We have had HR scroll through old teams messages where appropriate language was used in jest.
A complaint was made regarding another employee but not regarding what I have said and HR opened old messages from the team.
Any advice here?
Advice on Possible Termination over Work Messages
Comments
Yep, realise you're XPNDable.
Any advi
sce here?Read your HR policies.
If the language was appropriate then there should be no problem.
In today's world even appropriate language, even the truth can be considered inflammatory and harassment.
Often the truth is not relevant the job you're hired for. Often it's even inappropriate.
truth is hurt
doing it once is not harassment - 3 times or more is.
Should HR turn its gaze towards your own posts and you want a decent chance at saving your skin
- Immediately drop the "but it's in Jest" mentality. If anything, making jokes about inappropriate subjects is even worse ("I know this is wrong, and that's why I'm saying it")
- Commit to whatever training/rehab/sort-yourself-out options they offer to you
- Learn from your mistakes (you won't be getting a second chance)
Don’t be so grubby
Guilty of wrongthink! Doubleplus ungood, off to room 101 with you!
what an excellent time to discuss Big Brother
I hope you've done your warm-up exercises because that's one heck of a stretch
Is it?
Sounds pretty spot on to me going from the OP. "Oh no, I said a forbidden thing, what will happen to me now? I guess I better self-censor from here on."And it's "Big Bother", Orwell got that part wrong.
- entering into a paid employment relationship which has rules/code of conduct that you are willingly agreeing to follow and
- being trapped in a dystopia in the future where the government constantly monitors you and changes the meanings of words to control your thought
pretty similar yeah
@EightImmortals: Narrow minded is using the same excuse/conspiracy/explanation for everything. For the record, this is why people don't take conspiracy theorists seriously. I mean, besides the fact they're speaking about conspiracies.
It's the "when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" view to their lives.
If you had an example of a government department changing the wording of something to try to get an unfair result and you flew the Orwellian flag ('this is big brother!'), people would consider the position, might get a few "huh, you're right" style agreements. The comparison obviously applies in context.
But instead it's
"LITERALLY 1984: I wanted to announce on the Woolworths PA that people who wore red are devil worshippers/pedophiles and they said NO"
@EightImmortals: i mean, that was what it was literally about
but
even if you wanted to interpret the use (and abuse) of Newspeak in the novel as speaking generally to situations with employers and so forth..
you'd need to be making the argument the employer is controlling your thinking by twisting language and stifling legitimate discussion and by extension your rights
this is "got caught making racist/sexist jokes on the company chat :("
not even remotely connected. 1984 was a weird, bad take on this.
@CrowReally: "i mean, that was what it was literally about"
Only partly.
"you'd need to be making the argument the employer is controlling your thinking by twisting language and stifling legitimate discussion "
Isn't that the OP's fear though? That the local though police are going to go back through old conversations that OP had on the teams chat (OK, not smart in this climate but hardly a crime worthy of punishment) to decide if they are guilty of wrongspeak?
Also OP needs to elaborate on what they meant by 'inappropriate' so are only making assumptions on that point.
Now go read 1984 again and take note of the general fear, suspicion and snitching among the population and what things they were fearful of. Not that anyone expected the real world to pan out exactly like the novel mind you. As Neil Postman noted a few years back that out of the two dystopia warnings from last century (1984 and BNW) it looks like we have ended up with a combination of both. Worse is to come but eventually they will all fail. I might even still be around to see it but who knows?
@EightImmortals: I don't have a problem with sloppy thinking in general, but I think it's disappointing if it's meant to be your specialist subject (e.g. "time to bring up 1984, which I don't really understand and apply to everything").
The entire point to 1984 was words losing their precise meaning through use (or absence) of language, which was then used to remove ideas from the collective consensus.
If you just drop "wrongspeak" to cover all examples where a word shouldn't have been used, wrongspeak now covers: incorrect answers to quiz questions, dropping the C bomb in front of children and sanctioned political speech.
Congratulations, the concept associated with the word now disappears, which was exactly why Newspeak was used by Big Brother in the first place.
Just baffling.
@CrowReally: Yes not sure how you reached that conclusion in the context of the OP?
Thanks for making the distinction between wrongspeak and "Newspeak". :)
And by 'wrongspeak' (Which, IIRC isn't even an Orwellian term but just handy for making a point) I mean any personal speech which goes against written or unwritten cultural expectations while not being overtly abusive, threatening or violent. Dropping the C bomb in front of kiddies is not wrongspeak, it's stupid and extremely ignorant.
