Join 3,572 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


10 most bizarre employment cases of 2004
April 30, 2005 1:51 PM   Subscribe

10 most bizarre employment cases of 2004 - At least two of these cases were previously discussed on Mefi. (1), (2)
posted by madamjujujive (8 comments total)

 
In a great victory for the forces of the Lone Ranger, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear the Kemosabe case.
posted by blacklite at 2:20 PM on April 30, 2005


that's a really mixed bag--some are not wacky at all.
posted by amberglow at 2:45 PM on April 30, 2005


This employment, is it something I would have to have a job to know about? Anyway, it seems like any list of bizarre employment should have a pizza deliverer somewhere on it.
posted by LeLiLo at 8:08 PM on April 30, 2005


Feh. I've seen employment more bizare.
posted by TwelveTwo at 4:53 AM on May 1, 2005


Several of those cases are just blatent sexism or racism. Yes, calling a native person "Kemosabe" is racist, unless their name actually is Tonto. And they are Tonto. It's also offensive to constantly insult a woman's intelligence based on her hair colour. How would a man feel if everytime he disagreed with his boss, they said "Hey, you're just disagreeing because you are compensation for your tiny penis." This is just completely innappropriate behaviour. It's also so not appropriate to tell a woman to sit on your lap - that's sexual harassment. I don't care if your shopfloor isn't the Savoy, it's a public place of employment, and the company has clear rules on this.

It's nice to find out that sexism and racism in the workplace are just "wacky" crazy things. People wonder why women and minorities continually make less money than white men - it's because they let companies continue to tolerate this kind of crap. My mum used to wonder why the business she was an office clerk for couldn't keep women on their shop floor. But then the one time she took me on a tour, there were nudie pictures up in the work areas. The men there weren't anything like those in these cases, but they just didn't understand why some women might not like working around softcore porn. I thought my mum should have hung some full frontal nude pictures of men on the shop floor to see whether they enjoyed those as much.
posted by jb at 9:31 AM on May 1, 2005


I thought my mum should have hung some full frontal nude pictures of men on the shop floor to see whether they enjoyed those as much.

No doubt some would have, who would've been too afraid to hang them up themselves!
< /derail>
posted by Aknaton at 10:04 AM on May 1, 2005


I liked your thoughtful comment, and I agree with your pov, jb, although a few of these cases do not seem to rise to a level of a lawsuit, or at least not without more facts. As amberglow said, it's a mixed bag. These cases are about 50/50 in terms of the *wacky* perpetrator, imo - in several instances, the stupid party seems to be the employer.

The story of your Mum's experience brought me back. My first job was in marketing for a manufacturing plant that was overwhelmingly male. It was an eye-opening experience. This was years ago, and sexism was a nod-and-a-wink sanctioned way of life in so many jobs back then. I was aghast to find that several of the shop and warehouse areas had porno pics hung, and quite hardcore ones at that. In response, an older woman posted nude male pics all over her fairly public office. She wouldn't take them down until a policy came down: no nude pics anywhere. I am surprised to hear that is still going on in workplaces today.

Things have changed for the better in the workplace for women and minorities since my first job, but not enough. Now, a lot of the discrimination is more subtle, and the court is often the only recourse. But I don't like frivolous suits that trivialize important issues. This list sounds like a mixed bag of significant issues and stupid stuff.
posted by madamjujujive at 12:30 PM on May 1, 2005


I definitely agree that some of the cases were not serious - but it disheartened me to see serious cases thrown out not because they weren't true, but because they weren't considered serious.
posted by jb at 10:13 PM on May 1, 2005


« Older Tony's rap....   |   The truth behind the spin?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments