BULLIES

[brothermagrew]

Victims have problems with people in authority:
This is one of the tactics that bullies and abusive employers use. They claim that the target who is busy exposing incompetence, negligence etc has "a problem with authority". Some less-than-competent mental health professionals claim this too. The truth is that targets have an uncanny knack of spotting fakes, fraudsters and weak, inadequate and incompetent people abusing their position of power; said incompetents also have an uncanny knack of being able to spot who can see through them. Targets of bullying are accountability-focused so they must be ruthlessly controlled, and if this doesn't work, they must be eliminated by all means possible.

[BELIAL]

Cracker
But on a positive note, whats the score if you refuse to be a victim,and people in 'authority ' have a problem with you?
Personally , I favour kicking the scum when they are down,and if you spot blood ,do a lot more kicking

[brothermagrew]

Cracker
But on a positive note, whats the score if you refuse to be a victim,and people in 'authority ' have a problem with you?
Personally , I favour kicking the scum when they are down,and if you spot blood ,do a lot more kicking

I would say good for any employee who refuses to be a victim, but would never advocate any form of retaliatory violence, and as for people in 'authority' who may have a problem with an employee. In the workplace, the employer bears the vicarious liability caused by the bully's behaviour. Employers owe each employee a duty of care. Employment law is framed around the employee holding the employer responsible. No one signs a contract agreeing to work in a war zone.

And if a target is truly bullied then why don't more employers side with the target? Employers eliminate the target because they (employers) have failed to fulfil their legal duty and provide their employees with a safe work environment. Employers will do anything to avoid accountability and having to pay damages. Some wrongly would suggest that it's just a personality clash, they don't and never will see eye to eye with each other.

A personality clash is where two people normally of equal rank or status or value or power don't see eye to eye. Bullying consists of a pattern of persistent, daily, trivial, nitpicking criticism, isolation, exclusion, undermining, discrediting, setting up to fail, etc on a target who the bully has disempowered and disenfranchised. HR departments frequently write off bullying as a "personality clash", much of course to the delight of the bully who is always trying to heap all the blame onto their target.

Many are of the opinion that you'll never be able to prove bullying. The same argument was put forward before the introduction of laws on sexual harassment and race discrimination. The solution is education, you can only never prove what you don't understand. The definition of an adult is a person who is capable of and willing to accept responsibility for their behaviour. Any adult who is not responsible for their behaviour has grounds for diminished responsibility and needs to be subject to the provisions of the Mental Health Act. Bullying is behaviour, behaviour is a choice, therefore bullying is a choice. Many bullies are in a position of management or power and therefore do not require help - except in their specious attempts to deceive others and to evade accountability and sanction.

Bullies rely on people feeling sorry for them and will ruthlessly exploit decent people's urge to "help" them.

[BELIAL]

Even better Nice metaphorical boots by the way

[brothermagrew]

Even better Nice metaphorical boots by the way

That often vented phrase quoted by managers "You do know of course that there's a fine line between bullying and tough management".
Has anyone heard anyone say "there's a fine line between a normal relationship and sexual harassment" or "there's a fine line between marriage and domestic violence" or "there's a fine line between sex education and pedophilia".

Bullying (by a serial bully) and managing have as much in common as Adolf Hitler and Mother Teresa. The objectives of the serial bully are power, control domination and subjugation, achieved largely through manipulation, deception and abuse of power, "Management" is a convenient cover for the serial bully's disordered, dysfunctional behaviour.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

That often vented phrase quoted by managers "You do know of course that there's a fine line between bullying and tough management".

Fully agree with your sentiments Brothermagrew and if I am ever asked that question I always answer "No, I don't agree".


Tough management has nothing at all to do with forcing workers to work overtime unpaid or paid, nothing to do with making people feel so stressed they go off sick, nothing at all to do with making snide comments, nothing at all to do with "bollocking" someone in full view of everyone else, and nothing again to do with making a decision and when asked why saying "Because I said so". All these traits are signs of a weak manager who is under stress but wants to appear strong.

A good manager can be a tough manager if he approaches those colleagues not pulling their weight, does not let stress affect his decisions or approach to staff, and ensures that workload is fairly distributed. A tough but good manager will stand by his decisions but be prepared to explain and discuss them.

Unfortunately within Royal Mail, management seem to think that a Tough manger must have the qualities listed in my 2nd paragraph and most have never heard or seem not to understand those in paragraph 3. Fortunately those that can tell the difference are usually the best of all managers, its a pity there's not so many of them around.

[stokes11eg]

Got it in one, True Blue.It is always the real slackers and chancers who Management won't stand up to, whilst taking their frustrations out on the good workers.Say no more.