In the absence of what the OP actually said I stand by my comments. If they fess up then I might be persuaded to change my position.
@EightImmortals: "Which, IIRC isn't even an Orwellian term but just handy for making a point)"
Now we are really following someone down a rabbit hole. CrowReally has just offered one of the most succinct definitions of Orwell's observations in the novel he wished to call 1948, to which you respond with your original neologism that started a sentence that uses orwellian terms, and criticism of their usage of it, as a `rebuttal' to criticism of the original assertion.
There is a deeply recursive paradox in such a construction which I'm sure such an avid student and interpreter of the opus will surely be able to understand and elucidate.
@EightImmortals: Did you actually read the book? The entire thing is literally about the problem of totalitarian governments and the impact on society.
There is a difference between freedom of speech and being responsible for what we say. The government can't lock you up for what you say but your employer can certainly fire you and has always been able to.
@freefall101: Depends on what you say though I'd like some examples of people getting sacked prior to 2020 for saying the wrong thing and it was they actually said. Defamation, fair enough but I'm not aware of any wrongthink terminations.
And yes authoritarianism does shape society, but only because we let it. If weren't do cowardly as to go along with every petulant diktat that issues from government we'd all be a lot happier I suspect. But this is nothing new either, it's been going on for a long long time.
@EightImmortals: WTF is a "wrongthink termination"? Now you're just making up your own situations to go along with your own interpretation of the book.
@freefall101: No I was responding to your comment, (The government can't lock you up for what you say but your employer can certainly fire you ) and you didn't answer my question.
@EightImmortals: I didn't answer your question because you asked for examples of something that exists inside your head. My point is, and was, remains. This has nothing to do with the concepts in 1984.
This subject is about an employee writing things in chat they thought HR would never see and are now worried about being fired, likely because it's in breach of their working contract that they agreed to when they started working. Your shifting goalposts don't change that.
If you'd like examples of people being fired for breaching their employment contracts, I can probably find a million examples with 5 minutes on google, if that helps?
@freefall101: " I didn't answer your question because you asked for examples of something that exists inside your head."
and yet you wrote "The government can't lock you up for what you say but your employer can certainly fire you"Gaslighting much?
"likely because it's in breach of their working contract that they agreed to when they started working. Your shifting goalposts don't change that."
I didn't shift anything you are just making some assumption based on the OP's lack of proper details and using them to flog your horse. Flogging horses with assumptions is tasty!
And speaking of shifted goalposts.
"If you'd like examples of people being fired for breaching their employment contracts, I can probably find a million examples with 5 minutes on google, if that helps?"
Only if it fits your original claim that I highlighted in the above sentence.
@EightImmortals: I still don't know what "wrongthink terminations" are, so how am I meant to answer your question?
@freefall101: As I wrote above "And by 'wrongspeak' (Which, IIRC isn't even an Orwellian term but just handy for making a point) I mean any personal speech which goes against written or unwritten cultural expectations while not being overtly abusive, threatening or violent. "
I.E. someone made an off-colour joke and got sacked for it.
@EightImmortals: Like this? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-08-07/high-court-free-speec…
edit:
Maybe you mean something more like this? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-01/ford-responds-to-sack…But I've never heard of someone being fired over saying something that's not in line with "unwritten cultural expectations", either pre or post 2020. I was talking abusive and threatening language, sexual harassment, racial abuse, bullying, etc. Which is usually what you agree to not do once you start a job. If you're openly breaching your contract that's not any kind of 1984 related thing, that's breach of contract.
If someone gets fired for a non-offensive joke that's not a persistent level of behaviour, they should go to fair work. They'll win.
@freefall101: Cheers, OK, yeah the first example is the kind of thing I was referring to.
"The implication is that for any employee-employer relationship, if the employee is critical of the employer's position on some politically relevant social issue, they can be sacked."Totally 1984.
The second case was more along the of defamation ad harassment so I have no problem with the guy being charged.
"I was talking abusive and threatening language, sexual harassment, racial abuse, bullying, etc. Which is usually what you agree to not do once you start a job. "
Yep, sure, no arguments there. :)
(I really wish the OP was more specific about their particular issue, would make a lot of the assumptions unnecessary. :) )
@EightImmortals: "Gaslighting much?"
It's called "paraphrasing"
" making some assumption based on the OP's lack of proper details and using them to flog your horse"
Earl Gordon Curley on a Ouija board!!!
When you run out of buds, come back and parse that conversation that you started. Don't bring your irony meter, mine has lasted three decades since Mary Jo Willy was baffling, befuddling and amusing the cognoscenti but it's utterly buggered now/
@EightImmortals: "I'd like some examples of people getting sacked prior to 2020 for saying the wrong thing "
I take it you will be comparing any offered to those XPND is concerned about, given your hypothetical 'argument' regarding the possible actions of an unmet HR department in an un-named organisation should they find the potential offenses, not otherwise specified in the OP's query, in the short time they would be available before moderated out.
Or are you just upset that we can't play around an have fun anymore? I mean you can't even set fire to the apprentice in the bog anymore, let alone reference the Granite island penguins by their proper name when some 'metro' always wears clean socks or your manager doesn't have a morphology or gender you consider appropriate to someone given authority.
What's the world coming too!
Was the offensive word "advice" by any chance??
I would advise you not to jest…
Either is correct:
- Advise [me] on possible termination
- Advice on possible termination [wanted]
Either option needs more work but it's not technically incorrect.
Also, is the 'Work' clarifier necessary…
That is not what OP said. What they said was;
Advise on Possible Termination - Work
Any advise here?And this is just plain wrong.
"Advice" is a noun and "advise" is a verb. In that, "advice" is a thing that is asked for… "advise" is the action of given information or "advice". ie: "can I get some advice on…?" vs "I would like to advise you…" Advice is what it is, advise is the act of giving it.
Since OP is "asking" for what to do, they are seeking "advice"… What we are doing is to "advise" OP of their rights and/or obligations.
OP's title is missing a qualifier for it to even remotely make sense ("work" isn't the qualifier. [me] is though in your example, ironically) and I have no doubt that they have no clue and it wasn't an inadvertent spelling error, as the same error was later repeated in their post.
What OP should have said was "Can anyone advise me on…" or "Please advise me on…"
So, in saying this, this;
Either is correct
Doesn't make sense attached to;
Either option needs more work
If it "needs more work", by its very definition, it cant be "correct".
Two things:
- I only bothered to read the title 'Advise', so that's on me for missing the one in the body, but my argument still stands
- In my reply, 'Either' should be 'Both'
That out of the way, I'm not arguing about full sentences and perfectly formed questions. We know what people mean when they state 'help please' (can someone help me, please?'.
If you read it as 'Advice', it's 'Advice needed on this topic'
If you read it as 'Advise', it's 'Advise me on this topicThey're both the same thing except one has an implied subject. Both are correct.
I would terminate you for your poor spelling and grammar.
but selling monitor at 95% off is okay?
kidding
Never ever crack jokes or remarks that can be anywhere close to inflammatory in writing, even if in a trusted group / person chat.
Avoid anything :
- Politics.
- Personal about someone, even if harmless like they are constantly on Ozbargain.
- Religion.
- Race.
- Gender / Sexual Orientation.
Once I had a colleague crack a Vegan joke, of course there was a proud vegan within earshot, thankfully they didn't take it any further than making it known they didn't appreciate it.
Q. How do you find a vegan in a crowd of people?
A.Tell a vegan based joke.
Q. How do you find a vegan in a crowd of people?
I thought it was the same as a Tesla owner… they'll just tell you, regardless if you're interested or not.
Reported to HR.
do nothing, they will tell you they are a vegan when they make eye contact
Yeah, that's my other go to gag around here when vegan is mentioned….
Q. How do you know if someone is Vegan?
A. Don't worry, they will tell you.
Yup, it's important to be aware of the company document retention policy and never put anything you want not repeated into text.
Chat is no different to email, letters and anything else. It is retained and can be used for any kind of legal purposes. If there is a lawsuit, it'll all be dragged out and presented to everyone, so it's a good idea to think before writing it down (usually thinking before saying it is a good idea in general).
if you can record the team's messages you can argue it was workplace culture, especially if managers or supervisors (superiors) were in the chat/involved
if you do get terminated and you've gathered all the evidence you can goto fair work and explain it was workplace culture and everyone should be painted with the same brush not just discriminate against one person etc, GLHFedit: hey OP id like to know why HR were looking into an old employee's msgs, how you came to know, and why you are worried now? (i know your probably scared to reveal to much lol)
There was no complaint against you specifically, so I wouldn't worry too much.
