Further to my post on the car driving into the IRD and Taniwha’s response that this could be seen as an extreme case of workplace bullying.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t get it.
Firstly, I must reiterate that I know nothing about the dispute between the driver and his manager. I am also assuming that his actions were a deliberate plan, rather than something that seemed a good idea at the time and then rationalized later.
I think that driving the car through the lobby could be seen more as protest. It was done at a time when no staff or public were near and it seemed to indicate that his problem was with the organization as a whole.
If he had driven his car through his manager’s (or human resource person’s house)…well, firstly, it wouldn’t have been as funny and secondly, it would have personalized the issue and put other people into danger.
The nearest equivalent I can think of is the local father’s group. They started off protesting outside the family court (and IRD, because of child support) chanting and waving placards. An annoyance, yes, but still a legitimate protest.
Then they started the same action outside the private homes of family court judges and solicitors. THAT, I would consider as bullying. it’s the difference between protesting against an organization/policy and protesting against a person.
The other issue, I guess, is the money that it will cost the IRD to fix the building. Again, I guess you could call this as bullying, but this is an increasing method of protesting. For instance, the latest protest against Hell Pizza involves not only protesting outside its outlets, but clogging up its website, and costing them money by ringing their 0800 number and not ordering.
The difference, you could argue that these actions are all legal, whereas driving a car through a building is not. I agree and while I may sympathize with his actions as a protest, I am pleased that he has had to face the consequences of his actions in court.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I suppose the devil is in the detail as that provides the context and history that gives an activity its meaning. And like you I agree that context and history is out of bounds here.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I think your personal-private split is little spurious as ultimately it is individuals who are assigned responsibilities for functions in organisations. Therefore any action, protest or otherwise is explicitly or implicitly targetted at an individual or individuals. They want that person to act. But I do agree that action against homes does seem more threatening.
the thing is, if it is personalised, it is more like bullying.
ReplyDeletefor instamce, from time to time we get bomb threats or someone threatens the organisation as a whole. it happened yesterday-when i left for the day there was a security guard on the door. i didn't feel particulary bullied.
however, ther have been times when clients have picked on me personally. for two months last year i had to let a security company know where i was at all times and had a panic button set on my cell phone. that was (attempted bullying)
what i think we can agree on is this guy's action was kind of counter productive. it might have made him feel better, and it gave his fellow staff members a bit of a laugh, but it wouldn't have improved the case he was making.
(at his court hearing last week, he was remanded without plea)