Discrimination/Harrassment
anaconstr
8 Posts
Sorry this is long:
An employee is leaving soon, the employee gave a six-month notice to help the company find someone to replace her. The situation is this: One of the supervisors may be discriminating against her. A replacement was hired a couple of months ago. The leaving(l)employee asks on a daily basis if she can help with something and is told no, if she tries to do anything she is told to leave it alone. The supervisor has also made some very rude comments about the (l) employee to higher management. Because business is a little slow, the (l) employee was told that it would be good if time was taken off, this included the replacement employee. The supervisor complained that the (l) employee was taking time off, something that the supervisor wanted to do before this employee left. When this changed the supervisor decided that she did not like this and told the (l) employee to take the next day off. The supervisor complained that the (l) employee was not performing her job, even though the leaving employee asked daily if there is anything that can be done. When the leaving employee gets up and does something, the supervisor tells her no, leave it for the replacement employee.
One night the supervisor called the (l) employee told her that she did not need to come into work the next day, that the supervisor would go in, because she had to take care of somethings. The (l) employee asked if the supervisor needed anything to let her know because she did not want to take the day off. The supervisor agreed. However, the (l) employee found out that the supervisor had called the new girl to come in prior to calling her to tell her to take the day off. That same night the supervisor told the (l) employee that she was upset with her because she made a mistake 14 days prior and that she was not happy because (l) employee sits around and does nothing. The employee leaving wants to do something but the supervisor won't let her.
Here's the worry: Can the (l) employee view this has harrassment from the supervisor? It seems clear enough that the supervisor has some issues with the (l) employee. To call her, tell her not to come to work because there is nothing to do, but calls in the new employee does not look good. And what can be done about the supervisor? The (l) employee did not have to give such an advanced notice but was trying to help the company out and feels that this supervisor has a personal vendeted against her. Our company has no policies on this type of matter.
An employee is leaving soon, the employee gave a six-month notice to help the company find someone to replace her. The situation is this: One of the supervisors may be discriminating against her. A replacement was hired a couple of months ago. The leaving(l)employee asks on a daily basis if she can help with something and is told no, if she tries to do anything she is told to leave it alone. The supervisor has also made some very rude comments about the (l) employee to higher management. Because business is a little slow, the (l) employee was told that it would be good if time was taken off, this included the replacement employee. The supervisor complained that the (l) employee was taking time off, something that the supervisor wanted to do before this employee left. When this changed the supervisor decided that she did not like this and told the (l) employee to take the next day off. The supervisor complained that the (l) employee was not performing her job, even though the leaving employee asked daily if there is anything that can be done. When the leaving employee gets up and does something, the supervisor tells her no, leave it for the replacement employee.
One night the supervisor called the (l) employee told her that she did not need to come into work the next day, that the supervisor would go in, because she had to take care of somethings. The (l) employee asked if the supervisor needed anything to let her know because she did not want to take the day off. The supervisor agreed. However, the (l) employee found out that the supervisor had called the new girl to come in prior to calling her to tell her to take the day off. That same night the supervisor told the (l) employee that she was upset with her because she made a mistake 14 days prior and that she was not happy because (l) employee sits around and does nothing. The employee leaving wants to do something but the supervisor won't let her.
Here's the worry: Can the (l) employee view this has harrassment from the supervisor? It seems clear enough that the supervisor has some issues with the (l) employee. To call her, tell her not to come to work because there is nothing to do, but calls in the new employee does not look good. And what can be done about the supervisor? The (l) employee did not have to give such an advanced notice but was trying to help the company out and feels that this supervisor has a personal vendeted against her. Our company has no policies on this type of matter.
Comments
>the leaving employee getting her pants in a wad. If YOU are indeed the
>leaving employee, you should arrange to leave this week and get your
>feelings off your sleeve. If it is someone besides you who is leaving,
>this advice applies to her as well.
