Timeline for Is this co-worker relationship salvageable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 28, 2019 at 11:32 | comment | added | BoboDarph | Hey, look, they found a good reason to fire OP: workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/126989/… | |
| Nov 26, 2018 at 14:06 | comment | added | BoboDarph | Legal or not, if OP is not lying, HR shafted him by failing to find any evidence of wrongdoing in Steve's actions or inactions, so attacking this issue from a legal standpoint just became a lot harder. I assume malice because incompetence does not fit. Steve only decided to mistreat OP after OP got the position. If Steve was incompetent, he would have been incompetent all along and would have never pushed for OP to take the job. But I might be wrong in the fact that both options don't exclude each other: Steve might be an incompetent a-hole. | |
| Nov 26, 2018 at 13:17 | comment | added | user56reinstatemonica8 | Question is tagged "United Kingdom", so a lot of what you describe would be illegal as Constructive Dismissal. Also, I don't see why you are assuming malice when incompetence is an adequate and much more likely explanation of Steve's poor training - most good programmers are bad teachers. And of course, one of the ways in which HR is supposed to protect the company, is be preventing silly personal power politics like what you describe from reducing productivity, so getting them involved seems not unreasonable. | |
| Nov 26, 2018 at 13:06 | comment | added | BoboDarph | @kapex Evil management? I don't know. Incompetent for sure, malicious maybe. What kind of a manager would set "Steve" up to do mentoring and then not ensure that OP is getting mentored, not bullied? My answer: either an incompetent or a malicious one. Hateful "Steve"? Dunno, I'd call a co-worker hateful if he bullies me daily because of my inability to meet his/her coding standards. See, Steve's job was to mentor OP, not to bully him. Management's job was to manage Steve and OP, not to cover for Steve. HR's job..., well just forget about HR. | |
| Nov 24, 2018 at 9:32 | comment | added | reinierpost | Whether HR is your friend depends on the company culture, the personalities of the people involved and the dynamics between them. Whether HR is expected to be your friend depends on employment laws and the kind of employer. With employment at will, just letting go of people without even bothering to check whether the situation can be remedied is acceptable or even expected. Elsewhere, to let someone go, the employer must be able to prove they tried hard enough to remedy the situation and failed through no fault of their own. | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 23:12 | comment | added | Clay07g | To put it bluntly, this answer encourages workplace harassment. If I was a bully, it would be in my best interest for my victims to suck up to me, leave, or put up with my abuse and make sure the company isn't aware of it. | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 23:09 | comment | added | Clay07g | The whole "HR is not your friend" mantra is way too overused on this website. This answer says "You made the mistake of trying to solve workplace harassment, you should just suck it up or leave". Going to Steve's manager and HR was the right choice. In many companies, it's in their best interest to remove a harasser or at least separate two people who can't get along. This company obviously has problems in that area, and it's better to try and fail so you can make a more informed choice when it comes to "suck it up or leave". | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 14:41 | comment | added | kapex | Somehow I'm not surprised that OP accepted the answer that basically says OP's only fault was not seeing through evil Management's and hateful Steve's nefarious scheme. | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 13:18 | comment | added | Patrice | Yeah, while the answer is correct in the actions to be taken, there could be dozens of reasons for "Steve" to act that way. What if he truly wanted to help the OP, but just before training learned his partner has a terminal illness, which broke his morale, and made him act in an uncharacteristic manner? It simply happens sometimes. I'm not saying my theory is better than yours, but starting your answer with "limited information", but then being able to say exactly what is happening, is kinda contradictory :/. Doesn't change that the actions to take, or mistakes called out are still correct | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 9:53 | vote | accept | Cloud | ||
| Nov 22, 2018 at 23:06 | history | edited | Kat | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Nov 22, 2018 at 19:18 | comment | added | JMac | "It was HR's conclusion that Steve's work is more important than yours, so their internal investigation came out blank." I think it may be a bit much to claim that without proof. It could be as simple as they did not have evidence to take action against him. Honestly, I can't see HR directly basing a decision off that, especially if OP had it documented well; because then they would be leaving a potentially huge liability. HR probably didn't want to take action against Steve; but I would say that would have been equally influenced by how much evidence OP had. | |
| Nov 22, 2018 at 16:04 | comment | added | Erwin | I concur with this answer. It reads like 'Steve' already decided to get rid of the author before the promotion was made. The real reason will probably never surface. | |
| Nov 22, 2018 at 16:03 | comment | added | Neil Slater | I think that the behaviour of manager Steve has definitely contributed to OP's problems. But a lot of the conclusions that assign motivations and beliefs here seem a little hasty without additional information e.g. "Steve definitely set you up to fail as a senior dev." Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity etc . . . perhaps Steve really fancied himself as a wise old teacher, and coped badly when he realised it wasn't working | |
| Nov 22, 2018 at 13:00 | history | answered | BoboDarph | CC BY-SA 4.0 |