The Lowest of the Low?

I have an interesting story that caused me to wonder: what is the lowest of the low when it comes to offending a person, especially someone you know? Are there some actions that are just unforgivable? Things that would cause you to lose all respect for a person instantaneously and never want them to be part of your life again?

Here is the situation. A friend of mine was thrown a baby shower at work that was attended by all of her female co-workers. At the time, she was almost seven and a half months pregnant. Less than three weeks later, my friend was in a serious car accident during which she not only lost her unborn child, but was also given an emergency hysterectomy, losing all chances of having a natural birth.

She was out of work for a couple of months, recovering and grieving, as I think is to be expected. She wasn't back at work for more than a month when her immediate supervisor e-mailed her a notice about an annual fundraising sale that her women's auxiliary group was having. At the bottom of the e-mail, it listed the different items that could be donated. The phrase "new and gently used baby items" was bolded and highlighted. My friend shrugged this off, assuming that her boss had forwarded the email to all her co-workers in it's original form. That was until she read the last line, which basically said that her boss thought she may be interested in giving away some of her "unwanted" items intended for the baby.

My friend did not directly reply to this e-mail, because she didn't want to reopen her wounds, and honestly thought that her boss, who she had a good relationship with, just wasn't thinking about the implications of the e-mail. A few weeks later, the same boss stopped by her desk to chat and asked how she was doing. In conversation, she asked if my friend planned to adopt children in the future. My friend replied that she wasn't ready to pursue adoption yet, but that she was considering it for the future. The boss then remarked that it seemed like "a waste" that she had all the baby items people had bought her, and that they "really could have used them" at the fundraising sale. She then told my friend that since she didn't see an immediate use for them in the near future, she would like the items she bought for the baby back, because her niece was pregnant and could use them.

What would you have done? Would you have quit your job then and there? Would you have reported the supervisor to HR? Is there really any recourse in the workplace for insensitivity like this?

__________________
No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
--Eleanor Roosevelt

I would of reported it to the supervisor of HR even though I would of loved to tell that person where to get off. Quitting your job means her low attitude towards life would of won. That woman has no compassion for someones feelings, she is only thinking of her own needs. When Karma hits that woman it is gonna hit her hard unfortunately.

__________________
KDTWEB

Maryland Chat

She should really go to HR and sue the company. That is the worst thing to say to a person who just lost a child. if the boss was a guy ide gladly beat the living shit out him for free. im serious lol i dont play like that. ive beaten people for less.

__________________
Register NOW on TalkDelaware!

From Pennsylvania?

From New Jersey?

For your friends loss...my sincere and most heartfelt condolences.

As to the $%#@%^#%$ boss.......that is an example of an act that is both beyond forgiveness and redemption. by the sound of it the boss in question desperately needs to meet me when i have one of my migrains............

I'm not going to quote any of the replies to this thread, because it involves such an emotional topic. For loving parents, the loss of a child is their worst nightmare.

I've received some severe gut-punches over my sixty-five-years on this globe. However, to have lost a child would have dropped me to my knees in indescribable anguish. I'm not saying that I'd not have recovered, but it would have been a daunting of task.

My youngest is twenty-eight-years old and I still feel the same way. They are still my children and I want to die before they do.

The responses I've read here are full of justifiable emotions. This supervisor is as insensitive as it gets. Just the same, insensitivity never mitigates physical violence.

For those who advocate going to HR, I ask what you expect HR to do? Insensitivity, by itself, is neither criminally nor civilly actionable. As always, people may go to HR on the victim's behalf, unofficially, and suggest that they discuss it with the supervisor.

The supervisor may not have the slightest clue about her insensitivity. I worked with an aeronautical engineer for about two years before I realized a few things about him.

He was brilliant. He could meld the theoretical with the practical in such an incredibly flawless way. He was pragmatic--a desirable quality in both engineers and scientists. He could INSTANTLY peg the obvious. The problem was he did it in such an offensive and insensitive way that he bordered on dysfunctional.

I asked HR about the man. They called it Labor Relations back then, before they developed the touchy-feely stuff. Anyway, I learned two things about him. First he was missing one of his ears; a fact well hidden from colleagues via a hair style that fell just below the ears. Second, he suffered from Aspergers Syndrome.

He lost the ear in an accident at the age of two. In fact, they had to amputate the ear immediately and he lost all hearing (both sides) from the point of the accident until the age of fifteen. He never regained his hearing on the missing ear side and didn't fully recover in the other ear until almost twenty.

So, from birth until age fifteen-years at the earliest, he never had a chance to hone his interpersonal skills. Throughout elementary and high school, his life was a tad miserable.

Aspergers Syndrome is a form of autism. However, it's the opposite of what we generally think and see of the autistic. Aspergers sufferers are, most of the time, intellectually gifted and relatively extroverted.

So I had a brilliant engineer on my hands who could land a spacecraft on the moon, not only on a dime, but in such a way that he could give you seven-cents change.

People couldn't stand the guy, though. However, once we learned about his situation, we were able to go one-on-one with him. He changed for the better and in a big way.

I'm not saying this supervisor has unseen problems. Maybe she's just a natural-born asshole! It's certainly worth checking out, though.

By far, the best response I read came from Decent. She hit the nail on head up to the point of punching her (the supervisor) in the face. Here's what she said.

"I wouldn't have quit, but I would have said point blank "If your child was killed in a car accident, how would you feel if I sopke to you the way you're speaking to me?" Then I probably would have gotten fired for punching her in the face."

Having the victim approach this supervisor directly, non-defensively, and in a non-confrontation way, may be just what it would have taken to make this woman realize the extent of the hurt she had caused.

But... NO HITTING.

To those who advocated this, you'd be the ones arrested. Just punching her lights out would get you a justifiable 3rd degree assault charge. If you used something with which to hit her, the police would be happy to elevate it to 2nd degree assault. And, if you throw in an overt intent to cause serious bodily harm, they'd give you the special: 1st degree assault.

If you advocated suing the supervisor and/or the employer, not only does joint and several liability not apply, there is absolutely no basis in fact for a lawsuit.

People in this country scream bloody murder over frivolous law suits. There is a legal definition for frivolous, relative to lawsuits. Assuming all legal conditions are met, the matters in contention must be "arguable." If a plaintiff fails to meet this condition, the suit goes nowhere.

"Arguable" is legalese. It means that there are legitimate points of fact that a jury, in earnest, may deliberate as to their veracity in a preponderance of evidence.

So, a lawsuit must be deemed frivolous by the court on its legal and factual merits, not because YOU think it's frivolous.

So, Decent, you have the right idea. Just keep your hands in your pockets, though.

Regards

__________________
Joe Walther
http://thetruefacts.blogharbor.com