Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was amused at my 1st visit to the US, which was to Vegas about 10 years back, for the GAMA trade show. I'd heard so much about customer service, but my first encounter with it, asking the hotel receptionist about the gym, was met with an abrasive, "WHAT?!?", rather than "Do pardon me, sir, your accent is a little strange to my ears, would you mind repeating that?" as I might expect from a British person in similar circumstances.

Formosa wrote:if you live in LA, you can claim workers comp for stress.

http://www.articlesbase.com/personal-injury-articles/los-angeles-work-related-stress-find-legal-help-1369275.html

LA land of (lawyer's) dreams. Ah the state that brought us palimony, and governmental bankruptcy...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ian Sturrock wrote:I was amused at my 1st visit to the US, which was to Vegas about 10 years back, for the GAMA trade show. I'd heard so much about customer service, but my first encounter with it, asking the hotel receptionist about the gym, was met with an abrasive, "WHAT?!?", rather than "Do pardon me, sir, your accent is a little strange to my ears, would you mind repeating that?" as I might expect from a British person in similar circumstances.

That's because you don't speak the King's Spanish auslander!

Sounds like there are some unemployed people in this thread if they thing they somehow have a legal right not to be yelled at, or are immune from being stressed at work or feeling emotional.

Also, paying customers can and will yell at you even in the white-collar business world. It doesn't end at the service industry. Are you going to claim your paying customer is harassing you to?

GW tells employees what they want them to be... Souless selling machines. Salespeople often have to be fake, aggressive, manipulative to make a sale. That is how it is. What I often see is lazy redshirts who want to run the store like a clubhouse and just be Grand Poobah of the gamers. They want to try to foster the heart and soul of the hobby instead of forcing product down the throats of those who enter. And often the unpaying customer want to pal around with the Redshirt and get crappy when he is DOING HIS JOB opposed to playing in the clubhouse.

If you don't like how GW does business, then don't work for them and don't patronize them. I am not going to expect GW runs its stores in a less than profitable way to make some employees who may or may not be doing what is expected of them happy nor am I going to try to armchair quarterback how my vision for GW management would somehow be more profitable and that they should change to fit my needs.

dienekes96 wrote:I don't know. To combine separate thoughts, I spent a few years in Annapolis, leaving in 1996 before their first GW store opened. And I got yelled at a heck of a lot, both in Annapolis and in my subsequent life

They did open their first store in Crabtown at the Harbor Center. It was below the movie theater near (or replacing) an ice cream store. I spent a lot of time at the Tower Records and big book store there (I forget which one).

I believe all retail jobs are horrible. And the people who work them are scum, deserving of scorn and derision. Just FYI.

Thats abit harsh. People may not have a choice but to work retail, it doesn't make them scum.

Managers can be fine people outside of work, but as soon as they clock on they can be worst of the worst.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Not my general experience.

sorry to disillusion you chaps, but most people I encounter are still friendly and helpful.

I am more perplexed by the apparent willingness to accept boorish behaviour if the responses to my question are anything to go by.
eg

Many schools? Around family members? Society tolerates it plenty, and usually to far more damaging effects.

Might be true in your neck of the woods, but it is not the case in the UK.
Sure it happens, but it is not tolerated and there are frameworks for protecting people against it.

Then I honestly envy your life sir.

Im constantly amused there has to be "Frameworks to protect people" against "Words that make you sad"

Yeah, thats called "the family".. Unfortunately 'modern' society seems to be outsourcing more and more of their responsibility to properly raise their kids to the government.

You deal with bullies by either running away and hiding or knocking them on their asses. Anything else just causes them to avoid the authorities *While* making your life hell. There are a ton of examples of this being true and Im sure people can find them in their own life experience quite easily

Eventually you gotta stop letting other people solve your problems for ya.. Relying on the government to do anything in a timely manner is a poor excuse for solving a situation

Granted you cant punch your boss :p but im more talking about childhood silliness that is "anti-bullying laws".. What ever happened to parents talking to parents?

Frazzled wrote:Er Canadian law differs strongly from US law.

Not only that, but US laws differ strongly from state to state, hence why I said to go online and check the laws for your area.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:You are not protected from a manager yelling at you by law in any US state, your statement is misleading because it implies that only some do not have this protection. I don't know about, and am not commenting on Canadian law.

I didn't specify only state laws, though. Companies typically have their own standards and practices as well. It's important the people inform themselves of their rights where they live and work, because while "shouting" may not be specifically mentioned in a law, some areas/companies may in fact have laws or policies regarding safe work places and such, which can cover shouting and abuse of that kind as intimidation, which is typically a misdemeanour.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:Sounds like there are some unemployed people in this thread if they thing they somehow have a legal right not to be yelled at, or are immune from being stressed at work or feeling emotional.

No, I'm quite happily employed by a respectable company that doesn't tolerate bs from its employees because happy employees are better workers.

I didn't specify only state laws, though. Companies typically have their own standards and practices as well. It's important the people inform themselves of their rights where they live and work, because while "shouting" may not be specifically mentioned in a law, some areas/companies may in fact have laws or policies regarding safe work places and such, which can cover shouting and abuse of that kind as intimidation, which is typically a misdemeanour.

You're at best confusing employment law with criminal law. There's a big difference (ok except in China and maybe Berkeley).

Maxim C. Gatling wrote:When I worked closing shift at CompUSA they'd lock the doors and keep us inside (unpaid) until the night manager finished their thing. That stopped when several employees threatened to press charges for kidnapping.

This is vastly different than the yelling thing, because requiring people to work (and 'remain in the workplace' counts as 'work' even if you're not doing other tasks) for a period of time without paying them is strictly illegal under federal law, and all states have some sort of labor board to handle 'wage and hour' complaints. Generally you are entitled to be paid something like 3x the wages you should have gotten in a case like that. Obviously in practice you do have to prove what went on (I'm sure they didn't have a written policy about that), but being paid for all hours worked is one of the areas where you do have rights. One interesting bit is that the law actually doesn't allow you to agree to not be paid for hours that you work.

Worglock wrote:considering that most states are "right to work" (ie: right to be fired for any reason), those kind of managers can do whatever they damn well please.

No, 'right to work' has nothing to do with it at all, it just means a state that forbids closed shops, and only a bit under half of US states are 'right to work'. A 'closed shop' is the term for when a union sets up a contract with a company that requires that everyone who works at that location be a member of the union. What you're actually thinking of is the doctrine of 'employment at will', which applies in 49 states (Montana technically requires a reason to fire someone, but in practice it makes no difference).

Foo wrote:I didn't specify only state laws, though. Companies typically have their own standards and practices as well.

There's no national laws either, and company standards and practices don't have anything to do with rights. Unless there is an actual employment contract saying that they will follow standards and practices, which is very rare (employee handbooks are NOT contracts), they are free to ignore them or selectively apply their standards and practices. Plus most companies have standards and practices that are written to allow them extremely broad discretion and with plenty of catch-22s (ie it's a firing offense to work overtime without management approval, but it's also a firing offense to hang up on a customer at the end of your shift).

It's important the people inform themselves of their rights where they live and work, because while "shouting" may not be specifically mentioned in a law, some areas/companies may in fact have laws or policies regarding safe work places and such, which can cover shouting and abuse of that kind as intimidation, which is typically a misdemeanour.

No state in the US have laws that make it illegal for a manager to yell at his employees. If he actually threatens violence, that can be (and generally is) illegal, but the threats would be illegal whether yelled or not. The fact that a statute somewhere uses the word 'intimidation' doesn't mean that anything that you think might be intimidating is illegal there. Again, if there really are such 'laws or policies', you should be able to point to a case where someone is actually prosecuted under them - but you can't, because they don't exist.

Foo wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:Sounds like there are some unemployed people in this thread if they thing they somehow have a legal right not to be yelled at, or are immune from being stressed at work or feeling emotional.

No, I'm quite happily employed by a respectable company that doesn't tolerate bs from its employees because happy employees are better workers.

And lazy, incompetent, stupid, malicious and unethical employees ruin morale, harm client relationships and lose money and harm those 'happy employees', often more than not yelling at that one employee you are trying to please. Asking someone to work hard and do their job may be 'harassment' to a lazy employee, doesn't mean it is illegal.

Kirasu wrote:Im constantly amused there has to be "Frameworks to protect people" against "Words that make you sad"

Yeah, thats called "the family".. Unfortunately 'modern' society seems to be outsourcing more and more of their responsibility to properly raise their kids to the government.

You deal with bullies by either running away and hiding or knocking them on their asses. Anything else just causes them to avoid the authorities *While* making your life hell. There are a ton of examples of this being true and Im sure people can find them in their own life experience quite easily

Eventually you gotta stop letting other people solve your problems for ya.. Relying on the government to do anything in a timely manner is a poor excuse for solving a situation

Granted you cant punch your boss :p but im more talking about childhood silliness that is "anti-bullying laws".. What ever happened to parents talking to parents?

absolutely agree with this. At some point the buck has to stop being passed, and a lot of parents seem to be absolving themselves from raising their kids properly. But, you can't dare say that (and politicians most certainly can't) without people having an aghast reaction about it, and taking the high ground about no-one have the right to be so judgemental.

