Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

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:
SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace · 27/10/2016 08:48

When you do this, you are entrenching the idea, however unconsciously, that skin colour is how we distinguish people. As a company, you are unwittingly telling outsiders 'this is how we think about people in this company: there are black ones and white ones'.

You may not mean to, but you are. I'm amazed this system never struck anyone as problematic.

NataliaOsipova · 27/10/2016 08:51

Bubble I don't think there is anything wrong with that...but it does seem different from referring habitually to him as "White Steve". One is a suitable response to a question in a particular context, the other is a general moniker. As I've said above, though, I agree that neither is inherently racist, although I would steer away from the latter.

Oblomov16 · 27/10/2016 09:00

Liked this post:

"I'm so confused. Thanks to MN, I recently tried to direct a new member of my team to an individual on another floor, to collect something from him. This person is black, and the only black person on that entire floor. Yet I was so afraid of saying, "Peter is the tall black guy who sits over by the coffee machine", that there ensued a famously awkward conversation where I attempted to describe Peter without specifying his skin colour (famous because the rest of my team knew exactly who I meant and found my discomfort hilarious).

My team member returned most bemused and said, "Why didn't you just say he was black, I've been wandering around for ages?"

Ha ha. PC gone mad!

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace · 27/10/2016 09:10

Saying 'Peter is the tall black guy who sits ... Etc' is different from saying 'give it to Black Peter' Hmm

BubbleGumBubble · 27/10/2016 09:13

this is how we think about people in this company: there are black ones and white ones'.

And there are just as there are women and men, young and old, short and fat.
Distinguishing between race is not bad unless you treat different races unequally.
This situation is not showing 1 Steve is treated differently to the other Steve. They are treated equally as both have their skin colour used before their name.

Black Steve chose his own moniker. He made a preferance as to how he is happy to be addressed.

When people refuse to use the word black when they would happily use the word white you are going against equality and that is wrong. Used correctly and without racial intent the word black is no more offensive or racist than the word white.

BubbleGumBubble · 27/10/2016 09:16

Saying 'Peter is the tall black guy who sits ... Etc' is different from saying 'give it to Black Peter' hmm

If black Peter has elected to be called black Peter as there is a white Peter in the office why is it different?

Unthoughtknown · 27/10/2016 09:17

I am flabbergasted that 17 pages in people aren't getting the difference between a one off comment like 'the black guy in the hat' and habitually referring to someone as 'black Steve' .

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace · 27/10/2016 09:19

Quite, Unthought!

CrazyDuchess · 27/10/2016 09:21

Exactly Unthought!

SeekEveryEveryKnownHidingPlace · 27/10/2016 09:22

What's the betting Black Steve is also a massive fan of gollywogs?

BubbleGumBubble · 27/10/2016 09:22

I am getting it.
I am accepting that Black Steve is a person and he has chosen this nickname. I am accepting that he is comfortable with this being used to differentiate between him and white Steve.
I am treating black Steve as an equal and not telling him how to feel just because of the colour of his skin.

SuperFlyHigh · 27/10/2016 09:36

Bubble - depending on who else hears this nickname (Black Steve) and if they are offended - well they have the right to be offended.

It is a bad move all round and even worse when OP blithely says "oh yeah we refer to the delivery driver as gay Pete (not that name but another) - she just does not get how this sounds wrong and offends so many people not just the person being called the name on SOOOO many levels.

FruitCider · 27/10/2016 09:41

I've been mulling over this for a couple of days and here are my thoughts.

The first issue refers to you referring to steve as "black steve" when there was no need to differentiate between the 2, eg neither of them were present.

You could have said "give it to steve, he's the black man wearing a red t-shirt" or whatever. You referred to a protected characteristic as the only identifier of someone from a BAME group when there was no need to. This says a lot about the culture in your office.

Which brings me on to the next issue. Office culture. Whilst Steve may have introduced himself as "black steve", that did not give everyone else permission to identify him using a protected characteristic. I've got a friend who refers to herself as "Kosovo Cat", however I (I'm Yugoslav/kosovan bosniak) nor my friends would refer to her as "Kosovo Cat". If someone is unsure who I am referring to, I usually say "the lovely Eastern European lady with brown hair". Not "the kosovan" or "the white Muslim".

I'm not sure I've worked anywhere that referring to someone as "black steve" continuously would be acceptable. I started working in 2001.

So unfortunately it does seem like your behaviour has fallen foul of the Equalities Act. I guess you will have to wait and see what comes of this! What is your union saying?

ShowMeTheElf · 27/10/2016 09:41

OP; how is it going?

BubbleGumBubble · 27/10/2016 09:46

What's the betting Black Steve is also a massive fan of gollywogs?

What do you mean?

Why do you assune he would be?

Southallgirl · 27/10/2016 09:52

"Kokosjumping; yeah, the same post has a load of bollocks about Brixton / Stockwell Park Estate. In terms of no-go for white people, anyway."

