Would you do this to a colleague?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

yabadabado

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

How about someone grows a set and says something or brings it to the attention of management?

Excluding her will only cause more friction in the workplace.OP has said people dont agree with the plan.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Hannibal_Smith

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's nothing to do with sunshine and lollipops. Why be a c*nt because some one else is? That just makes you a c*nt too and in no position to be pointing fingers.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Mrs OBumble

OP, why are you excluding the three directors? Surely they will feel as bad as thing person does when they realise they've been left out?

(fyi, I will guarantee they're having a directors event at some stage in the Christmas period, and will make sure that you plebs don't even know when it is!)



On a serious note: it ain't bullying because it's not repeated behaviour. But it's pretty dumb / childish.

If you really want to go to lunch, break into smaller groups of friends and go for lunch in 6 / 7s in different places.

But really I'd be thinking about whether I wanted to be socialising with this group of colleagues at all.

neonsofa wrote: »

That is so awful though. I wanted to arrange a christmas lunch with those I am very friendly with (3 or 4) but felt bad about others (office of 40 plus) possibly feeling excluded if they thought it was a "thing" with it being christmas so I ended up abandoning the plan. The idea that people would deliberately exclude one person and organise a festive event is just really sad.

Excluding one person is just sad.

But it's equally sad that you couldn't sort out to have lunch, in your own time and paid for by you, with your friends from the office. If there's only 3-4 people involved, then it should be 100% possible to organise on the QT without the others even realising what you were doing.

lazybones32

mariaalice wrote: »

I think it more a case of behaving like the adult they are suppose to be not a bunch of schoolyard bullies.

I disagree. If it was schoolyard/immature antics, she'd be told there was lunch but she wasn't being invited because she's not liked. This is simply a case where adults don't want to invite someone they don't like. What is wrong with that? Nothing.

lazybones32

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Adult behaviour. When someone behaves like a "cvnt", you say to them "you behave like a cvnt". You don't organise some public humiliation by getting the rest to gang up. That's childish behaviour.

Do you really say to (select) people 'you behave like a cvnt'? People here on boards are great at saying how they'd like to act but not how they actually do act...
It's not being organised to ostracise the cvnt; it's organised so people who mostly enjoy each others' presence can have lunch together. See the difference?

cml387

If she is such a see-you-next-Tuesday, and you don't invite her, what's she going to be like next year?

yabadabado

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course her hands arent washed of all respnsibility,let the management deal with her for being workshy/a cnut.

This is beyond childish,there is always going to be a certain amount of personalty clashes in a workplace but whats suggested in the OP isnt going to solve anything and I would say its more likely going to make things worse.

PeterParker957

I always wondered how the bullies in my school ended up and would they be ad cliquey afterwards.

Now I know.

lazybones32

Aya Sparse Loop wrote: »

That's far from an adult way of dealing with issues in life. If there is a problem with her then she needs to be told, via a manager if need be, not ostracised by a group who haven't the guts to deal with the real problem in a grown up manner.

Since when did her personality become the responsibility of her coworkers or management?
She is an adult; a citizen of this Republic and she can be whatever type of person she has chosen to be (which in this instance, appears to be a cvnt)
Her work practices are within the remit of her coworkers, superiors and employers. Her personality and whether people like that personality is her own responsibility.
She's being excluded because she's not a nice person, according to the OP. That is acceptable, natural and normal human behaviour.

A cousin of mine had over 40 years teaching experience and she says that when a child complained that no other child would talk to them or play with them, it was because that child was a bully or very unpleasant. People avoid contact and interaction with a$$holes.

marieholmfan

lazybones32 wrote: »

A cousin of mine had over 40 years teaching experience and she says that when a child complained that no other child would talk to them or play with them, it was because that child was a bully or very unpleasant. People avoid contact and interaction with a$$holes.

Your cousin sounds like a horrible old bitch. What's bred in the bone eh?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

lazybones32 wrote: »

Since when did her personality become the responsibility of her coworkers or management?
She is an adult; a citizen of this Republic and she can be whatever type of person she has chosen to be (which in this instance, appears to be a cvnt)
Her work practices are within the remit of her coworkers, superiors and employers. Her personality and whether people like that personality is her own responsibility.
She's being excluded because she's not a nice person, according to the OP. That is acceptable, natural and normal human behaviour.

A cousin of mine had over 40 years teaching experience and she says that when a child complained that no other child would talk to them or play with them, it was because that child was a bully or very unpleasant. People avoid contact and interaction with a$$holes.

Maybe read what was written rather than what your indignation wanted to see. It's her work behaviour that should be brought to task, not her personality. Where did I say to raise her personality with her or management?

corner of hells

How bout we all go to the lunch to enjoy the ambience.

Estrellita

Deandre Shapely Tape wrote: »

We're planning to go for lunch the day we break up for Christmas and the person organising it wants to leave unpopular colleague out. Several others have agreed with this.

What a lovely bunch of people you work with. One bossy up herself colleague and a bunch of two-faced bullies. I say two faced because they clearly have an issue with her but never have the balls to confront her.

Buy yourself a nice bottle of wine and some nice food on the way home. It will be far more pleasant an evening by the sounds of it.

wakka12

Honestly no matter how bitchy somebody was( I can't imagine somebody doing stuff thats bad in an office setting), its so horrible and I guarantee you even if she's bitchy and insufferable shell be deeply hurt by it, much more hurtful than anything she's said to any of you. I wouldn't do it to her anyway

By all means tell her to her face she's being annoying but don't go behind her back this isn't primary school
My 14 year old sister comes back from school everyday with stories of bitchy teenage girls purposely leaving girls in their group from social gatherings to offend them and other **** like that. Yee are adults, tell your colleagues to cop on OP !

lazybones32

lazybones32 wrote: »

Do you really say to (select) people 'you behave like a cvnt'? People here on boards are great at saying how they'd like to act but not how they actually do act...
It's not being organised to ostracise the cvnt; it's organised so people who mostly enjoy each others' presence can have lunch together. See the difference?

No, I don't, I used that word as you had. I've told people their behaviour and/or work is unacceptable, not good enough, outrageous etc. It's simply the most effective way of making a point. As you get older, you just get less tolerant of silly stuff like not inviting someone for lunch and hoping this will lead to a moment of self realisation followed by harmony.

lazybones32

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No, I don't, I used that word as you had. I've told people their behaviour and/or work is unacceptable, not good enough, outrageous etc. It's simply the most effective way of making a point. As you get older, you just get less tolerant of silly stuff like not inviting someone for lunch and hoping this will lead to a moment of self realisation followed by harmony.

Wanna answer the second part that was put to you?

lazybones32

Aya Sparse Loop wrote: »

Maybe read what was written rather than what your indignation wanted to see. It's her work behaviour that should be brought to task, not her personality. Where did I say to raise her personality with her or management?

She's not being excluded for being a poor worker, is she? No, it's the acidic personality...
It isn't a work-based lunch. Not a business matter. Personal meeting. And she is excluded.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

lazybones32 wrote: »

She's not being excluded for being a poor worker, is she? No, it's the acidic personality...
It isn't a work-based lunch. Not a business matter. Personal meeting. And she is excluded.

It's her team work, inter personal skills etc and how they affect the rest of the team that are at issue.

basically too big for her boots, foists her work onto other people and is just generally full of herself

milehip

I wouldn't do it no matter how big a pain they are,
just wouldn't be an enjoyable lunch with that kind of undercurrent. I just wouldn't go, (probably wouldn't go anyway, see enough of work colleagues throughout the year)

C14N

Honestly, it's very hard to say when the excludee's sins are so vaguely defined as
"basically too big for her boots, foists her work onto other people and is just generally full of herself."

None of that alone sounds like much of a reason to hate somebody. It kind of sounds like a person who is just a bit annoying and socially oblivious to this fact. From your description, she doesn't sound very senior, or like she has enough power to really make the workplace unpleasant. Given this, organising a night out for the entire staff except her sounds like such a monstrously nasty and petty thing to do, and I think if I had a job in an office like that I would be looking for another job, and certainly not attending that event. Being left out like that and not even knowing why would be incredibly depressing.

Presumably she is not being fired any time soon (you said nothing about her being incompetent) so after this whole event, you're still going to have to all face her in January, and work with her. If this is some attempt to pressure her into leaving then maybe it will work, but it's about the most cowardly way imaginable of doing so. If all the problem is is that she's a bit annoying or lazy, then this should be something that can be fixed by talking to HR or having one person take her aside to tell her directly what it is she does that is so annoying. It'll sting a bit, but a lot less than slowly finding out that your entire office either hates you or is okay with being complicit in bullying you.

Rubberchikken

Isnt it a form of bullying/isolation.
Yes she sounds like a pain and could possibly be insecure underneath the crap but anyone who agrees with excluding her is just pathetic.
Either someone should be speaking to her, preferably her manager about her behaviour or the office should just learn to ignore her crap

backspin.

C14N wrote: »

Honestly, it's very hard to say when the excludee's sins are so vaguely defined as
"basically too big for her boots, foists her work onto other people and is just generally full of herself."

None of that alone sounds like much of a reason to hate somebody. It kind of sounds like a person who is just a bit annoying and socially oblivious to this fact. From your description, she doesn't sound very senior, or like she has enough power to really make the workplace unpleasant. Given this, organising a night out for the entire staff except her sounds like such a monstrously nasty and petty thing to do, and I think if I had a job in an office like that I would be looking for another job, and certainly not attending that event. Being left out like that and not even knowing why would be incredibly depressing.

Presumably she is not being fired any time soon (you said nothing about her being incompetent) so after this whole event, you're still going to have to all face her in January, and work with her. If this is some attempt to pressure her into leaving then maybe it will work, but it's about the most cowardly way imaginable of doing so. If all the problem is is that she's a bit annoying or lazy, then this should be something that can be fixed by talking to HR or having one person take her aside to tell her directly what it is she does that is so annoying. It'll sting a bit, but a lot less than slowly finding out that your entire office either hates you or is okay with being complicit in bullying you.

Its an incredibly cruel thing to do. I'm sure this person doesn't realize she is being 'full of herself' or 'too big for her boots'.

To everyone who think its OK just imagine for a second how you would feel if all of your workmates went out for a night out and you were the only person not invited.

Sand

C14N wrote: »

Honestly, it's very hard to say when the excludee's sins are so vaguely defined as
"basically too big for her boots, foists her work onto other people and is just generally full of herself."

Yeah, tbh that could describe 90% of people working today.

Cowardly is the best way to describe this exclusion too. The people responsible sound like nasty pieces of work. If there's 19-20 people going, that's a big enough group that the 2 or 3 (and its always just 2 or 3) who seem to resent her wont have to interact with her. Its up to the people in that office who recognise this is a really nasty thing to do to do something about it though.

C14N

Sand wrote: »

Yeah, tbh that could describe 90% of people working today.

Cowardly is the best way to describe this exclusion too. The people responsible sound like nasty pieces of work. If there's 19-20 people going, that's a big enough group that the 2 or 3 (and its always just 2 or 3) who seem to resent her wont have to interact with her. Its up to the people in that office who recognise this is a really nasty thing to do to do something about it though.

I'm not pretending I don't understand it, because it is difficult to approach sore subjects like that (hence why you're probably not that far off with your 90% estimate). I understand the compulsion to just keep kicking the can down the road and only address it behind the person's back, but that doesn't make it right, and doing something as big as this kind of exclusion is taking it to the point of being passive-aggressively spiteful instead of just weak.

Katgurl

No. I wouldn't do it. It's horrible. I wouldnt simply not go either, I'd voice my opinion on it.

bottlebrush

does this person work full time or part time - if part time could you organise it for a day that the person doesn't work citing it suits most of the other people. otherwise treading into dangerous territory deliberately leaving her out. what's she like when she is out? could she be a more pleasant person altogether?

bucketybuck

Just remember that when you have dealt with this pariah somebody else will have to fill that role, because in toxic groups like this there is always somebody who has to be the target.

I wonder who is next in line to be "too big for her boots", and "generally full of themselves"? Is it you OP?

Tread carefully OP, if you lot were any use at all you would not be in the position of 19 grown men and women acting like childish little bullies.

dublinman1990

No. I would not agree with not inviting her either. This move of not inviting her for lunch is particularly bad at this time of the year because in the spirit of Christmas you're meant to send out some goodwill to people whom you either like or not. This applies to any person particularly in a work setting.

Her colleagues should be nice to her by inviting her over for the lunch. Don't act cruel otherwise it will bite you back in the ass.

NollagShona

Exclusion can be classed as bullying in the workplace.

Dont do it OP

gozunda

Avatar MIA wrote: »

If it's not organised or paid by work, it isn't bullying. If it is, that's different.

Organised workplace social exclusion may well be considered in this regard as bullying by exclusion.

OP- be wary of the group mob type mentality which can develop and grow very easily in these situations - it can foster vicious behaviour well beyond what an individual might otherwise consider normal behaviour.

NollagShona

OP I studied HR law, this can be classed as bullying in the workplace, especially if only 1 staff member is excluded.

And FFS, its Christmas!

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

gimli2112

I really hope I don't work with the op. I'm generally blind to office politics. This is a real garbage thing to do to someone you work with.

James 007

Electric Sheep wrote: »

In my experience, it usually means that there is a Queen Bee in the office who has decided that this woman is not part of the "In Crowd", and others in the office are afraid to challenge the Queen Bee in case they themselves become a target. Such behavior should be left behind in school, but it is unfortunately very common in some workplaces.

I've quit jobs where this sort of thing goes on, even though it was not targeted at me. Life is too short to spend 8 hours a day witnessing that sort of behaviour.

Unfortunately this is very prevalent in the Pharma industry, Queen Bees in QA office, school mentality, circle of friends etc. Work in construction industry for a good number of years, by far more a professional environment.

Patww79

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

On the other hand, the OP said "there's an asshole in the workplace" and most have pointed out "maybe there's 19"...

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

lazybones32

Aya Sparse Loop wrote: »

It's her team work, inter personal skills etc and how they affect the rest of the team that are at issue.

Two-thirds of the description refer to personality, not an evaluation of her work ethic.

lawred2

Deandre Shapely Tape wrote: »

There's a person in work who has been pissing people off all year - basically too big for her boots, foists her work onto other people and is just generally full of herself.

We're planning to go for lunch the day we break up for Christmas and the person organising it wants to leave unpopular colleague out. Several others have agreed with this.

Personally I think that's a horrible thing to do to someone and particularly just before Christmas when we won't see each other for over a week. I know she's a pain, but it seems a really childish way to carry on. I'd rather not have the lunch at all than do something like that.

Just wondering how many of you would go along with something like this?

Is this an actual office party or an informal lunch?

Either way it's a nasty petty thing to do but excluding someone from the former could land the organiser in a big spot of bother with HR etc

lawred2

And anyone going along with it is worse to be honest

SuperS54

Many, many moons ago I worked in a small company where a similar issue cropped up. There were 8 of us on the workshop floor, some of us got on very well and would have an occasional pint together, were on good terms with the others, except for one complete &^%$* who was related to a part time manager. The list of reasons for him being a &^%$* is long, suffice to say he was universally disliked by everyone on the floor and a few of the management staff as well.

Christmas party was always a source of tension as some of the lads on the floor were fairly rough and ready and tended to save up their grievances and have a go at managers after a few pints. Anyhow, it was decided that the main Christmas party would be a good dinner but minimum alcohol and no rounds afterwards. To make up for it somewhat there would be an additional lunch time do for the workshop crew.

No one wanted to have the lunch as it would involve eating with &^%$* which was always avoided. Someone had a word with a sympathetic manager but was told the lunch was arranged, table and food booked and either like it or lump it.

We chose to lump it. On the day in question we booked and paid for a separate restaurant ourselves. Everyone was all talk of the upcoming do, on the day in question everyone jumped into cars and headed off (&^%$* always made his own way anywhere as no one would travel with him). &^%$* ended up in an empty restaurant at lunch time with 8 bowls of soup laid out. We had a great feed and good craic.

Naturally there was hell to pay a couple of hours later when word got to the management team. Foreman stirred it further by throwing in the receipt for our do and complaining that the restaurant hadn't been properly booked or paid for . The names of the restaurants were nothing alike but we claimed we must have misunderstood where the do was on. Everyone knew what had happened and our bill even got paid in the end. I left the following summer so have no idea how the next Christmas do went!

TLDR: OP instead of not inviting the disliked one, uninvite yourselves and let her sit it out alone!

PeterParker957

Deleted User wrote: »

On the other hand, the OP said "there's an asshole in the workplace" and most have pointed out "maybe there's 19"...

Never thought we'd agree, but this is spot on.

I definitely get the feeling that the "bad" colleague in question is actually getting the rest of the workforce to do their fair share rather than sit round gassing, and like good little cliques everywhere the self appointed leader is making every effort to ostracise her.

Very bad form if anyone goes along with that IMHO.

_Brian

eeguy wrote: »

It's a stupid, passive aggressive, childish response.

A better response would be to stand up for yourselves and tell her where to go when she gets on your nerves.

I think this is the correct response.

I would include everyone in the invitation to lunch, it’s petty not to.

But then during the work year there should be a concerted effort to get a handle on things, deal with workplace issues properly, if she’s causing trouble bring it to management and deal with it frankly and honestly. Document the problems with actual examples so you have a case to bring to the managers.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Electric Sheep wrote: »

In my experience, it usually means that there is a Queen Bee in the office who has decided that this woman is not part of the "In Crowd", and others in the office are afraid to challenge the Queen Bee in case they themselves become a target. Such behavior should be left behind in school, but it is unfortunately very common in some workplaces.

I've quit jobs where this sort of thing goes on, even though it was not targeted at me. Life is too short to spend 8 hours a day witnessing that sort of behavior.

No, that's not the situation. She's basically been promoted beyond her capabilities by a Manager she's well in with and has, since then, been going around foisting work she's not able to do onto other colleagues in a very arrogant 'do it. I'm too busy' kind of way. She's even tried ordering me to do work for her although we are at the same level in the organisation. She's also refusing to do a part of her job that involves working occasional weekends, coming up with endless excuses and insisting that someone else do it instead.

Complaints to the Manager (who is responsible for promoting her) are met with a 'yeah, yeah, well she's very busy and we should all be supporting her' response.

Anyhow, as far as I can gather a number of people are refusing to go to the lunch and it looks likely to be abandoned.

PeterParker957

Deandre Shapely Tape wrote: »

No, that's not the situation. She's basically been promoted beyond her capabilities by a Manager she's well in with and has, since then, been going around foisting work she's not able to do onto other colleagues in a very arrogant 'do it. I'm too busy' kind of way. She's even tried ordering me to do work for her although we are at the same level in the organisation. She's also refusing to do a part of her job that involves working occasional weekends, coming up with endless excuses and insisting that someone else do it instead.

Complaints to the Manager (who is responsible for promoting her) are met with a 'yeah, yeah, well she's very busy and we should all be supporting her' response.

Anyhow, as far as I can gather a number of people are refusing to go to the lunch and it looks likely to be abandoned.

Perhaps s/he's right ?

Deandre Shapely Tape

Deandre Shapely Tape wrote: »

...going around foisting work she's not able to do onto other colleagues in a very arrogant 'do it. I'm too busy' kind of way.

Are they incapable of saying "no"?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Deleted User wrote: »

Are they incapable of saying "no"?

Believe me, they've tried. She then goes complaining to the senior manager who constantly supports her.

By the way, you made a lot of assumptions in an earlier post. Any chance you'd retract them now that I've give a fuller picture of what is going on?