05/27/12 - 16:30:02
: looks like we are protected already |
YES, THIS WOULD CERTAINLY APPEAR, ON THE SURFACE, TO BE GOOD NEWS, BUT WHILE I DID NOT READ THE ACTUAL DECISION, I WOULD WARN AGAINST OVERCONFIDENCE.
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE EMPLOYER LOST HERE BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED IN THE DISMISSAL, NOT BECAUSE OF THE ACTION ITSELF. INDEED, I SUSPECT THE REASON THIS APPEARS IN A TRADE PUBLICATION IS TO WARN 'HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGERS' TO AVOID USING THE KIND OF LANGUYAGE THAT APPEARED HERE. THEY PROBABLY COULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH THE LOSDS OF CUSTOMER CONFIDENCE ARGUMENTS, IF THEY HADN'T BROUGHT UP THE SUGGESTIONS OF INSTABILITY AND THE SILLINESS ABOUT THE BATHROOM (one wonders if these people have ever been in a women's rest room; they are, as many readers here know, laid out much differenty than Men's rooms).
ENCOURAGING, BUT NOT SUFFICIENT.
For Further Reading
Reply to this Message
|To have one or more emoticons appear in the body of your message, use the following codes. The emoticons are not shown here, so as to promote faster page load times. To see the actual emoticons, visit : Show Me.|