Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Work

Chat with other users about all things related to working life on our Work forum.

Original poster

Formal Complaint of Racism- Help!

646 replies

OhBollocksFuck · 26/10/2016 11:14

I've NC as this is quite outing.

I work in the back office (10 people, all women, desk work) doing logistics for delivery drivers (27 people, mostly men, out and about all day).

We've had a bloke called Steve (not his real name) working as a delivery driver for years. Steve is black. Then another Steve came. So the original Steve became known as 'black Steve', which he's completely fine with, and new Steve became 'white Steve' which he's also fine with. We also have 'Short Trev' and 'Tall Trev' for two blokes called Trev. They're descriptions just to differentiate.

A new woman has started in the back office with us and asked me the other day what to do with an order which needed express sending. I told her to give it to 'black Steve' for various reasons. She's seemed quite nice, a little bit up-tight perhaps but that's usual when starting a new place.

Fast-forward to today and my manager has called me in the office to let me know that this new woman has put in a complaint about me using racist language. He's arranged a formal meeting with me and her for next Friday to talk through the complaint and see 'where we go' (his words). I'm in a union so I've got a union representative coming with me but I'm completely flawed by it.

I don't know what to do. I'm trying to remain calm and professional with this woman but I'm angry and upset. I don't want to mention anything to black Steve but, at the same time, it feels odd that there's all this going on with him being at the centre but him not really knowing. I also know that if I did mention it some of the drivers would take issue with her and I don't want them to get themselves into any trouble either.

I don't know what I'm asking really TBH. just some words of wisdom and advice from MNers would be breat!

OP posts:
BubbleGumBubble · 27/10/2016 00:25

And we are in the UK so what it means here is what matters when you are discussing uk law.
You really are grasping at straws now.

People are not the same.
I am not the same as my sikh friend because i am not sikh so to say we are the same is wrong. However i do expect to be treated as equally as my sikh friend and vice verser.

OlennasWimple · 27/10/2016 00:53

Well, I'm not in the UK - but I wasn't discussing UK law in any case, so no straw grasping...

You said that Steve could decide how he was called - I gave a couple of examples and you said, no, he couldn't be called those as they were offensive. So Steve doesn't in fact get to chose his nick name.

MagikarpetRide · 27/10/2016 00:58

olenna Had Steve chosen to call himself the nicknames you had assigned then he would himself have been open to a racism case for using terms that are derogatory. Had Steve decided to call himself 'limpy steve' or 'squinty steve', etc. which were accurate, non solely derogatory, descriptions of himself then they'd all be fine legally.

OlennasWimple · 27/10/2016 01:05

Except "limpy" and "squinty" might equally be problematic as disability is a protected characteristic also...

My point was that Steve doesn't get to choose his own nicknames if other people have a problem with them. The new worker has a problem with the nick name "Black Steve" and the OP's employer will have to decide how to respond to that complaint. The OP seems to have long since disappeared, but certainly seemed to have trouble comprehending why anyone might object to "Black Steve" as a commonly used workplace name

MagikarpetRide · 27/10/2016 01:16

But limpy and squinty are also only a problem if and when people assume they can't do their jobs (as we're talking about workplaces) because of them. Same as any other descriptor. Same as ginger or blonde or hairy or bald. Only an issue when you assume they are a certain way because of their attributes.

The op didn't have trouble understanding that either, she had trouble comprehending why she was being singled out in an office full of others who had also used it.

SenecaFalls · 27/10/2016 01:23

So, for example, it would be ok to call a blind person "squinty" in the workplace in the UK? Really? And I don't necessarily mean from a legal standpoint.

charlieandthechocolatecake · 27/10/2016 01:53

OP...I can't believe this is happening to you. This political correctness stuff is bullshit. Calling black Steve, black Steve when that is what he chooses and accepts to be known as IS NOT RACISM.

People being called out for crap like this incites racism as far as I'm concerned.

And I say that as a woman of colour.

I hope all goes well for you OP x

MagikarpetRide · 27/10/2016 06:24

seneca a blind person wouldn't necessarily be squinty, so no. If someone had a squint and it was being used as a descriptor then fine. 'Which bob?' 'The one with the squint' is fine. If he chose to call himself squinty bob then that's fine, he isn't giving permission for you to call anyone with a visual impairment squinty. That's the common sense divide.

mollie123 · 27/10/2016 06:34

bubble
Black is not a pc.Nor is white.The pc is race.
Both Steves are called by their skin colour. Therefore both are being treated equally.
I quoted the equality act 2010 - race of any colour is a protected characteristic about 3 pages back. So I am in complete agreement with you and find it surprising that some will still not accept the very clear definitions of protected characteristics embodied in the act. Hmm

DamePastel · 27/10/2016 06:53

But black is not a handicap. Squinty limpy blind Steve, thT would be a disadvantaged employee!! But if black is equal to white then why treat the adjrctive like it's a limp.

Ass pps have rightly pointed out tho im one of those white people. But not telling anybody what not to b3 offended by.

BubbleGumBubble · 27/10/2016 07:11

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

MagikarpetRide · 27/10/2016 07:25

Squinty limpy blind Steve, thT would be a disadvantaged employee!!

Again, that's an assumption. People with squints and limps are able to do many work related things (depending on setting) just as easily as people without them.

BubbleGumBubble · 27/10/2016 07:32

So I am in complete agreement with you and find it surprising that some will still not accept the very clear definitions of protected characteristics embodied in the act. hmm

Thank you mollie

See people run around shouting racism and quoting the equality act without acutually understanding it which makes a mockery of the act itself.

I dont accept racism or any ism for that matter and i will challenge it but i am also able to use common sense which is also important.
A few years ago i was getting my hair done and we (hairdresser) got on to the subject of age. She asked mine and then told me hers. I was shocked as she looked a good 20 years younger and her reply was "well you know what they say, black dont crack" and i laughed along with her as it was funny.

Now i would never say that to another black person because common sense tells me just because 1 black person is ok to say that about herself it does not mean all black people would welcome that comment.
That is the differance between equality and treating people the same. I am not treating all black people the same by using that comment for all black people because that is wrong.

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace · 27/10/2016 07:35

I think a normal person who was aware of potential issues with race and discrimination, would say to s new person: 'now, the guy I want you to give this to, this'll sound a bit odd, but he goes by 'black steve', because .....'. You wouldn't just assume someone would think nothing if it when told 'give it to black Steve', you'd be at pains to point out why he was known as that and it's not just how you think of him. You also would probably have been rather uncomfortable with the whole thing long before now.

BertrandRussell · 27/10/2016 07:48

Legalities aside, I just can't imagine why anyone thought it was a good idea in the first place. It's just so spectacularly misjudged. Did nobody think for 5 seconds about how it could look to outsiders?

Let's hope it's not a PR company. Grin

ArgyMargy · 27/10/2016 07:49

I would not be comfortable with this. A PP asked whether it would be OK to say to a new, black colleague "go and give this to black Steve". Of course it wouldn't. So if I was told by Steve "call me black Steve" I would say I'm not comfortable doing that and ask him to think of something else. If I was advised by the OP to call him black Steve I would say the same to her. In 30 years of working I've never been in this situation, we have differentiated by surname or surname initial eg Steve P & Steve J.

DamePastel · 27/10/2016 07:53

Yes but presumably the starting point here is that it is not bad to be black.
id rather not however be blind with a l8mp and a squint.

Im not black but people using examples of things that are clearly disabilities would offend me more than being called white Anna.

White is never compared to a limp or a squint or being deaf.

So much bollox is spouted.
yes, not wise in a work place to let the name black steve evolve but some people here their stRting point is that blackness must be whispered and handled carefully. What with it being like blindness and deafness and a limp.

BubbleGumBubble · 27/10/2016 08:01

Did nobody think for 5 seconds about how it could look to outsiders?

Why would they? It is not offensive or racist and the person in question chose to be known as black Steve.

BubbleGumBubble · 27/10/2016 08:03

So if I was told by Steve "call me black Steve" I would say I'm not comfortable doing that and ask him to think of something else.

Why do you get to decide what Steve calls himself?
Would you feel equally uncomfortable with white Steve? Why is the word black offensive to you?

MagikarpetRide · 27/10/2016 08:04

White isn't compared to impairments but non-impaired people are compared to impaired people in a similar way. The legal line comes down to whether it is meant in a derogatory way or not.

BertrandRussell · 27/10/2016 08:07

"Why is the word black offensive to you?"

It isn't.

BubbleGumBubble · 27/10/2016 08:09

That question was to Argy Bert as i copied the bold bit from their post.

NataliaOsipova · 27/10/2016 08:10

OP - sounds horrible. I'd echo what some of the other posters have said that I don't think any laws have been broken here. I don't think there is any room for inference from calling them "White Steve" and "Black Steve" that "Black Steve" is in any way treated less favourably or is at a disadvantage. As a pp said, to call someone black is not an insult and from what the OP has said, it has been used as a purely descriptive term.

That said....it seems spectacularly foolish for any organisation to allow employees to be described in this way (as a matter of company policy, which is different from the law) just because of the potential for misunderstanding or offence to others. So it's probably worth using this incident as a way to change workplace culture and collectively agree to adopt some new nicknames. Steve Smith and Steve Jones would leave no room for misunderstanding or offence to be taken by anybody!

BertrandRussell · 27/10/2016 08:12

I know. I was just adding myself to the people who would not like to use skin colour as a way of distinguishing between two Steves and who simultaneously is not offended by the word "black".

BubbleGumBubble · 27/10/2016 08:24

. I was just adding myself to the people who would not like to use skin colour as a way of distinguishing between two Steves

But why not?
If it is the easiest way to describe somebody why not use skin colour?

If a white man and a black man were sat at the same table and you asked somebody you were stood with at the other side of the room;

"Just ask Steve where the mop is"
"Which ones Steve?"
"The white one"

Whats wrong or uncomfortable about that?