If you do get pulled up by HR just take it on the chin and promise to 'behave' in the future, should be fine. No more jokes on work chat… this is the world we live in.
In the 2000's it was normal to forward all kind of inappropriate emails and jokes to a large list of friends and work collogues across multiple companies - all on your work email. lol
Friday afternoon's especially would be off the hook, with hundreds of dodgy emails circling the globe.
Any advice here?
Don't leave a paper trail next time.
Simple as that.
posts on OzB instead lol.
FFS who puts this stuff in writing? You should be fired for that.
As others have said. If it comes to it make a grovelling apology and say you won’t do it again. Do not try to justify the behaviour. If they are annoyed enough to come after you then “in jest” will make it worse. Especially if they original comments were less than respectful against another person/group.
There's an element of workplace culture too. Like if everyone's doing it (not just a small team) you're somewhat more excused in what you do.
Like swearing on a construction site vs in a day care facility in front of kids lol. It is something that is taken into account
It depends on the line that has been crossed. I, suspect, it wasn’t just swearing.
Yeah that's true, also depends on who was involved and whether it targeted anyone in particular. Well op has been nonspecific so can't really have an good opinion on it when we've got no idea what was said/done.
Any advise here?
Don't use inappropriate language next time.
Hope you didn't post this from your work computer.
Gold. My workplace makes it very clear that they track, log and monitor every keystroke.
no1 cares about a call centre in india Muzeeb!!!
Thank you for the reply Mr Pensioner. May I put you on hold for a short moment while I confirm this new detail with my supervisor?
Nah, come on. Tell us what you said.
We have had HR scroll through old teams messagers where (in)appropriate language was used in Jest.
What's your definition of "inappropriate language"? There's a very big difference in saying something like "this sh_t is f__d" (directed at something) over something like "you're a f__ng a___hole!" (that's directed at someone). Or anything to do with sexual harassment, racism etc is pretty bad.
What sort of company is this? If it's a smaller company, I doubt they'd fire the whole team. If it's a huge company that has to worry about potential brand damage, etc if things becomes public, then they might just fire the whole team. If things aren't too bad, you might all just get official warnings.
Nothing else to add to the OP but the past year or so I went through and deleted all my work posts to my main teams chat. A few expletives, jokes and stupid gifs etc etc mixed in the load of posts.
Took me ages and no one notices.
Now I might post a message or two and delete them a few weeks later when others fill it up but try to avoid posting anything.
I wish there was an easy way to delete in bulk though and yes IS probably backup the chat but at least someone in my team can’t see back.
"and deleted all my copies of my work posts"
FIFY - unless, of course no-one is able to utilise "print screen" and paste the result or you're running the corporate server and maintaining the back-ups and archives.
“ and yes IS probably backup the chat but at least someone in my team can’t see back”.
It is worth it for that. Along with regarding any anecdote based on on-line info as identical to " I heard this on the phone.", I try to bear in mind that once I have hit return and the data has been broadcast, it is beyond my recall and control.
My entire group had this very inappropriate joke land in our inboxes. Turns out this guy was sending this “joke” to his mate and the address misspelling caused it to be sent to our group shortcut email address. My boss sent back an email saying this was hardly an appropriate use of company resources. The guy came back with the most grovelling email apology I’ve seen. The consensus was this guy was a first class idiot, who apologised for it, and we didn’t see another instance so we didn’t put in a complaint. Apart from not being such a moron in the first place the answer is to apologise and mean it. Not any of the bozo “if I’ve offended anyone” non apologies that are an even bigger insult.
Yeah this is definitely the way to handle it. After a that public shame and quick talking to they wouldn't likely ever do something like that again.
I dont understand why people keep doing this. We as a society have known for years things can come back to haunt you.
Social media, work just dont do it just in jest can mean different things to different people. Even things that are said today and are classed as acceptable may not be 5-10 years from now.
Even things said can easily be taken out of context years later, just because someone has decided to approach it from a different angle. Can't really post every joke that comes into your head, even if it isn't targeting a specific group of people it can still come across badly.
Offence archaeology from HR Karens. Get out now, the Stasi are calling you from inside the house!
Loosen that tinfoil hat mate.
Stop using teams.
Start looking for another job.