First let me say that this employee is not me. Second let me state that this employee has been a help to this company. The reason that she gave a six months notice was because she, from the start, knew she would only be around for two years (military). We are not just going to cut her or treat her like that. That would be wrong. There is plenty of things that can be done by this employee. The supervisor has the problem and could utilize the leaving employee if she wanted too. If we could, we'd get rid of the supervisor!
Third, for you to talk the way you do is not very professional either. There is no panties in a wad here or feelings on the sleeve. We have had problems with this same supervisor in the past with other employees.
Additionally, the new hire for two months with the outgoing employee is way too much. Should have set a date no more than a month, and better for two weeks, before the leaving employee actually left. Training, good bye parties and poof, you're done.
>employee, then why can't you address the supervisor for inability to
>delegate, and the lack of ability to do the job - supervise? You said
>there was plenty to go around, so that means something must not be
>getting accomplished by not allowing the leaving employee to do
>anything or even come to work.
>
>Additionally, the new hire for two months with the outgoing employee
>is way too much. Should have set a date no more than a month, and
>better for two weeks, before the leaving employee actually left.
>Training, good bye parties and poof, you're done.
The company made the mistake of bringing someone in that early to learn everything. The new girl should only be on a part-time basis until the other one leaves. Thanks for the reply. It's a rollercoaster and hopefully one day the sup leaves! A underqualified female was hired over qualified people because the sup doesn't want anyone "smarter" than her to work there! Does this tell you something about the sup?
Thanks anyway.......
>posted indicates any kind of discrimination or harrassment. If the
>supervisor prefers to have the new employee do specific tasks that's
>within his right as a manager. Also, as Don has noted, if you ask
>questions you have to be able to hear the answers without taking
>offense.
I am not taking offense and can take the responses fine. I was not expecting to hear comments like "panties in a wad" etc. This topic could go deeper but I will leave it at this. The supervisor basically punishes the employee because she has a personal problem with her. It is not the first time she has done it and probably won't be the last. Having her written up or anything at that matter won't be done. There are NO guidelines, policies, or anything else that the company has; and the owner will not do anything.
Thanks for the information.
1. Cut the leaving employee back to part time until she leaves
2. Pay out severance pay and have her leave early
3. Set up a schedule with both employees and have them job share until the current employee leaves. If it were me, I would set up job sharing. That way the leaving employee can train the new employee and both can do the job. It would also leave the leaving employee less exposure to the supervisor.
Just my ideas.
Valentine
I can't let it go by that in the same line the poster mentioned the famous 'panties in a wad' and 'subjects that can go deeper'. There's got to be an intended pun there somewhere. By the way, once again, it was not I who first mentioned that word if you would care to reread my first response. The item in my post that got in a wad was entirely genter neutral. x:-)
anaconstr: There's the problem! How can you possibly perform any HR functions when you don't have a clue if something is - or more to the point - would be considered wrong? And what steps you should take if it is? If HR is indeed part of your job, it may be time to look for another!
>are NO guidelines, policies, or anything else that the company has;
>and the owner will not do anything."
>
>anaconstr: There's the problem! How can you possibly perform any HR
>functions when you don't have a clue if something is - or more to the
>point - would be considered wrong? And what steps you should take if
>it is? If HR is indeed part of your job, it may be time to look for
>another!
This is just not directed to you but other responses.
Look I am not trying to offend any. I just wanted some sound advice. Yes, I am a female. No, I am not in charge of the supervisor. No, I am not pouting, sorry!
Again, thanks for your time, this will be my last post, and all take care!
Signed,
"The nonpouter"
I haven't been on the forum long but I have learned not to take anything personally but to look for the advice needed and have come to enjoy the crazy zings, especially from Don D. He has a unique way with words and sayings :-)
Valentine
Please, can we lighted up and read the responses to posts correctly? Don, I'll back you up- it was PANTS!
>the real question is- did these wadded panties have the confederate
>flag on them?
>
>Please, can we lighted up and read the responses to posts correctly?
>Don, I'll back you up- it was PANTS!
Ha!Ha! That is funny. If I misread PANTS, it is because I read in a hurry. Second, normally the phrase is "panties in a wad". I take it these comments like "did these wadded panties have the confederate flag on them", mean that you have nothing better to do. I'll make sure that I don't recommend this site to anyone else. And by the way, I am not from the South!
