of the lads (B) saw him doing it, and remarked that he probably shouldnt be doing it. The lads team leader (C) agreed. This was met with a cheeky, somewhat obnoxious reply from (A). The other lad (B) then apparently replied "Don't challenge me" which was met with another comment from (A). (B) then said he "would be happy to educate him in the corridor". (A) declined and apparently took this as a threat.
(B) was off work for the rest of the week, and in his absense, (A) has complained to the manager of bullying and harrasment and given a written statement of events.
I only found out about this this morning, and I've seen what was written in the statement by (A), and basically, it seems as though its a pack of lies, greatly exagerrated to make (B) look as bad as possible, and even reads to me as though (A) is trying to get (B) sacked.
It should be noted that (C) has changed their tune a little and now says that (A) was not doing anything wrong by using this software (debateable IMO), but I don't know what else is said.
Now (B) is facing disciplinary action, and he was asking me (he's a mate) what I think might happen, now my feeling is it's probably pretty difficult for either to prove much about the other, but I'm not sure. Surely it's one persons word against the others, nobody else saw anything other than (C).
TBH I hope it doesn't end too badly for (B). Personally, I have quite a disliking for (A) anyway - a typical arrogant bullied at school type would complain at almost anything. I was wondering what the PH collective thought would be the likely outcome of this?
Another one of the lads (B) saw him doing it, and remarked that he probably shouldnt be doing it. The lads team leader (C) agreed. This was met with a cheeky, somewhat obnoxious reply from (A). The other lad (B) then apparently replied "Don't challenge me" which was met with another comment from (A). (B) then said he "would be happy to educate him in the corridor". (A) declined and apparently took this as a threat.
(B) was off work for the rest of the week, and in his absense, (A) has complained to the manager of bullying and harrasment and given a written statement of events.
I only found out about this this morning, and I've seen what was written in the statement by (A), and basically, it seems as though its a pack of lies, greatly exagerrated to make (B) look as bad as possible, and even reads to me as though (A) is trying to get (B) sacked.
It should be noted that (C) has changed their tune a little and now says that (A) was not doing anything wrong by using this software (debateable IMO), but I don't know what else is said.
Now (B) is facing disciplinary action, and he was asking me (he's a mate) what I think might happen, now my feeling is it's probably pretty difficult for either to prove much about the other, but I'm not sure. Surely it's one persons word against the others, nobody else saw anything other than (C).
TBH I hope it doesn't end too badly for (B). Personally, I have quite a disliking for (A) anyway - a typical arrogant bullied at school type would complain at almost anything. I was wondering what the PH collective thought would be the likely outcome of this?
All seems a bit childish to me. (A) sounds like a bit of a tw@t, and probably deserved a punch to put him in his place, however your mate probably shouldn't have said so to his face, at work.
(C) is a typical team leader, a cowardly arse-licker, who will side with whoever is in the the strongest position, a bit like Italy in the war really.
It will all blow over, and will be irrelevant in a week or so.
(C) is a typical team leader, a cowardly arse-licker, who will side with whoever is in the the strongest position, a bit like Italy in the war really.
It will all blow over, and will be irrelevant in a week or so.
Given that everyone seems to be embellishing their version of events, how do you know that B isn't doing the same?
In any event, people who threaten others (however intended or said) need to learn that you don't do this in the workplace....
It sounds like these lads (both of them) need to grow up, quickly.
Yeah I agree it is f
king daft, the whole thing really.
Basically most of you have these people summed up pretty accurately
Personally I dont like (A) and yeah he could use a punching but I wouldnt say this to him myself (although I did take the piss out of him on a night out once which was rather amusing as he leaves himself very open to it!). Unfortunately (B) has history of being "hot headed" which won't do him any favours. (C) is a nice enough lad who just tries to get on with things, but I don't think he is the authoriatrian type really.
king daft, the whole thing really.Basically most of you have these people summed up pretty accurately
Personally I dont like (A) and yeah he could use a punching but I wouldnt say this to him myself (although I did take the piss out of him on a night out once which was rather amusing as he leaves himself very open to it!). Unfortunately (B) has history of being "hot headed" which won't do him any favours. (C) is a nice enough lad who just tries to get on with things, but I don't think he is the authoriatrian type really.
So A was doing something wrong
B didn't like
C - the guy in charge - agreed
A made a sarky comment
B offered him out
A complained to management
C when asked probably said, yes shouldn't be doing this, but B over reacted.
A probably shouldn't have been looking in other peoples windows, or be like being undermined in front of team leader. So went crawling to management about B.
B offered him out at work
C Doesn't really give to much of a st about what happened
So all in all we have
Wet Lettuce No 1 - The one who went to the boss
Wet Lettuce No 2 - The man who offered his colleague out at work in front of his team leader
Wet Lettuce No 3 - The team leader who should of told both of them the situation as it was happening.
B didn't like
C - the guy in charge - agreed
A made a sarky comment
B offered him out
A complained to management
C when asked probably said, yes shouldn't be doing this, but B over reacted.
A probably shouldn't have been looking in other peoples windows, or be like being undermined in front of team leader. So went crawling to management about B.
B offered him out at work
C Doesn't really give to much of a s
t about what happenedSo all in all we have
Wet Lettuce No 1 - The one who went to the boss
Wet Lettuce No 2 - The man who offered his colleague out at work in front of his team leader
Wet Lettuce No 3 - The team leader who should of told both of them the situation as it was happening.
pbirkett said:
Turbo cab said:
Can you not go to the managment and give your chain of events?
I wasn't there and it was nothing to do with me, but I was just wondering as I wouldn't really want to see a mate get into deep st because of that snivelling little tosser.the management should take a very dim view of a's actions as it opens the organisation up to legal action, c should have stopped him at the time.
b was right to say he should not have been doing it, but he took it far too far. perhaps you should talk to the management and say it all seems a bit handbags at 3 paces, but make them aware of what a was doing as if someone had seen the camera on their window, they instantly have a case against your employer.
i hope this is correct, its what i have been told by the guys at work who look after the cctv at our place. mind its so crap where i work, when people have walked off with IT kit its lucky if you can make out 2 arms, 2 legs and a head
jesta1865 said:
well for one thing your cctv system should not be able to see let alone zoom into someones window. the cameras should not be able to traverse round that far etc.
the management should take a very dim view of a's actions as it opens the organisation up to legal action, c should have stopped him at the time.
b was right to say he should not have been doing it, but he took it far too far. perhaps you should talk to the management and say it all seems a bit handbags at 3 paces, but make them aware of what a was doing as if someone had seen the camera on their window, they instantly have a case against your employer.
i hope this is correct, its what i have been told by the guys at work who look after the cctv at our place. mind its so crap where i work, when people have walked off with IT kit its lucky if you can make out 2 arms, 2 legs and a head
Well normally most of them block out / censor peoples windows, but I guess this one doesn't - a lot of the sites are in highly built up areas so its inevitable they'll overlook some houses some times.the management should take a very dim view of a's actions as it opens the organisation up to legal action, c should have stopped him at the time.
b was right to say he should not have been doing it, but he took it far too far. perhaps you should talk to the management and say it all seems a bit handbags at 3 paces, but make them aware of what a was doing as if someone had seen the camera on their window, they instantly have a case against your employer.
i hope this is correct, its what i have been told by the guys at work who look after the cctv at our place. mind its so crap where i work, when people have walked off with IT kit its lucky if you can make out 2 arms, 2 legs and a head
I doubt management would want to hear anything from me since I wasn't even in same room when it happened. I'd hope it was pretty obvious to them thats what it was anyway.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff