General discussion

Locked

I've been fired twice

By carmen2003tg ·
I just read article posted about retailiation in the work place. I've been fired twice. The first time I never complained and was harassed constantly for fraternizing with an another employee even after their leaving the company for another job. My second job I was constantly harassed told I was too fat and subjected to sexual harassment, couldn't even conduct myself appropriately on the job. Picked on about even the slightest mistake that I make. Watched constantly and then after reporting an incident after a year of employment was repeatly called a "*****" in the office because I was not terminated for being reprimanded in a manner other employees deemed appropriate. I was humiliated on my first job by these people about vibrators and sex toys and then went to the second job to be humiliated about not having sex. I filed a complaint with EEOC and now I'm having trouble finding a lawyer in the state of FL to represent me because I was accused of sexual relations with an office worker, and after 16+ years in the industry, that I never did any work on my own. Adjust my luck my past AVP was my future Director of the company that I was hired from the second time. These idiots were trying to catch me being a ***** out in the streets by following me too. And now I'm on depression medication over a complete myth and lie from within that company. I got violent on the first job, and the second job, all I said was "God damnit" and some religious fanatic overheard it and whoa, no more job. This was following my previous reprimand, in which I conducted myself appropriately by not having any contact with the employee I was accused of threatening. She actually mentioned that I threatened her AND her whole team. She was the whole team, in her eyes. Someone I was suppose to see Jesus in all of that stuff at the workplace, so yes religious harassment too.

I may be just venting pretty strongly now

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

More Harassment

by Smedley54 In reply to I've been fired twice

On a previous job, a female subordinate was questioned about our relationship. Executive Management had decided to purge the department (their prerogative, no matter other implications)and was looking for grounds to terminate each of us. Unfortunately, she became upset and quit, but there was nothing improper in our relationship.

Harassment charges are misused by employees and management, and legitimate complaints ignored, so often that the accusation is almost meaningless. Personal relationships kept outside the office are not the office's business. Keep personal and professional lives separated, then at work stay polite, stay professional, and never give them an excuse. Then find a hobby that relieves the tension - I like target shooting.

Collapse -

looked for the relationship outside of work

by carmen2003tg In reply to More Harassment

Than there is a problem with professionalism is in the department and that relationship is looked for outside of work. Seems to me that I wasn't the problem based on your response. Thanks, Carmen

Collapse -

honestly speaking

by shraven In reply to I've been fired twice

Carmen
You need to take a step back from this.
Your rant does you no service. It sounds unintelligent, it reads extremely unorganized and it appears very one-sided. You point out a whole slew of wrongs against you and posture yourself as being blameless. Yet you admit to violence and possibly a sexual relationship in your first employment. Work relationships are always dangerous and you take whatever risks come when you engage in them. Violence in the workplace is never going to win you any battles, you should know that.
In my experience, cases like these are never one way streets and yours certainly sounds like you have contributed to the situation with your own actions and responses. In my opinion, you need to grow up and realize that life is not fair, but how you experience life is determined very much by how you respond to this unfairness.
I don't think you're being honest with yourself about your own responsibility in this stream of events. Lawyers are often money hungry scabs (sorry lawyers!) and that you can't find a single one to represent you gives me the impression that you really don't have anywhere near the case you represent yourself as having in your rant. Take a long hard honest look at these events and ask yourself what you might have done differently at every step of the way. I'm not saying you weren't wronged, but it certainly appears that you've done little help yourself by holding onto the anger and resentment and turning it to hate for those around you.

Collapse -

No sexual relationship... and no hint of that implied

by carmen2003tg In reply to honestly speaking

I didn't read any further because if you saw me you would think they were joking half out of their mind. No sexual relationship involved with my co-workers. Period. I'm ranting at the accusation.

I did speak to a lawyer willing to handle a case but instead of retaliation is has to be defined as sexual harassment. Making a long story short.

Thanks for your response

Collapse -

Troubleshoot This

by RaDerX In reply to I've been fired twice

Common theme here is you. Not them. YOU.

Collapse -

You sound like a problem child with the lack of detail

by SlappyMcnasty In reply to I've been fired twice

Following a common theme here from other posts...
From your rant I can give you no sympathy or advice.
It isn't easy to fire someone in todays world. There is way too much left out of this story for me to come to any other conclusion than you "don't work and play well with others"

Collapse -

Believe me they did have a problem firing me

by carmen2003tg In reply to You sound like a problem ...

I ignored much of their crap initially. They couldn't control my friendships. It was not easy task. An affair the never happened is hard to prove.

Thanks. And yes I have become a problem child because of this. You should ask my parents and past supervisors. Great evaluations my whole career. Even in the mess of trying to prove this

Collapse -

take a look at column/rant/reply-just posted

by wrzfamily In reply to You sound like a problem ...

I've been out of contact due to humongous windstorm here in the PNW. Just got power last night. I love big weather.
I agree with you about the dearth of info in my first post (yeah, I'm a NOOOOB)A lot of what bothered me about Cohen's column was the conclusions he came to without anywhere near enough info. As benign as Cohen suggested the porn might've been, it may have been the tip of a big ugly iceberg.

Persons who "play well with others" end up selling used cars as a consequence of reluctant early parenthood.

Collapse -

this is my second attempt to post column, rant, reply

by wrzfamily In reply to take a look at column/ran ...

I am including a copy of Cohen?s column, my response, and ?The Ethicist?s? reply to me:





>

>Q: I am an Internet technician. While installing software on my

>company's computer network, I happened on a lot of pornographic

>pictures in the president's personal directory, including some of young

>children - clearly less than 18, possibly early teens. It is probably

>illegal and is absolutely immoral. Must I call the police? I think so, but I need my job.

>

>S.M.N., Vancouver, British Columbia

>

>A: It is a crime to possess child pornography, and understandably: The

>sexual exploitation of children is reprehensible. Yet you have no legal

>obligation to contact the police, nor should you. The situation is too

>fraught with uncertainty. These photographs might depict - legally -

>not children but young-looking adults. The images could be digitally altered.

>Your boss may have acquired free (albeit illegal) images rather than

>bought them and provided a financial incentive to those who harm

>children. Someone other than your boss may have downloaded the pictures.

>

>In any case, while protecting your job should not forestall your

>calling the police, the consequences of doing so should. Even if your

>boss were acquitted of criminal charges, the accusation itself imperils

>his job, his reputation and the company. If convicted, he faces years

>in prison. (Arizona recently sentenced a man to 200 years on similar

>grounds.) Since you have no reason to believe your boss has had

>improper contact with children, you should not subject him to such

>ferocious repercussions for looking at forbidden pictures.

>

>Douglas A. Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University and an

>expert on sentencing, describes the rationale for these laws: "We

>punish the kind of possession many concede is not inherently harmful

>but which contributes to behavior which produces much harm." That is,

>by stopping buyers, even those who have had no contact with an actual

>child, we hope to stop sellers, who do exploit children. Is this

>effective? Tough to prove. Berman observes

>that: "The criminalization of child porn consumption is premised on

>contestable utilitarian calculations."

>

>Why not target child-porn producers directly, much as we differentiate

>drug dealers from drug users? We try, Berman explains, but it's not

>easy: "A lot of these Web sites are offshore. And the domestic ones are

>good at covering their tracks." But if the intent of the law is

>estimable, its effect in this case would be too destructive to your

>boss and too ineffectual in protecting children for you to abet.

>

>You do have duties to your employer. Because this material is on its

>computer, the firm risks prosecution. But short of calling the cops,

>your options are few. Nor would deleting the pictures eliminate all

>legal risk; that could be seen as destroying evidence. Your best

>recourse? Alas, silence.

>

>.Readers can direct their questions and comments by e-mail to

>ethicist@nytimes.com. This column originates in The New York Times Magazine.

>

>Below is my first response:

>

>Randy Cohen:

>

> Your Dec. 3ird column was horribly disappointing. All the people

>I've asked about what they thought of it could hardly believe that you wrote it.

>The writer was not asking for any of the legal advice, but guidance on

>what would be a moral decision. Legal or not, those images were created

>for the gratification of pedophiles. Only a trained investigator could

>make a judgment of legality. You are not a lawyer. You are also

>absolutely unqualified to judge whether or not unknown consequences to

>the boss justify protecting him from an investigation that may well be

>protective of his business. The boss and law enforcement (we the

>people) have a 100% right to a full investigation. Additionally,

>neither you nor the writer knows whether or not the images may be vital

>to an ongoing investigation. In spite of your unconvincing

>acknowledgements regarding the unforgivable crimes of child abuse, it

>was clear you favored covering for a perpetrator, whomever he happened

>to be or do, over the rights of children not to be violated and

>exploited. It was ridiculous to propose the fact (?) that the writer

>did not himself know whether or not his boss or anyone else had abused

>a child as an excuse for "silence". The writer cannot be expected to personally investigate such a possibility.

>

>Legal or not, we are all morally obligated to report child pornography,

>whether you disagree with the laws and consequences of downloading

>child pornography or not. If the writer indeed uncovered the boss's

>ugly little secret, and then got canned for it, there are very good

>legal remedies to protect and compensate the writer from the vengeance

>of whomever the pedophile is.

>

>Mr. Cohen, you're a dad. You should be passionately advocating any and

>all methods used to identify and persecute pedophiles, even the ones who "only"

>view child pornography.

>

>Below is Cohen's response to my letter:

>

>Thanks for the interesting note. Of course the sexual exploitation of

>children is vile; I wrote as much in my first sentence. The more

>difficult question is how to respond to those who do not produce but

>consume it. I believe that child porn producers should be vigorously

>prosecuted but that its consumers should receive a more therapeutic

>response. Sadly, that is not the case.Reporting this in-house amounts to passing the buck, letting someone

>else send the boss to prison for looking at an illegal picture.

>However, in S.M.N's particular case, this is a very small company

>owned by the person who seems to have the child porn, so that limits

>the options S.M.N. has and obviates those measures you suggest. But

>even if this were a larger company and there were higher-ups to whom he

>could report it, he should still be reluctant to do so because the

>consequences to the boss and his family are, as I wrote, likely to be

>wildly disproportional to any actual harm he'd done and would have a vanishingly small chance of protecting any child.

>If you can think of another action S.M.N. could take that might do some

>genuine good, I'd be happy to hear about it. But to me, the unwise laws

>concerning child porn consumers foreclose any action on his part. It

>is demoralizing to do nothing in such a situation but worse still to do harm.

>

>RC

Collapse -

Are you in the correct thread?

by Dumbterminal In reply to this is my second attempt ...

Not sure whats going on here either...

Related Discussions

Related Forums