Suppose you helped run a place, and there were two people, who we will call Person A and Person B. Person A reported Person B to you for something like harassment or maybe theft of property. Maybe you have a one-chance policy or maybe Person B is a repeat offender, but in any case, you removed Person B from the place you help run. However, for some reason, Person A eventually had a change of heart or expressed guilt over how it played out (or maybe they just miss them) and asked you if Person B could be forgiven some time afterward. Would you unban Person B? And/or would you respond some other way?

  • dumblederp@aussie.zoneEnglish
    2·
    3 天前

    So you, the manager has Jane and John, Jane complained about John and you let John go. Now Jane has to carry the kegs and work the shit shifts and wants John to come back and do the shit work? John’s fuckin outta there, he got let go or demoted without investigation, he’s looking for work elsewhere. Jane’s a snake, she made an issue of something then after getting her way wanted the punishment wound back. I’d lament losing John and look to be replacing Jane. …?

    And WTF is a one-chance policy vs repeat offender? Which person are you in this story and which person’s perspective are you trying to work out?

    I used male and female characters because that’s the common direction of harassment, not the only direction.

    • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.eeOPEnglish
      11·
      3 天前

      A repeat offender in this situation would refer to people who are operating based on something like a three strike system (as in they can get in trouble three times before they’re removed) and used up the other strikes before using up the last one by being in trouble for upsetting the person in question who later has a change of heart. In this situation, you could surmise that, since the last strike was unfairly used up, you could undo it and let them back. Or you could think “well, it kind of blends in the other two strikes and how those past rule violations fairly used up those strikes”.

      A one-chance policy would simply be the opposite of that. That’s where you say one rule violation seals one’s fate.

      The specific example doesn’t have to be deceptive in nature. Suppose the way in which the “John” corespondent violates the boundaries of the “Jane” corespondent is to make recordings of the latter or challenge their conception of privacy. Or maybe one verbally offended the other. These are not what one would call universally set lines. You remove the offender, but later their removal is lamented. “I am sorry but I want to revise those lines [which would be in favor of the John correspondent who may come back if you decide they can]” the Jane correspondent says. And technically you could have an analog to this that doesn’t need all those people; people go to jail all the time for breaking laws that get removed a month later, to demonstrate what level that can work on. It’s here the question of what to do lies if it were up to you. Not that I’ve ever met an honest Jane.

      • dumblederp@aussie.zoneEnglish
        2·
        3 天前

        Sounds like workplace behavioural policy, which is a massive and well written about topic. Ask a manager threads elsewhere will probably be able to give you a clearer answer. There’s no one answer. “That top looks nice on you Jane” is not the same as “Here look my dick in the copy room with the door shut” kinda situation. Jane would be fair to report either if she felt uncomfortable and one would be a conversational warning from HR (One strike i guess) and the other would be a formal warning, probably firing for some kind of gross workplace misconduct.

      • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.eeOPEnglish
        11·
        4 天前

        I wish I had this kind of thing figured out. There is a “side” of me where I go by my instincts, and people criticize me for it, saying it is inconsiderate to how perspective works (because they say they aren’t seeing any acknowledgement, and this is related to a lot of the dark triad accusations I get). Sometimes (especially in the context of what people might call my anhedonia) I might shut all that down and out inside me (constituting another “side”) and do things completely based in cold hard analysis, such as with the code of honor system I showed you that one time, and people say it comes off as too robotic and “recklessly inhuman”. And sometimes, like here, one might find a third “side”, one where I can be found asking people for their input and not reflecting on my own, which has to do with what you have seen here, and people accuse me of being a weak enough decision-maker to potentially go back to those dark triad accusations. People even pejoratively/derogatively call these “[Leni’s] tripartite autism” (as well as claiming it reflects duplicity like anything is of a concealing nature). And then there’s a fourth “side” which has me trying to be an “opportunist” about things, especially as an alternative to being objecting to so much that I experience, and people flip, calling it “manipulative” to make lemonade when life gives you lemons. If you have a secret to your success with people, I’d love to know it.