Frazzled wrote:

I didn't specify only state laws, though. Companies typically have their own standards and practices as well. It's important the people inform themselves of their rights where they live and work, because while "shouting" may not be specifically mentioned in a law, some areas/companies may in fact have laws or policies regarding safe work places and such, which can cover shouting and abuse of that kind as intimidation, which is typically a misdemeanour.

You're at best confusing employment law with criminal law. There's a big difference (ok except in China and maybe Berkeley).

No, I recognize they're two separate things. My sentence there was written poorly.

I'm saying that in certain cases, in addition to the labour laws in your area, activities that take place at work can constitute intimidation under criminal statutes.

Look, I'm not sure why people seem to be so keen to discount a worker's ability to stand up for themselves legally in the workplace.

The point is this: read up on your local labour laws and your place of employment's policies regarding your rights and expected behaviour. That's it. There really should be no controversy in advising people to better inform themselves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:

Foo wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

nkelsch wrote:Sounds like there are some unemployed people in this thread if they thing they somehow have a legal right not to be yelled at, or are immune from being stressed at work or feeling emotional.

No, I'm quite happily employed by a respectable company that doesn't tolerate bs from its employees because happy employees are better workers.

And lazy, incompetent, stupid, malicious and unethical employees ruin morale, harm client relationships and lose money and harm those 'happy employees', often more than not yelling at that one employee you are trying to please. Asking someone to work hard and do their job may be 'harassment' to a lazy employee, doesn't mean it is illegal.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Lazy employees mean bosses should be able to abuse the good employees, too?

Yelling and bullying someone at work is not the same thing as telling someone to do a better job. Corporate policies go both ways, outlining expected behaviour and performance for both managers and employees.

If someone's not doing their job, then those problem employees can be let go and nobody needs to be yelled at or treated poorly. These are entirely different things.

[I'm saying that in certain cases, in addition to the labour laws in your area, activities that take place at work can constitute intimidation under criminal statutes.
***again, this is local - not sure what you're referring to as "intimidation." Pulling a .44 Super redhawk on an employee and telling them they might want to consider revising the memo may be illegal (why not?) but shouting at someone because they didn't read the memo isn't.

Look, I'm not sure why people seem to be so keen to discount a worker's ability to stand up for themselves legally in the workplace.
***Because its wrong eh? And this is not country specific. Go hang out on a trading floor or an investment bank in Canada. They will shout at you in a big way (but of course will say sorry eh!).

The point is this: read up on your local labour laws and your place of employment's policies regarding your rights and expected behaviour. That's it. There really should be no controversy in advising people to better inform themselves.
***Agreed.

Didn't somebody make this thread about GW store employees and their personal experiences there? I thought that was the case.

Oh, internet.

Foo wrote:Look, I'm not sure why people seem to be so keen to discount a worker's ability to stand up for themselves legally in the workplace.

Because, trying to stand up legally when you don't have a leg to stand on is a BAD IDEA. Fantasies about 'hostile workplace' and 'harassment' and 'intimidation' don't do you any good, and stand a good chance of leaving you unexpectedly unemployed. If a manager is behaving in a way that you don't like and it's not one of the narrowly defined protected areas (like sexual harassment or discriminating on a protected characteristic), there is simply no law protecting you. I'm not sure why people seem to be so keen to discount actually knowing what the laws are and what protections they do and don't offer, I find willful ignorance rather pathetic, and it often leads you to bad situations that could be avoided with real facts.

To put it simply, in the US if you don't like the way your boss interacts with you, you can appeal to his sense of decency, his higher-up's sense of decency, and any practical problems the boss's interactions can cause (including your quitting). You cannot appeal to any sort of laws about his behavior (aside from a few specific cases), at all.

The point is this: read up on your local labour laws and your place of employment's policies regarding your rights and expected behaviour. That's it. There really should be no controversy in advising people to better inform themselves.

The controversy is when people like you are worsely informing people on the thread, inventing legal-sounding fictions about protections that simply don't actually exist, like your idea that a manger raising his voice constitutes 'intimidation' and is typically a misdemeanor, when it simply isn't. People better informing themselves is great. People 'informing' others of information that is completely wrong and possibly dangerous is bad. You've got a much better chance of dealing with a bad manager if you make an argument that someone cares about than if you try to threaten him with imaginary legal consequences that don't exist.

