Forum

HRD Canada forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
HRM CA | 28 Jul 2014, 06:18 AM Agree 0
It’s hard to be just another part of the team if everyone’s watching what they say around you, but when it comes down to it, that’s your job.
  • Ted Mouradian | 28 Jul 2014, 11:43 AM Agree 0
    I agree that we all must have a respectful workplace but we have to be very careful that we don't get so over sensitive that we take the fun out of the workplace. Some policies that have zero tolerance clauses in them do not work. People are people and sometimes words are said or taken the wrong way. That does not excuse vexatious intention. I am talking about innocent mistake. We need to be careful that we are not harming the 98% in order to come down on the 2%.
  • Steve | 28 Jul 2014, 11:48 AM Agree 0
    Note that the interviewee in this article never says that HR is the fun police. He says the MANAGER must play that role. Yes, HR play a role, and must step in when they hear something questionable, but that is a responsibility all managers in a company share.
  • Joanne | 28 Jul 2014, 04:02 PM Agree 0
    Sometimes the litmus test of being politically correct can just go too far and it does become a "no fun, no celebration, no joking" environment. Honestly, we can't even say Merry Christmas anymore. Everyone walks around on eggshells and it creates a culture of fear that just drives the behaviour underground or staff out the door. Yes, we do have a responsibility to monitor human rights and discrimination, but I've seen some pretty wild and crazy things deemed as inappropriate with a full out investigation. Someone filed a complaint when staff brought in doughnuts and someone at the table mimicked Homer Simpson saying, "Doh:.
  • Ted Mouradian | 29 Jul 2014, 11:06 AM Agree 0
    That is my point Joanne. 98% of the people don't care if we say Merry Christmas or not and it's only the 2% that object. What needs to be looked at is how the message is being delivered and received. If the message is delivered in a good way, not to harm, then it should be accepted that way. if the message is vexatious and is meant to harm that is when action should be taken. But that action should be directed at the person and we should not add another blanket rule that shackles the 98% because the 2% screw up.
Post a reply