AIBU to want to incinerate a junior colleague

[Boosiehs]

I realise IABU BTW - RANT....

He keeps coming over to me, thinking he has found errors in something I have drafted. I have already told him 5 times that this is not the case and that he is wrong.

If he comes over again can I please use my deathray on him?

Pretty please?

If I was asking ridiculous questions I would expect somebody to yell at me and take a bit of swearing on the chin tbh. That said I would not do it to anyone else except in jest.

Can I borrow the death ray when you're all done with it...?

DC (dear colleague) I have explained to you three times a day for the past three days that needs to be done once a day only
Stop attempting to do every two hours. You know it needs doing once a day maximum. You are not 'being helpful' you are trying to skive.
I did this morning and it took me 25 minutes. You are attempting to take 30 minutes to do it every two hours and it's not necessary.

Limited are you a surgeon?

No. I'm a journalist Thisismyfirsttime.

I find this argument quite funny given the high standards of accuracy and integrity people on MN who aren't journalists hold my trade to almost every day on here.

That's what I expect too.

If journalists disappoint you in their sloppiness what do you think I think of them?

I have explained that to you and others few times and I am refraining from using expletives.

I know you have tried to explain why you abuse people. Anyone can swear - it's not big and clever.

You, like he, seem unable to grasp how annoying you are.

Makes you feel good does it, belittling people all the time?

I find this argument quite funny given the high standards of accuracy and integrity people on MN who aren't journalists hold my trade to almost every day on here.

Nobody thinks journalists have high standards. 'Morally bankrupt' wasn't it that Steve Coogan called your 'profession'. I see no evidence that he was incorrect in his understanding from the way you are behaving.

I've been reading Street of Shame in Private Eye for 30 years. What limited describes appears to be exceedingly common in her industry, from the proprietors/editors down. It did occur to me when the phone hacking scandals broke that the journalists concerned had utterly lost touch with what ordinary people regarded as reasonable and acceptable behaviour.

Oh you're a journalist.

That explains it.

I think it's fine to be allowed to tell someone to fuck off at work, as long as they're allowed to tell you to fuck off too, with no detrimental impact on their status at work.

But it's always the people with the power who get to tell people to fuck off and that they're shit and their work is crap isn't it? And funnily enough, those people never tell their line managers to fuck off or that FFS, that briefing you've just given was a load of old toss and no fucker knows what they're supposed to be doing because you wouldn't be able to define a fucking objective if it jizzed all over your face, because they would get the sack if they used the same sort of terminology as their boss used. I have never, ever known a "robust" manager to be able to tolerate the same level of robustness from their staff, that they see as their right to dole out to their staff.

It only ever goes one way, from the powerful to the less powerful. And that's what makes it bullying rather than just a robust work environment.

But if it's your own business, then you get to do what you like, don't you? If someone complains to the HR manager, you can sack the HR manager too.

It's not a profession. It's a trade.

I know Steve Coogan. He's okay. Very earnest and prone to talk when he should be quiet.

I have more respect for Hugh Grant in the Hacked Off movement. I have quite a lot of respect for a lot of people in Hacked Off. You'd be surprised how many journalists do.

Reading Street of Shame in Private Eye is fun GaspOde. It's no substitute for working in it. It doesn't give you any special insight.

AskBasil Your views seem very bitter.

OurDearLeader in my workplace, we are not permitted to discuss trainees outside official appraisal or HR committee meetings, precisely in order to avoid any ganging-up or mockery. It's a policy that has served us very well.

Hapoygirl87, you ask what makes a good trainer. Listen, observe, apply common sense. Pick your times re asking for guidance. Get a list of basics as fast as poss.

But please don't think you have to work in a place where it's the norm for people to swear at you. There are many many places where that just wouldn't be on.