Necros wrote:I haven't been to a GW store in a while.. I used to stop in the Franklin Mills store once in a while when it was still around, and I never had any kinda hard sell from anyone. Someone would ask if I needed help, or strike up a quick conversation about what I was buying.. maybe the occasional "need any glue?" when they ring me up.. that's about it. Always had friendly, nice folks working there whenever I was in, which wasn't often but still.

There was a reason for this. Franklin Mill's was in the Philadelphia market. Historically, folks in the Philadelphia region react negatively to being pushed around. I frequented this store. The store survived, along with the Voorhees store, as the managers were A+ and just plan old got it. Do you need to push your veteran games to buy the new stuff out there? Not really. You know when your Vet starts a new army, your getting some purchasing. So really you just keep the Vets happy, they will help to grow your store for you. How do they do it? Showing up with shiney, painted, and well converted armies.

Mills and Voorhees have / had a very good group of core games that went back and forth between both stores. The Vets helped coach younger gamers, and are very very nice people. So your store grows because your patrons are respectful, helpful, and friendly. You end up being able to back off the pushing for sales. Often its just about being a real person. Asking: What are you working on? What's your new paint scheme? Any cool conversions? That usually kicks off the Vets brain.... "oh i ran out of skull white, might as well pick up the other colors and brushes" Bam $30 sale.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:The controversy is when people like you are worsely informing people on the thread, inventing legal-sounding fictions about protections that simply don't actually exist, like your idea that a manger raising his voice constitutes 'intimidation' and is typically a misdemeanor, when it simply isn't.

The controversy comes when people such as yourself ignore the fact that most of the civilized world (such as Canada, where the poster you quote comes from) has laws which look out for the worker, rather than just the corporation.

Indeed, it could be said that America were the aberration rather than the norm when it comes to work place regulation.

Indeed, it could be said that America were the aberration rather than the norm when it comes to work place regulation.

The it would be wrong.

Deadshane1 wrote:If you work in the U.S. NEVER let a supervisor YELL at you. It's called Harassment, there are laws against it.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:You are not protected from a manager yelling at you by law in any US state, your statement is misleading because it implies that only some do not have this protection. I don't know about, and am not commenting on Canadian law.

SilverMK2 wrote:The controversy comes when people such as yourself ignore the fact that most of the civilized world (such as Canada, where the poster you quote comes from) has laws which look out for the worker, rather than just the corporation.

No, it think it comes when people don't actually read what's written and veer wildly from the already veered topic. This part of the discussion came from the first bit I quoted up there. Notice something that it says about location? I bolded it to help you out. And what have I said about laws in other countries? Oh, that I'm talking about the US, and am not commenting on Canadian laws. And guess what? Foo was commenting on US laws too, unless Canada suddenly switched all of their provinces to states while I wasn't looking.

Indeed, it could be said that America were the aberration rather than the norm when it comes to work place regulation.

Which is completely and utterly irrelevant (and probably not true, but Europeans tend to take a very provincial view of the world) - whether the US is the same as everyone or unique doesn't change what the laws in the US actually are. There simply is no 'your manager can't yell at you' law to back you up in any state in the US, and someone relying on those laws in a dispute is quite likely to end up unemployed and quite likely ineligible for unemployment benefits. The fact that things work differently in France or Zimbabwe isn't going to change what happens to the guy in the US, neither is your opinion of US laws.

Frazzled wrote:

Indeed, it could be said that America were the aberration rather than the norm when it comes to work place regulation.

The it would be wrong.

I'm not arguing that it is right or wrong, but that it is a good idea to know the law in your country/state/etc, as well as your company regulations, regardless of what those laws/regulations are, or what powers/protections they have to govern the workplace and what is and what is not acceptable.

Because knowing is half the battle...

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Indeed, it could be said that America were the aberration rather than the norm when it comes to work place regulation.

The it would be wrong.

I'm not arguing that it is right or wrong, but that it is a good idea to know the law in your country/state/etc, as well as your company regulations, regardless of what those laws/regulations are, or what powers/protections they have to govern the workplace and what is and what is not acceptable.

I'm not going to say you just lied, just that this conflicts directly with your previous statement. Here's a helpful quote, from you, just now:

The controversy comes when people such as yourself ignore the fact that most of the civilized world (such as Canada, where the poster you quote comes from) has laws which look out for the worker, rather than just the corporation.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:Which is completely and utterly irrelevant

You see, I do not agree with you - knowing employment laws can only ever help you, no matter where you work, or what company employs you. As your quote collection shows, the initial post on the subject was by Deadshane1 (Made in US) suggesting that it is illegal in the US for managers/etc to yell at employees as it constitutes harassment. There then followed various people from inside and outside the USA commenting on workplace regulation, and various people from inside the USA arguing stringently that there is no such thing as laws which protect employees (even when it is stated that such laws are based on the law in "X" country). Indeed, the matter seemed settled at the end of page 1 and the top of page 2 with various people having corrected Deadshane1 as to the nature of American law on this subject, until your post at the bottom of page 2, which was then questioned by a fellow Englishman, again, on the bottom of page 2.