[brothermagrew]

RESPONSIBILITIES OF ROYAL MAIL MANAGERS RE: HARASSMENT OR BULLYING

All managers and others who lead groups of employees are responsible for ensuring that harassment or bullying does not occur in their work areas. They must ensure that:

They fully undertand Royal Mail's harassment policy and are able to offer advice on the procedure when required to do so.
They advise and inform their team to increase awareness and understanding of Royal Mail's harassment policy.
They publicly promote Royal Mail's harassment policy.
Their work environment is free of visual harassment, e.g. pin-ups and graffiti.
They are alert to physical and verbal harassment in their work area and deal with it immediately, whether or not it is brought formally to their attention.
They are supportive of individuals who state that they have been harassed, and take full account of their feelings and perception of the situation.
They maintain complete confidentiality relating to all aspects of cases of harassment at all times and only mention or discuss the case with someone else on a NEED to know basis.

They follow up alleged harassment to ensure there is no victimisation.
They discourage, do not participate in, encourage or condone gossip relating to cases of actual or alleged harassment, and take appropriate steps to prevent or stop such gossip in their work area.

They initiate and complete investigations of alleged harassment, normally within 5 working days.
They documentall complaints and copy to Personal Managers.

[brothermagrew]

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 has created a new means by which victims of harassment in the workplace can obtain compensation. Most discussions regarding the Protection from Harassment Act has tended to concentrate on it's criminal offences and use of injunctions. It is however, important to remember that section 3(2) of the Act allows civil courts to award damages to victims of harassment for

'(amongst other things) any anxiety caused by the harassment and any financial loss resulting from the harassment'

If someone is harassed at their place of work they could decide to sue their employer for damages using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 rather than by going to an Employment Tribunal. In some circumstances this route could be simpler particularly if there could be technical arguments as to whether they were an employee or a self employed contractor. Those employment law technicalities would not be relevant in any legal claim under the Act.

All that would be relevant is the fact that the harassment occurred, the damage it caused and whether the employer was vicariously liable for permitting, or not preventing harassment. The Law relating to Vicarious Liability was clarified and extended by the House of Lords in the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 and following this in the case of Majrowski v Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust [2006] UKHL 34 the House of Lords held that an Employer would be vicariously liable under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 for damages arising from Harassment of an employee by other employees.

The Time Limit for bringing a claim for damages under section 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is 6 years which is far longer than the 3 month time limit for bringing claims for Racial or Sexual Discrimination.


http://www.harassmentlaw.co.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[brothermagrew]

A little venting at home and in private can do you good..........


Even though it is highly tempting to lose your temper and yell insults at a workplace bully, don't do it. You would be falling into a trap from which you may never recover. Nevertheless, you may need to vent some anger and frustration. Couple of exercises that can be practiced in the confines of your own home when you are alone and not within earshot of anyone else.



Short version to vent at a bully:
You're a backstabbing, condescending, conniving, manipulative son-of-a-bitch!

Long version to vent at a bully:
You're an abusive, backstabbing, blame-shifting, condescending, conniving, controlling, deceiving, double-crossing, egotistical, evasive, fault-finding, hateful, hypocritical, irrational, irritating, judgemental, lying, manipulative, nitpicking, paranoid, pretentious, pushy, sadistic, sarcastic, self-important, self-righteous, sneaky, two-faced, underhanded, unreasonable son-of-a-bitch!

[DGP1]

You're an abusive, backstabbing, blame-shifting, condescending, conniving, controlling, deceiving, double-crossing, egotistical, evasive, fault-finding, hateful, hypocritical, irrational, irritating, judgemental, lying, manipulative, nitpicking, paranoid, pretentious, pushy, sadistic, sarcastic, self-important, self-righteous, sneaky, two-faced, underhanded, unreasonable son-of-a-bitch!

You must've met my DOM then

[stokes11eg]

Though you were talking about my ex there.

[ghostgirl]

Got it in one, True Blue.It is always the real slackers and chancers who Management won't stand up to, whilst taking their frustrations out on the good workers.Say no more.

So true stokes11eg.....so very true...this is very thing that is happening to me at the moment or should I say this is what they are trying to do to me at the moment - unsucessfully of course and if it continues tomorrow then I'm off to see the good old union rep!!!

[dvbuk55]

You're an abusive, backstabbing, blame-shifting, condescending, conniving, controlling, deceiving, double-crossing, egotistical, evasive, fault-finding, hateful, hypocritical, irrational, irritating, judgemental, lying, manipulative, nitpicking, paranoid, pretentious, pushy, sadistic, sarcastic, self-important, self-righteous, sneaky, two-faced, underhanded, unreasonable son-of-a-bitch!

All true of course - but apart from them - do I have any serious faults?

[brothermagrew]

You're an abusive, backstabbing, blame-shifting, condescending, conniving, controlling, deceiving, double-crossing, egotistical, evasive, fault-finding, hateful, hypocritical, irrational, irritating, judgemental, lying, manipulative, nitpicking, paranoid, pretentious, pushy, sadistic, sarcastic, self-important, self-righteous, sneaky, two-faced, underhanded, unreasonable son-of-a-bitch!

All true of course - but apart from them - do I have any serious faults?

Portnoy's