*trainee! Ruddy auto correct! Turn that off on your work PC

The fact he is a "junior" is irrelevant if you are both in the same position.
I don't know why you cared to mention this like it matters. I would be embarrassed a "junior" works in the same position as me, you are behind at your age.

redsoxfan, what nonsense - could just be a flat environment. Where I work, there is a clinic, with 30-odd doctors. Because it's part of a larger organisation, they have to fit within the organisation's grade system. which means that about 28 of them are in the same position - same job title, same grade. There is a huge difference in experience, and ability, which would be reflected in where they sit on the pay scale for that grade, but that doesn't give rise to a power imbalance... and there is no shame in being in the same role as the more junior colleagues. The only way 'up' would be to move into management and do much less doctoring, which isn't everyone's cup of tea, even if there were more such roles around.

Agree with desertgirl

limited a ahhh so you're a journalist (or something in that arena) I did think that you probably worked somewhere more traditionally seen as "robust"

I think limited just likes being a bully, but has bought into the matcho, dick swinging persona of 'tough journalist' and is behaving like a massive twat.
I highly doubt your junior looks at your nasty glaring face, spewing profanities and thinks you look tough, more likely he just sees a woman who can't handle her job.

Interesting thread. Having recently changed career in my mid-30s I am rediscovering how stressful it can be when you don't yet fully understand the work, or the culture, or when you can bother people or when you can't. It is a salutary experience!

light-hearted
amusing and entertaining.
"a light-hearted speech"
•
(of a person) cheerful or carefree.
synonyms: carefree, cheerful, cheery, happy, merry, glad, playful, jolly, jovial, joyful, jocund, gleeful, ebullient, high-spirited, lively, perky, blithe, bright, sunny, buoyant, vivacious, bubbly, effervescent, jaunty, bouncy, breezy

I suggest a number of you read this and calm the fuck down

That's a bit harsh IhateMagic!

There's nothing like having to stop work to put things into perspective I find. I look back now and wonder why the job itself mattered so much to me, (and why I worked such long hours,) but a lot of my staff/colleagues are still very good friends. The people are such an important part of the job and I genuinely believe it pays you to be friendly, a. Because you don't know who you will meet again later in your career, b. It's more professional to be friendly and approachable (within limits!)

I left almost three years ago but have kept in touch, I was recently quite unwell and my old office had a collection and arrived with chocolate, magazines and alcohol.

People treat you how you treat them, at the end of the day, if you don't give them respect you can't expect to get it yourself, I find.

Kinky, I wonder, though, how many people here have been treated badly at work, and it's hit a nerve. Some of the employment threads on here are shocking.

you know the most innocuous of MN threads can incite frothing

Is there perhaps a bit of a distinction between the private sector, in which companies and firms have to make a profit, and the public sector?

Some of the people on here who would be rushing off to HR if someone at work said a single cross word to them, or who have suffered years of sadness (unless its a clinical diagnosis under DSMV its nothing else) from a couple of years of employment sound like nightmare employees. For one thing, they have a total lack of empathy that their self centred demands and inability to do their jobs without constant assistance and supervision create huge amounts of stress for other employees, who may be under pressure to meet targets.

For another, the concept that because someone has been designated a trainer or given a role of guiding them does not mean that person in a company has nothing else to do. How do you think that would work? For every new employee, an existing, previously profitable employee is sacrificed for however long it takes (six months? a year? permanently?) for that special trainee to feel "happy". Workplaces aren't charities for the training of employees!

Its also stressful for customers. Those organisations with employees who fail to deal with your complaints? Most likely the product of a lack of robust management. Those employees who give the impression of not being bothered or don't get back to you? Ditto.

I've had the more robust style of management as a trainee and it did me a lot of good. A good manager will get away with it and know how far to go - one partner in particular was known as being a bit fearsome as he would give people who got things wrong a few chances and then a short bawling. It was the control and icy politeness that was far more intimidating. Underlying it all was always a deeply hidden sense of humour. He was well respected and a million miles away from the manager who shouts constantly for the sake of having their voice heard. Looking back it did me a huge favour as initially on starting I was far too slow, not on the ball and in my field (law) its essential to work fast and accurately to meet billing targets. That's the environment we work in and if you can't hack a bit of robustness at trainee level, you're best to leave.

redsoxfan what a strange load of drivel.

TheChandler meeting targets is surely a key expectation in just about any job now? I work in the third sector and performance targets are a key part of the role as is the understanding that contracts and continued employment depend on them.
In recent years I've survived three redundancy rounds where performance came under scrutiny.
Only one manager I've had shouted and swore at employees in public. He didn't last long before he moved on. I've been lucky enough to have managers who've established good support networks and chains of communication so that they're not bothered by trivialities when they're busy. They manage to do this without bullying and intimidating employees.

TheChandler meeting targets is surely a key expectation in just about any job now? I work in the third sector and performance targets are a key part of the role as is the understanding that contracts and continued employment depend on them.

In law, you usually bill per 6 minute units of time and have to meet fee targets. Therefore, unless you are a designated trainer, which I have never actually come across, if you put down too much time as training, you won't meet those targets. Most departments have trainees and while one individual might have a special responsibility for a trainee, that trainee will still be expected, if not to be profitable at the beginning, certainly not to actively cause a loss of profits.

Trainees are interviewed and tested rigorously after a vocational degree, and if they are unable to carry out trainee tasks without constant questioning, interruption and guidance no-one minds a few relevant questions at the beginning) then they are unlikely to be up to the job, or alternatively are trying to make their mark by pretending to come up with something novel without the requisite experience (in other words, just wasting everyone's time). If a manager or senior employee can't see through the latter sort of employee, then that's a big problem.

I've never been sworn at. But certainly if you want to avoid intimidating characters, law (and many other fields) are not the place to be. Many of the best lawyers are seriously intimidating in the flesh, even in a social setting. Unless it causes claims against the firm under employment law arising out of genuine grievance, I cannot see a problem with that.

I would guess that in medicine and dentistry it works a different way again

The set up in accountancy firms is very much as you describe it Chandler. Much better imo that a trainee gets the message loud and clear at the start that they need to "shape up or ship out" than that they are babied along for a couple of years before they are "let go" or "counselled out".

I think in large organisations, public or private, there is an issue if the trainer has no appraising rights or hiring and firing rights. This can make for unclear responsibilities and unhelpful passive aggressive trainee and trainer behaviour.

I imagine lawyers can make their point in glorious technicolour Latin without ever having to resort to swearing though?

Really? The reason I am aware of the fact that the difference between robustness and bullying is power, is because I'm bitter?

Honestly limited, you couldn't make it up. You do see that you're not doing your argument any good with that technique, don't you? You do realise that attempting to smear a poster with that well-worn silencing technique of "bitter", instead of engaging with the substance of their post, is yet another bullying technique, don't you? Do you think that helps your argument?

I don't think it's a public/ private thing TheCHandler, I've met lovely ppl and twats in both.

AskBasil I don't think it's a public/ private thing TheCHandler, I've met lovely ppl and twats in both.

No really, in law, its well recognised that working in the public sector is far easier, in terms of working conditions and pace of work, than the private sector. I'm sure you do get some awful bosses in the public sector, but the two really aren't comparable. I've done both, and I've seen public sector lawyers get away with multiple stuff that just one incident of would have them asked to leave in the private sector.

It's a good point about billable time causing issues with training, although of course as you say, new starters in these sectors come with a certain degree of knowledge which should reduce the amount of "on the job" (that sounds wrong) training.

I do think certain professions, such as law, are generally more robust and you actively want people who are fairly resilient. In my book though, robust doesn't and shouldn't equate to abusive. Shouting and swearing at people is abusive and there are no excuses for it, much in the same way I wouldn't accept my DH shouting and swearing at me if he was "under pressure".