BLU I never spoke about any other part of London except E1. It was SuperFly who typed a list of other areas on p.8, incl Brixton & Stockwell. You should learn to take in and retain information much better.

Southallgirl · 27/10/2016 09:58

If Steve decided to call himself Nigger Steve, that would be unacceptable

You're losing commonsense ......

NataliaOsipova · 27/10/2016 10:08

I actually think this feeds into a wider debate. One of the things I bang on about is threat to freedom of speech and this touches - slightly - on the edges of this, but I think is key to understand some of the nuances.

People have the right to express an opinion - as long as that opinion does not incite hatred or violence, or doesn't slander/libel another. People do not have the right not to be offended by the opinions of others. They are, however, free to disagree in the strongest terms and to say that they find those opinions objectionable and repellent. But there is a difference

So - if someone says "I don't like black men", I would think that was an unpleasant and ridiculous statement. But it wouldn't be an illegal statement (if it were stated as a personal opinion and not in a workplace context), as it isn't seeking to incite me to commit an act of violence or even incite racial hatred. It's a personal opinion and it someone else is allowed to express it. In the same way, I'd be perfectly entitled to reply "I think what you've said is unpleasant and wrong", but not "I'm going to get someone to kill you for saying that".

So - back to the point. In a workplace, the statement "I don't like black men" would in all likelihood be classed as illegal because one could reasonably infer from that that a black candidate/employee's prospects were less favourable because that opinion had been expressed and/or that the environment that the black employee worked in was hostile.

BUT this isn't what has happened here either. What has happened here is that the new employee (let's call her Mary) has come into this environment and she, Mary, is offended by the use of "black" and "white" as nicknames. (I'm taking as read that Steve isn't on the basis of the OP's comments - obviously, it is wholly different if he is!). But Mary doesn't have the right not to be offended. She has the right to tell others she finds it offensive and that, in her opinion, they should not do it. She has the right to tell Steve why she thinks he should find it offensive. But the law isn't there to protect Mary - or even Steve, actually - from offence. It is there to ensure that Steve is not treated less favourably or has to suffer harassment for his possession of a protected characteristic. And that's the point, here, I think.

That said - just because one is allowed to say something/express an opinion does not make it always politic/tactful/nice to do so. And what a lot of posters seem to be saying is "I agree with Mary". I do too, to be honest - in the sense that I would feel it wasn't appropriate to use those sort of nicknames in a professional context - it's just that is a wholly different point from saying that the OP has been racist. And it would probably be wise for any organisation to take prevailing attitudes and sympathies into account rather than relying on the letter of the law.

Kennington · 27/10/2016 10:08

I think this is ridiculous- it is basic courtesy not to refer to people by their physical appearance. Call people by their surname - as is done in many schools - that is more normal to distinguish between people. Of course you weren't being racist but it is rude and I am not surprised HR are having a word.

BertrandRussell · 27/10/2016 10:09

SeekEveryKnownHidingPlace- do you think he refers to his white friends as "ma honkies" too? Grin

Original poster
OhBollocksFuck · 27/10/2016 10:33

Oh god, so many posts.

Sorry, no time to read all of them!

Union got back to me this AM. Have advised me to make notes of all instances where colleagues use 'potentially offensive' terms, nicknames or labels to show its a work culture thing that needs changing.

She advised Steve coming to the meeting and also giving an official statement about this incident and culture more generally. Also advised I write letter of apologgy to new woman and to Steve.

Also advised I change the way I refer to people. Have done, am being mercilessly teased by drivers for being prim this AM.

Went to the pub last night and told Steve what was happening. He was Confused by the whole thing and said he didn't have an issue. He's pretty angry. He told a few of the other drivers. They're using nicknames much more loudly and regularly this AM just to be awkward.

Told Steve I'd be sending a formal letter of apology. He said he won't accept it.

Can't update much today as I'm not at my desk much.

And sorry to any posters I haven't answered!

OP posts:
Hercules12 · 27/10/2016 10:36

Are you allowestablish to discuss this with other people? I always thought you weren't. Could be wrong though. Your work place sounds awful. I'd hate to work in a place like that

Hercules12 · 27/10/2016 10:36

Allowed

Original poster
OhBollocksFuck · 27/10/2016 10:43

Steve's been spoken to specifically. I was advised to talk to him and did do. He told other drivers, not me. I haven't spoken to anyone explicitly about this. He's been speaking to everyone about it, not me.

OP posts:
Southallgirl · 27/10/2016 10:45

OP Your workplace sounds very friendly and supportive.

But I'm puzzled as to what the other women think about all of this?

I've dealt with bullying employers for many years, and although yours is not the advice given to you is incorrect. YOU are being treated "differently" (unfavourably) as if you are responsible for the culture of the office. To ask you to write to both Steve and the new woman is incorrect advice.

Instead, a memo from the manager stating that in future no such descriptors will be allowed is the correct thing to do. I am appalled at your union. I urge you to phone ACAS, who have been more than helpful to me in the past. 0300 123 1100 They are also open Saturday 9 to 1.