Should I report naughty friend

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

And if the employee refuses? I doubt there is much the employer can do.

Well that would be one way to draw unnecessary attention to yourself.

Depends really, on if you feel the **** is really worth that much to you?

If it is, I think you have a much bigger problem.

But I'm sure it would be quite easy for the company to make a new policy on webcam use during meetings if required.

As a matter of interest - I know when we have large zoom meetings the organiser has control over microphones. Do they have control over video?

Sakana

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

I think you’re confusing frottaging with frotting. The former refers to “getting off” on rubbing up against things, or people, while the latter requires two penises.

You could always spot a “frottager” on a packed bus. They’d stand downstairs and as people tried to pass they’d make out like they were moving out of their way while pushing out their hips to get a “grind” on.

You’d see them at garages too, they sit their crotch onto the hose as their pumping the petrol and “enjoy” the buzz. I’m sure I mentioned it on here before but, not too long ago, I saw a lad in grey tracksuit bottoms doing just this and he had a clear, and graphic, erection showing.

These perverts are everywhere. I don’t think anyone should “cod” themselves that they aren’t on the other end of a work Zoom call.

Interesting! As a practitioner of the fine art of twin dragon sparring (frottage), I'd never come across this "frottager" business.

Makes my antics look positively vanilla!

blueser

Maybe some pics of these workers he's pulling his pud to could be posted. Er, for perspective, you understand.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well that would be one way to draw unnecessary attention to yourself.

Depends really, on if you feel the **** is really worth that much to you?

If it is, I think you have a much bigger problem.

But I'm sure it would be quite easy for the company to make a new policy on webcam use during meetings if required.

As a matter of interest - I know when we have large zoom meetings the organiser has control over microphones. Do they have control over video?

You are missing the point.

It is easy to make a new policy, but difficult to enforce it. If a wfh does not want work to see their home, or what they look like when they don’t have to dress up to go into work, or because they’ve a giant zit, there is feck all their employer can do about it.

Well, in my view they'd be very foolish to refuse to comply, given the circumstances.

Refusal to comply is also something that would not look good on a performance review, and as a manager, is something I'd have to consider carefully when assessing someone for promotion or increment - as well as who to recommend to allow continue WFH when the current situation stabilises.

You might get away with it short term - but not long term.

Again, you'd have to ask, is it worth that much to you?

1990sman

its probably a scene for his onlyfans

3DataModem

1990sman wrote: »

the attack on christendom wasnt neccessary to make your point

Mary was Jewish.

anewme

Dav010 wrote: »

You are missing the point.

It is easy to make a new policy, but difficult to enforce it. If a wfh does not want work to see their home, or what they look like when they don’t have to dress up to go into work, or because they’ve a giant zit, there is feck all their employer can do about it.

Not sure what you are getting at.

If you work in person, they can see if you have a zit, same as cameras.

Most companies will allow people time to turn their cameras on, or call time before the meeting starts.

You can blur your background, but they will expect go see you - the person they are paying. It does not explicitly say your contract - no **** during office meetings, but it would be covered by the gross misconduct clause and 99 percent of staff would not be surprised that **** is not allowed.

If you dont like it, you can leave and pull your wire to your hearts content.

Gruffalux

This sad scenario gives new meaning to wfh.

JeffKenna

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Two problems with that:

1) HR can't really insist on the right to pry into people's homes. Everyone doesn't have a private, dedicated home office. Some people are forced by this emergency WFH scenario to work at a kitchen table in a shared area, or a dressing table in a shared bedroom. So now as well as the employer insisting that the employee provides an office space for free to the employer, and heats and lights it for free, you think that employers can now insist on the right to visual inspection of the space that they're not paying for? Not a runner.

Just set a background on Zoom?

cannotlogin

I really wish I hadn't read this. It will be all I'm thinking of in our zoom call tomorrow morning!

There isn't much you can do about it with no evidence. Weird enough to be doing it. Even more bizarre to admit it. Our work zoom calls are fairly dull, it would take supreme effort for anyone to get off on one.

dotsman

JeffKenna wrote: »

Just set a background on Zoom?

Most people I see using backgrounds look horrific and I just want to scream at them as it is very distracting. Even with a decent background image (typically provided by the company), you need a decent webcam, lighting and a solid background for Zoom to properly work. And a lot of companies are not using zoom, but teams or webex etc and they don't all support backgrounds.

Ultimately, you don't want to have to "enforce draconian company policies". Working from home is still a very new concept for most people and companies and they are still struggling with it (but putting a smiley face on it). At this stage, I would still only be suggesting/encouraging/trialling improvements/ideas and not implementing company rules (especially when the only reason to do so is to discourage masturbation during meetings!:D)

In my company, the advice we are rolling out to to the teams is that people should use a video if a small meeting and others on that meeting are using it. It is ok to occasionally not use video. For larger meetings, and especially presentations, where the person is mainly just listening, video should not be used (and only presenters and main participants should be on video).

Piehead

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Just tell him to take some screen shots and do it later on!

I think he’s fairly bored wfh.

AndrewJRenko

JeffKenna wrote: »

Just set a background on Zoom?

1) Not everyone uses Zoom. Most corporate VC tools don't support backgrounds.
2) Setting a background, and editing a background for every movement of the person consumes computing resources that should be used to provide clear audio as a priority.
3) Not everyone is comfortable with having a camera on them, with no certainty over who may be recording video and using it for other purposes.

Employers should tread very carefully before making such demands, given the current legal protections on video surveillance.

auspicious

Don't bother reporting them and don't bother interacting with them again.
That's a huge in your face no getting around red flag.

anewme

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Employers should tread very carefully before making such demands, given the current legal protections on video surveillance.

A lot of employees are very happy working remotely and would like to continue to do so in some capacity when life resumes.

It is the Negative Nellie's such as this, who will ruin it for everyone. Never happy.

I'd rather turn on the fookin camera when in a meeting than sit for hours in traffic on the N7 five days a week on top of my work week. . I believe 90 per cent of people would feel similar.

Blended work options gives people the opportunity for for a work life balance. It is a watershed moment for those who know the torture of a commute.

But still some people object to being "videoed" which is reality is nothing worse than being there in person.

Meetings are easier when you can see who you are talking to, it also keeps you in touch with colleagues.

As Mr. Tayto says, always one.

smellyoldboot

Why the obsession with cameras on during meetings anyway. Where I work it would be seen as fairly weird if you did turn on your camera during a meeting. No-one really wants to be looking at you slobbing it up in your home "office". Handy too, can just keep working while those who like talking keep talking.

1990sman

nah

anewme

smellyoldboot wrote: »

Why the obsession with cameras on during meetings anyway. Where I work it would be seen as fairly weird if you did turn on your camera during a meeting. No-one really wants to be looking at you slobbing it up in your home "office". Handy too, can just keep working while those who like talking keep talking.

What's that saying...no matter how you feel, get up, dress up show up and never give up.

In order to keep sane, dont be a smelly old boot, slobbing it at home. Its not helping you personally.

Adds nothing to your mental health.

Ficheall

I don't have any attractive coworkers

stoneill

Don't borrow his mouse.

Piehead

Half thinking of warning the girls informally for the scheduled video call tomorrow. Maybe they should go audio only.

Feisar

Piehead wrote: »

Half thinking of warning the girls informally for the scheduled video call tomorrow. Maybe they should go audio only.

Noble of you and all however what do you have to go on that it's true? It'll you that'll get a call from HR when this gets back around.

Piehead

Piehead wrote: »

Half thinking of warning the girls informally for the scheduled video call tomorrow. Maybe they should go audio only.

I would contact HR about you. Should be an interesting investigation when your friend denies ever saying anything and you get accused of spreading rumours which severely impact his reputation.

Piehead

Dav010 wrote: »

I would contact HR about you. Should be an interesting investigation when your friend denies ever saying anything and you get accused of spreading rumours which severely impact his reputation.

On a no names basis of course. Don’t worry that portly deviant neckbeard won’t be named by me.

Mrs OBumble

Piehead wrote: »

On a no names basis of course. Don’t worry that portly deviant neckbeard won’t be named by me.

That just makes you look worse. Seriously, say nothing.

And start thinking of your female colleagues as women, not girls. You aren't in school any more.

Feisar

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

That just makes you look worse. Seriously, say nothing.

And start thinking of your female colleagues as women, not girls. You aren't in school any more.

No no, they are girls that need saving by our white knight here.

sbsquarepants

Mr.S wrote: »

Ahh yes let's just ignore blatant sexual misconduct in the workplace.

The guy is a creep and if OP's post is genuine, should be told to management. It's weird as ****.

It's not in the workplace it's in his house (it's actually in the OP's imagination i think, but the point holds)

Have at i say. Let he who is without **** cast the first stone.

I'm sure we've all wanked over someone we've worked with. I've done it both figuratively and literally to be perfectly honest.

It's just how i roll.

Sardonicat

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's not in the workplace it's in his house (it's actually in the OP's imagination i think, but the point holds)

Have at i say. Let he who is without **** cast the first stone.

I'm sure we've all wanked over someone we've worked with. I've done it both figuratively and literally to be perfectly honest.

It's just how i roll.

So you take the lad in out in a meeting and give yourself a tug while staring at a female colleague?

sbsquarepants

I would not. These were strictly after hours incidents;)

Although with the meetings they have in this place, it would probably be the most productive thing that happened if did:D

Sardonicat

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I would not. These were strictly after hours incidents;)

Although with the meetings they have in this place, it would probably be the most productive thing that happened if did:D

Well, I think you get my point. There's a difference indulging in a 'private daydream' about a work colleague (which is not confined to men, BTW ) and masturbating to a colleague who is working in real time. It's deeply creepy and demeaning (if true)

sbsquarepants

Sardonicat wrote: »

Well, I think you get my point. There's a difference indulging in a 'private daydream' about a work colleague (which is not confined to men, BTW ) and masturbating to a colleague who is working in real time. It's deeply creepy and demeaning (if true)

I'd very doubt it's veracity, but then again i have also seen some strange shít, so who the hell knows these days!


Either way it's not like he's whipping his lad out in a crowded office and running around like he's doing the 4 x 100m relay.

Sardonicat

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'd very doubt it's veracity, but then again i have also seen some strange shít, so who the hell knows these days!


Either way it's not like he's whipping his lad out in a crowded office and running around like he's doing the 4 x 100m relay.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you there. The colleague is on a zoom meeting, working and assuming that anyone in the meeting is doing the same, not treating her like some masturbatory material while she is doing her job.

bb1234567

It is deviant behaviour as his admission would make it seem like he get's off on the thrill of the danger aspect. The fact it may end up in him exposing himself to colleagues if he slips up by accidentally turning the camera on is just a dangerous position to be putting himself and this can quickly turn into a sexual offence.

I do consider it harmless though at least in it's current form, don't see how it's any different to somebody **** to pictures on instgram or facebook. So long as he takes precautions that he does not disturb other employees ie.themgetting a flash of his dick on screen, then what he does in his home is completely up to him. You're under no obligation to show yourself on screen, your employ doesn't have a right to peer into your room. It's a violation of privacy and not noecessary to do your work.

People probably do things in the privacy of their home that woud disgust you all the time. You'd have to be really naive to think otherwise, and you've no right to know about it or judge if they are not intending for anybody other than themselves to see it. Just because he's doing it during work hours doesn't make it a punishable offence

bb1234567

Piehead wrote: »

Half thinking of warning the girls informally for the scheduled video call tomorrow. Maybe they should go audio only.

This could come off so oddly and badly , really. It could sound like you're making it up as it's so bizarre. It'll also just put the women on edge and because it's so hard to imagine this occurring if you can't actually see the guy it may sound like you're just stirring crap up. Even if they took it serously it may reflect badly on you as they'll think it's weird your close enough friends with a guy like him that he would share this private information with you. It's just a total mess, I'd really advise not stepping in that pile of ****

JeffKenna

Who among us hasn't rubbed against a colleague and had a little relief in the bathroom after. Stones and glass houses I think.

Feisar

JeffKenna wrote: »

Who among us hasn't rubbed against a colleague and had a little relief in the bathroom after. Stones and glass houses I think.

I’d ride the harp of a ha’penny. However, no I never done the above.

Gruffalux

bb1234567 wrote: »

This could come off so oddly and badly , really. It could sound like you're making it up as it's so bizarre. It'll also just put the women on edge and because it's so hard to imagine this occurring if you can't actually see the guy it may sound like you're just stirring crap up. Even if they took it serously it may reflect badly on you as they'll think it's weird your close enough friends with a guy like him that he would share this private information with you. It's just a total mess, I'd really advise not stepping in that pile of ****

Yeah I think it is best to say nothing. The messenger is ALWAYS shot.

Sadly I have learned from this thread that **** to colleagues while they are addressing work issues on screen does not seem to be bizarre at all to some people.

I don't agree that one cannot have any oversight from an employer or even colleagues via camera for work meetings - you would have to be there in front of them in the office anyway, so how is via camera an invasion of space? Otherwise people could be in their week-old jocks ripping up a bong and their workmates would be none the wiser.

Sardonicat

Sardonicat wrote: »

So you take the lad in out in a meeting and give yourself a tug while staring at a female colleague?

His house, his rules.

bb1234567

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yeah I think it is best to say nothing. The messenger is ALWAYS shot.

Sadly I have learned from this thread that **** to colleagues while they are addressing work issues on screen does not seem to be bizarre at all to some people.

I don't agree that one cannot have any oversight from an employer or even colleagues via camera for work meetings - you would have to be there in front of them in the office anyway, so how is via camera an invasion of space? Otherwise people could be in their week-old jocks ripping up a bong and their workmates would be none the wiser.

It's not that I'm against that but it's just very sudden to expect this of everybody. We aren't suppose to leave our house which limits places to work anywhere outside your home and many people do not live in places suitable for working environments and may not be something they want to share personally on camera with colleagues. You'r expected to present yourself at the office, nothing more, this is new territory and everybody's circumstances are very different. for example somebody who lives in a small roomshare.Do they tell their roomate to F off for the day? How would they feel about being in the sightline of their roomates work chat.What if private company info is leaked to this outsider because he is in the work group chat(bedroom) essentially now and there's nothing you can feasibly do about that for the most part. Will the employee be liable if senstive info was leaked as he is working in this subpar environment he never asked to work in but now is forced to? There's so many circumstances that need to be accounted and allowed for and are being dismissed by a majorit who probably live in pretty spacious homes where things like this are non issue for them.

That would be humiliating to have to display your dire home living situation like that to all your colleagues but it's the reality for many people renting in ****holes inDublin .

It's expecting something from everyone that was not necessary when they took up the job, and the circumstances with covid make it even more difficult for a lot of people and some people are makinglight of this. It's totally new territory and boundaries need to be set, they havn't been yet in a lot of cases.

AndrewJRenko

anewme wrote: »

A lot of employees are very happy working remotely and would like to continue to do so in some capacity when life resumes.

It is the Negative Nellie's such as this, who will ruin it for everyone. Never happy.

I'd rather turn on the fookin camera when in a meeting than sit for hours in traffic on the N7 five days a week on top of my work week. . I believe 90 per cent of people would feel similar.

Blended work options gives people the opportunity for for a work life balance. It is a watershed moment for those who know the torture of a commute.

But still some people object to being "videoed" which is reality is nothing worse than being there in person.

Meetings are easier when you can see who you are talking to, it also keeps you in touch with colleagues.

As Mr. Tayto says, always one.

Even if it is 90%, what about the other 10%? Are they expected to lose their basic privacy rights because their colleagues have chosen to trade in their privacy?

Feisar

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Even if it is 90%, what about the other 10%? Are they expected to lose their basic privacy rights because their colleagues have chosen to trade in their privacy?

While I see your point, don’t you think it is a bit pedantic? Call me up on a work call and all you’ll see is a blank wall behind me. What privacy am I giving up? And Teams has a function that allows one to set a background. So only ones face/body is seen.
Having said that another poster said something about changing company policy to make video mandatory. I’d be dead against that. I don’t like the idea of companies taking things like that for granted.

bb1234567

Feisar wrote: »

While I see your point, don’t you think it is a bit pedantic? Call me up on a work call and all you’ll see is a blank wall behind me. What privacy am I giving up? And Teams has a function that allows one to set a background. So only ones face/body is seen.
Having said that another poster said something about changing company policy to make video mandatory. I’d be dead against that. I don’t like the idea of companies taking things like that for granted.

It's not just the privacy (which will differ with each person) but the fact companys just have this expectation you can provide a suitable environment for their work to take place within is a given. What if you live in a house where your housemates people play loud rock music all day..they're musicians. This will disturb your colleagues working with you via zoom. And yet theres nothing you can do about it (lets say for the sake of argument). Should a worker potentially suffer consequences for circumstances outside of his control, such as making his colleagues distracted by the music in order to get his work done.Your employer orginally made a deal with you that you work in an environment that they have have control over and have dictated is suitable and appropriate, and you accepted that. Those were the terms. The terms were not that maybe this will change and you make your house like this environment when I want you to.

It's unnreasonable for your empluer to now expect you to provide this working enrvironmet for them free of charge that lives up to their expctations of quality (being quiet and your voice audible for example), when this was never agreed when you took up your job with them. If they want this, this should have been stipulated originally before contract was made. And of course you can't just backtrack now as maybe he never would have applied for the job if that were the case. And now this change may put his career in jeopardy because of these new rules?

Of course I'm picking an extrme exmaple to play devil's advocates. But the clear guidelines you need to work within to maintain the job in a new wfh environment have not been clearly set, and that is completely 100% necessary and should not be casual at all when you may mistakenly do something in this environment that may unknowlingly put your livelihood on the line.

Godeatsboogers

Someone should tell him about this new thing, called porn. Whys he scraping the barrell having a **** to videos of women's faces?

Feisar

bb1234567 wrote: »

It's not just the privacy (which will differ with each person) but the fact companys just have this expectation you can provide a suitable environment for their work to take place within is a given. What if you live in a house where your housemates people play loud rock music all day..they're musicians. This will disturb your colleagues working with you via zoom. And yet theres nothing you can do about it (lets say for the sake of argument). Your employer orginally made a deal with you that you work in an environment that they have have control over and have dictated is suitable and apporportuate, and you accepted that. Those were the terms. The terms were not that maybe this will change and you make your house like this environment when I want you to.

It's unnreasonable for your empluer to now expect you to provide a working enrvironmet for them free of charge that lives up to their expctations of quality (being quiet and your voice audible for example), when this was never agreed when you took up your job with them. If they want this, this should have been stipulated originally before contract was made. And of course you can't just backtrack now as maybe he never would have applied for the job if that were the case. And now this change may put his career in jeopardy because of these new rules?

Of course I'm picking an extrme exmaple to play devil's advocates. But the clear guidelines you need to work within to maintain the job in a new wfh environment have not been clearly set, and that is completely 100% necessary and should not be casual at all when you may mistakenly do something in this environment that may unknowlingly put your livelihood on the line.

Point taken. I’ve lived with some serious headbangers over the years myself. I remember one particular spot and when I arrived one Sunday evening it was literally coke and hookers, so your example isn’t that extreme!
(I declined on all counts.)

Feisar

Godeatsboogers wrote: »

Someone should tell him about this new thing, called porn. Whys he scraping the barrell having a **** to videos of women's faces?

If this tale is true I’d say yer man has problems. He probably feels inferior and in his head he is violating these women in some way and is getting off on that.

Gruffalux

Feisar wrote: »

If this tale is true I’d say yer man has problems. He probably feels inferior and in his head he is violating these women in some way and is getting off on that.

Yes, because it is qualitatively different than **** about someone one knows in ones own private time, which is bog standard - in this situation there is the huge element of the immediate presence (albeit digital) of the person and that they cannot see the wanker, so the wanker has an edge on them.
The subject of the lust is innocently talking towards everyone's space, including the wanker, as is intended by ''team'' meetings, and the wanker therefore has a real element of power. The woman or girl is compelled, almost trapped, to be there by their work requirement, but the other is not compelled to reveal themselves by privacy barriers (as others are arguing). This is incredibly unfair and an imbalance of power completely open to abuse - and really calls into question whether anyone at all should have their camera on in these team meetings. If anyone knew someone was **** over them in real time during a work meeting they would be disgusted and feel very invaded.

AndrewJRenko

Feisar wrote: »

While I see your point, don’t you think it is a bit pedantic? Call me up on a work call and all you’ll see is a blank wall behind me. What privacy am I giving up? And Teams has a function that allows one to set a background. So only ones face/body is seen.
Having said that another poster said something about changing company policy to make video mandatory. I’d be dead against that. I don’t like the idea of companies taking things like that for granted.

Don't design policies (or products or services) around your needs. Design them around everyone's needs.

One of my colleagues regularly has her partner in the kitchen behind her. While she doesn't have a problem with it, some people do have a problem with having their partner on show.

Feisar

Feisar wrote: »

If this tale is true I’d say yer man has problems. He probably feels inferior and in his head he is violating these women in some way and is getting off on that.

He is? There must be an awful lot of inferiority and violating going on in the world if that is the case. Women do it too ya know.

Sardonicat

Gruffalux wrote: »

Yes, because it is qualitatively different than **** about someone one knows in ones own private time, which is bog standard - in this situation there is the huge element of the immediate presence (albeit digital) of the person and that they cannot see the wanker, so the wanker has an edge on them.
The subject of the lust is innocently talking towards everyone's space, including the wanker, as is intended by ''team'' meetings, and the wanker therefore has a real element of power. The woman or girl is compelled, almost trapped, to be there by their work requirement, but the other is not compelled to reveal themselves by privacy barriers (as others are arguing). This is incredibly unfair and an imbalance of power completely open to abuse - and really calls into question whether anyone at all should have their camera on in these team meetings. If anyone knew someone was **** over them in real time during a work meeting they would be disgusted and feel very invaded.

It's like a creeper peering in through a crack in your curtains while you're sitting there watching the news and getting off on knowing he can do this without you knowing.