Should the poor guy get fired?
- Thread starter Edmond Dantes
- Start date
In this morning's finance bulletin he was not there and his computer was off. Blank screens everywhere and the only staff were waaaaaay in the background.
If it were a prank then they can't really fire him as he could alledge bullying and harassment himself. There is a person in my office who would do this sort of thing to someone and he is a total juvenile who was recently promoted to superintendent. Once he made a plasticine model of a penis and balls and left it on someone's desk in full view of the whole department. Despite policies against this sort of thing he never gets reprimanded and HR just laugh it off.
If it were a prank then they can't really fire him as he could alledge bullying and harassment himself. There is a person in my office who would do this sort of thing to someone and he is a total juvenile who was recently promoted to superintendent. Once he made a plasticine model of a penis and balls and left it on someone's desk in full view of the whole department. Despite policies against this sort of thing he never gets reprimanded and HR just laugh it off.
I see we have nothing more newsworthy.....................
ta
rolf
ta
rolf
In other news, Rolf has posted 7777 times.
Whoever wrote that peabrain story should be fired.
"R rated", "soft porn"? lmao.
Does anyone put their name on such literal escrement?
"R rated", "soft porn"? lmao.
Does anyone put their name on such literal escrement?
Hah! What if Miranda Kerr set it all up for some publicity???
looks like he keeps his job
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...er-keeps-his-job/story-fn4xq4zx-1225827194574
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...er-keeps-his-job/story-fn4xq4zx-1225827194574
What gets me is if he was woman looking at say David Beckham in undies" it would be all about empowerment , equality and not porn. Double standards.
If he was set up those who did should pay. I would say he was because why would you turn around?
Peter
If he was set up those who did should pay. I would say he was because why would you turn around?
Peter
I don't think it would have any difference. I don't think it was "porn" either, and the issue isn't (in my opinion) that he was looking at naked or near naked photos, but that it was clearly in view of the television camera.
I believe if the roles were reversed and a woman was watching a naked/near naked man, there would have been the same hue and cry.
Curious as to what others think? I just don't think it is a male/female thing at all.
I agree on both points. This wasn't porn and the reaction I'd say was probably moreso because he was caught on national TV.
I'd say most people saw it as amusing, and would have shown the same reaction if it was a woman viewing a man in the same level of undress and pose.
The employer would have had more of an issue with the lack of professionalism and breach of behaviour code resulting in embarassment to them.
Unless the guy was a repeat offender of unacceptable workplace practices, I don't see what credible grounds they would have had to sack him.
I think porn is in the eye of the beholder. If it turns someone on then it's porn to them, whether there's nudity or not. And if someone else sees an image as art and isn't turned on, then it's not porn to them, whether there's nudity or not.
There is however one exception to the rule: If it was Miranda Kerr it was porn