You could also try a piece of chocolate. x:P
All I was saying was how difficult it must be to perform HR without any policies or guidelines in place. I was wondering if perhaps you were in another department - it's usually Payroll - and these situations got dumped in your lap because there is no HR.
Y'know, HR folks are as - or more - likely to get screamed at because we made something bad happen rather than thanked because a situation was saved. Thick skin is usually a requirement.
>Including mine.
>
>All I was saying was how difficult it must be to perform HR without
>any policies or guidelines in place. I was wondering if perhaps you
>were in another department - it's usually Payroll - and these
>situations got dumped in your lap because there is no HR.
>
>Y'know, HR folks are as - or more - likely to get screamed at because
>we made something bad happen rather than thanked because a situation
>was saved. Thick skin is usually a requirement.
I am not upset nor pouty nor anything else. Like I stated, I should have read through ALL of the post before posting myself and reworded everything to sound more organized. I am not offended, but have shyed away. The postings are not what I expected!
It is very hard to work for a company that has no policies or procedures, or keeps documentation; especially when the experience that you have is much more stable and the type of education you have is more intense than the so-called "supervisor/manager" who has no type of formal education or training. The things that I have witnesses can hold consequences for the company but it seems the top dog is blinded. As my comment on the hiring. The new girl was brought in temporary for two days. An ad was placed for a replacement. The sup interviewed two very-qualified employees, she either told them the position would not open for several months or made some other type of excuse. She than decided to keep this new girl on. The new girl is nice, but has no skills whatsoever, none. She doesn't know what a drop down menu is on the computer. Why would someone want to hire a person without skills, have to show them how to type Word documents,etc. when a qualified person can be hired? For me, this is hard to see because I am aware of the consequences on some regulations. I beat my head against the wall wondering what is wrong with the sup. It isn't my business but I would want a person who has skills and a reliable employment history. My goodness when I started, prior employee information was released....all or any of it...without permission from the prior employee. I guess that I have just beat my head up against the wall for awhile and needed an outlet. I will take your comments lightly...just remember that sometimes us newbies are trying to be serious and are not prepared for some comments...
Thanks,
PS I will change my login to "Not Poutin"
It would indeed be blasphemous to have underclothing of any description made of cloth resembling a flag of honor, that one or any other. To ANA: please give us a fair chance at regaining your respect. May I suggest you spend at least one hour visiting various posts before you jump to conclusions and not attend again. We need all the talent we can get, including, most importantly, new talent and new visitors. Stay and you will laugh this off one day soon and be one of our best participants. Don D.
>HR too long to ever make a statement including 'panties in a wad'
>except at home, in the event my wife's were. I consider it a sexist
>remark and am allowed to make such sexist remarks only at home, where
>I have the freedom to most anything I like. Instead I might use the
>generic 'pants in a wad' or 'twisted shorts'. There's nothing
>disrespectful meant, only an attempt to paint the picture of a
>squirming, terribly uncomfortable person, with whom most can identify
>at some point or another.
>
It's true "terribly uncomfortable person" and uneasy about posting. But "PANTS" in wad doesn't paint the picture......Also, as an HR person would you not think that some people would take "PANTS in a wad" as a sexist remark as well? Just curious.....
It also sounds like you are in a no-win situation, with a bad supervisor, and a owner or CEO with some problems. I, too, have had to deal with a supervisor who didn't want anyone in her department who knew more than she did. We got rid of her (and replaced her with someone who knew more than she did!).
It seems to me like you may have to just live and learn through this situation and polish up the ol' resume. It doesn't pay to keep banging your head against the wall indefinitely. Anyway, welcome to the Forum, I was glad to see that you had possibly changed your mind and were thinking about changing your logon rather than giving up on us. Have a better day, and come back to visit with us.
If you stick around, I think you'll see an amazing amount of good advice and mutual support. If you decide to leave, we wish you the best.
James Sokolowski
HRhero.com