Say No-polite refusal

[hello125]

Hi,

I have a question - how do I politely indicate to my co-worker that I do not want to be extremely friendly with him?
I am professional and social person, but I prefer to be a little less friendly when it gets to colleagues.

Any suggestions will be highly appreciated.

Cheers!

 

[MedicineEng]

The limit is the legal limit to drive a car. If you cannot drive a car, for sure you cannot drive a forklift with a pallet full of flamable solvents...

 

[jmw]

Well now, doesn't this hire and fire policy work out to be discrimination in some cases and a violation of peoples rights?

Do you do DNA testing to see if they are a potential risk?
Do you require a full family medical history?
Do you have the same tough policy on stupidity? Can you do random IQ tests? Phsychometrics every week?

Seriously, is this a company wide policy or does it just apply to fork lift truck drivers?
Does it include management, typists and cleaners? Is applied with rigorous impartiality? Do you need probable cause?
Is it legal to require all workers to sign away their individual rights to work for your company?

It is easy enough to justify this sort of policy in the begining for critical positions, but it's the sort of policy that expands to encompass all things for all people and with little justification.

Some of these things are pretty difficult to justify in society where such things are fiercely opposed. In fact, in some countries random breath testing of motorists is prety difficult, they need a reason to stop you and a reason to suspect that you have been drinking (classic example... in the UK the transition to random breath testing has been managed along with the requirement that you incriminate yourself when presented with a speed camera photograph of your car going too fast - governments are no respecters of an individual's rights either)

I mean, I can understand we'd like our pilot at least half way sober when he flies us but this has reached out to include the passengers who just sit there, watch movies and hope the food won't kill them. It won't be long before passengers are breath tested more assiduously than pilots (who have a union, passengers don't). Sure, there are exceptions and exceptions need addressing but I'm not sure I'd like to work for such a company.

If I applied for a job that involved serious risks to others I'd expect to concede the right to test.
If I get a job as a cleaner, no way.
I think most such testing should show such a demonstrable risk that a persons rights within the work environment can be curtailed relative to his rights as a citizen in the community.
I think you ought to need "probable cause" to even start down that path with any other job classification.

By the way, MedicineEng, I am assuming you don't work for Walmart but do work for a company that has some kind of need for these codes? and by the way, if ever you want a job in Hollywood.....


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[ziggi]

The Nazis used similar tests to filter out unacceptable people......

 

[Ashereng]

JMW,

Gas plant, construction, start-up commissioning, State of Illinois.

1) You give to the uring test to see if you have alcohol and/or drugs in your system.
2) You sign to permit them to test you any time they ask.
3) If you fail, you are escorted out the front gates.
4) If you refuse the test, you are escoted out the front gates.
4) EVEERYONE, including the cleaner, secretary, window cleaner, welder, pipefitter, crane operator, etc, is subjected to the same testing. US is a democracy after all isn't it?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[ewh]

Now smokers are subject to the same prohibitions.

 

[Ashereng]

You get fired for smoking? Where is this?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[ewh]

I won't name names, but it has been in the news, and it has been found to be legal. When I worked for an oil drilling platform manufacturer in Houston, my boss had a policy of only hiring non-smokers.

 

[GTstartup]

Ashereng,

There is a popular misconception that firing people for smoking, eating too much, drinking, or just being obnoxious can be considered "discrimination". At least in the US, discrimination is a legally defined process and is limited to a few categories. Race, national origin, sex, etc.

In most States you can get fired for no reason. If a company has a policy that states that a certain sector of the workforce is subject to drug and alcohol tests and another sector is not required to take the test, this is not discrimination in the legal sense. This just comes under the category of "if you don't like it.....adios"

If a company decides it wants to fire all smokers, that also is allowed.

 

[Ashereng]

GT, I didn't mean to imply that firing people for smoking, drinking, etc. is discrimination. I re-read my posts and I don't think I implied that. I am not sure where you got that impression - maybe you can clarify.

My question is, in what areas (industry, geographical location, types of job) are people being fired for smoking? I work with a lot of smokers, and many companies would be decimated here if there was a ban on smoking. That is all.



"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[GTstartup]

Sorry Ashereng,

My post was probably more applicable to JMW's post.

As far as getting fired for smoking, In the US you can get fired for anything not legally protected or not specifically permitted in a contract (which is unusual). Smoking is not legally protected. If a company wants to have a policy of hiring all no-smokers it can do so. A good example is that many cities in the US are banning smoking in all public places, including bars and restaurants. This includes employees. It is not productive to have employees taking smoke breaks avery half hour so companies can elect to fire their smoking employees. Additionally many companies contribute to health care and therefore it's in the company's interest to hire only non-smokers and fire smokers. These are only rationals for doing this. As I say there is no justification required and unless you have a contract that says you can smoke it's "dont let the door hit you on your a$$ on the way out"

 

[jmw]

GTstartup, as Ashereng comments, the US is a democracy, isn't it?
Fortunately for some not everyone here works in the US.

Of course, this isn't just about health and safety, the HS motive wears thin when you get to cleaners and tea ladies; everyone is terrified of litigation and ending up in court where some jury of nitwits will award millions of dollars to some other nitwit who spills hot coffee on themselves because they used the dash instead of the cup-holder and drove out over the rainwater gully.

PS I was in a refinery in the far east last week and the vistor safety card listed general info about wearing the card, staying with ones host where the restrooms are and so on.

The only heavy stuff:
[ul][li]Smoking is prohibited.[/li]
[li]Possesion of weapons,alcohol, or illegal drugs is not permited on company premises[/li]
[li]do not run in the office[/li]
[li] do not fill your hot water cup more than 80% full.[/li][/ul]

PPS Hello125,
Sorry, we've gotten a little side-tracked here (it happens all the time, and it isn't just me).

If you tried polite and it didn't take, forget polite. Polite gets you nowhere in such cases.

Sexual harrasement is a serious offense and yes, it is a serious step to take to levy such a claim.
However, you should never be afraid to take those steps when you have tried a reasonable selection of options.

The fact that you have posted here suggests that you are running out of options.
A simple no, ought to do it with most folks, and even pleasantly explaining you are not interested or simply saying you are otherwise committed should be enough. With some people it isn't. It won't even matter if you forget polite and get downright nasty. Some folk still think you are saying "maybe" or even "yes".

I'd like to suggest that you wait for the next time when there is a crowd around and then in a very loud voice say that they are not your choice of house pet and explain why.

Of course, this won't work.
But if you have tried everything short of official action you have a clear concience and you can now escalate the problem.

Go have an unofficial chat with HR and ask advice.
This alerts them to the problem and they can now take "unofficial" steps. If that works, fine. If not escalate some more.

It might not be pleasant for a while but they will get the problem solved. I have witnessed this sort of thing in my last company and it was very sad for the victim. It wasn't exactly happy for everyone else and there is a limit to being polite and "trying to get on with things." You have a right to work in a stress free harrasment free environment.

As I mentioned above, the world is getting more litigious and companies that fail to act can expose them to some heavy litigation and so they will act.

Note: This isn't your problem.
It's his problem and it is also the companies problem.
You tried nice, but you don't have to be the heavy, give it to HR, that is what they are there for, to protect your interests, to protect the companies interests and to protect themseleves (priority in reverse order) and any two of those is enough for them to act.

If they don't, then find a professional advisor on these matters. Your union/local citizens advice office etc. will give you lots of good advice. Look up sexual harrasment websites in your area and find out what you can do.

The longer you "put up with it" the more miserable life will be. Act now. If he ends up out on the street, it's his fault, not yours. He will have had his chances.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[debodine]

Well, since jmw and ashereng both mentioned it, I thought I would stick my toe in the water.

You have probably all heard this before (or should have if you live in the US and went to a school that genuinely taught civics), but actually no the US is not a democracy. I realize ashereng was just being funny, but I am so disappointed at what the US is becoming that I just wanted to comment.

May of the founding fathers feared creating a democracy almost as much as they feared a monarchy, and some of them feared it more than a monarchy. What they attempted to set up was a constitutional republic. At least that is how it started out. Today it is an oligarchy run by political, legal and corporate dictators, backed up by a near police state mentality in unaccountable organizations like the IRS, the BATF and the FBI.

my 2 cents,

debodine

 

[debodine]

Oh and you probably should not respond to my last post. The government has already admitted it monitors internet traffic, in the name of homeland security.

)

debodine

 

[jmw]

The preponderance of lawyers even in the early colonies and especially as signatories of the declaration of independence is probably as much to blame for the current state of affairs.

Never mind homeland security, while the US government has reached agreement with the search engine providers to allow access to internet activity, one of them just secured a deal with the Chinese government with the price being that certain websites nominated by the government will not be "found".

How's that for the "freedom" of the internet?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com