Your explanation was then quoted by Foo, who suggested that people should look up the laws that govern them, to which you then apparently took exception to and here we are.

(and probably not true, but Europeans tend to take a very provincial view of the world)

I didn't think Americans knew the meaning of irony, but I have been proven wrong

- whether the US is the same as everyone or unique doesn't change what the laws in the US actually are. There simply is no 'your manager can't yell at you' law to back you up in any state in the US, and someone relying on those laws in a dispute is quite likely to end up unemployed and quite likely ineligible for unemployment benefits. The fact that things work differently in France or Zimbabwe isn't going to change what happens to the guy in the US, neither is your opinion of US laws.

Again, I'm not entirely sure how you are getting that anyone is suggesting that it is the case that this is so. The only points calling into question US law on the matter have been people saying "Really?!?! - you have no protection for workers from harassment?!".

I'm still not entirely sure what point you are trying to make here - the vast majority of people from outside the US have simply been clarifying how US law differs from much of the rest of the civilized world (and having read Frazzled's post -replied to below, I would like to clarify that "the rest of the civilized world" is used to differentiate between well, places that are civilized, such as the USA, Europe, America's Hat, etc, and places which will often have rather "uncivilized" labour laws (if they have any at all)).

Frazzled wrote:I'm not going to say you just lied, just that this conflicts directly with your previous statement.

If you note, however, I did not pass any judgment on the state of law in the US or indeed anywhere else, simply that the law in much of the 1st world does protect the worker as well as the employer; which seems at odds with the nature of the law in the US. My second post further clarified that a knowledge of said local laws could only empower you and not hinder you.

I am not entirely certain how you consider me to be lying, or how the two posts somehow contradict one another.

didn't think Americans knew the meaning of irony, but I have been proven wrong

That’s the second time you’ve slammed people of the United States in one thread. Now I’m not going to go Mod here because I m now involved in that thread, but frankly, this reflects poorly on you at this point, and mirrors a narrow minded view. When frazzled calls you narrow minded, you’ve got a problem…

I'm still not entirely sure what point you are trying to make here - the vast majority of people from outside the US have simply been clarifying how US law differs from much of the rest of the civilized world (and having read Frazzled's post -replied to below, I would like to clarify that "the rest of the civilized world" is used to differentiate between well, places that are civilized, such as the USA, Europe, America's Hat, etc, and places which will often have rather "uncivilized" labour laws (if they have any at all)).

In the words of the Immortal Bard: there you go again.

If you note, however, I did not pass any judgment on the state of law in the US or indeed anywhere else,

Well its either a lie, or blind ignorance of your own prejudice. Stating “the rest of the civilized world” impugns the United States. Coming from a poster from the country that invented work houses, your superior view is…misplaced.

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Which is completely and utterly irrelevant (and probably not true, but Europeans tend to take a very provincial view of the world) -

LOL!! Seriously, I've got a bunch of American workmates, but.. come on ..

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Foo wrote:Look, I'm not sure why people seem to be so keen to discount a worker's ability to stand up for themselves legally in the workplace.

Because, trying to stand up legally when you don't have a leg to stand on is a BAD IDEA. Fantasies about 'hostile workplace' and 'harassment' and 'intimidation' don't do you any good, and stand a good chance of leaving you unexpectedly unemployed. If a manager is behaving in a way that you don't like and it's not one of the narrowly defined protected areas (like sexual harassment or discriminating on a protected characteristic), there is simply no law protecting you. I'm not sure why people seem to be so keen to discount actually knowing what the laws are and what protections they do and don't offer, I find willful ignorance rather pathetic, and it often leads you to bad situations that could be avoided with real facts.

To put it simply, in the US if you don't like the way your boss interacts with you, you can appeal to his sense of decency, his higher-up's sense of decency, and any practical problems the boss's interactions can cause (including your quitting). You cannot appeal to any sort of laws about his behavior (aside from a few specific cases), at all.

The point is this: read up on your local labour laws and your place of employment's policies regarding your rights and expected behaviour. That's it. There really should be no controversy in advising people to better inform themselves.

The controversy is when people like you are worsely informing people on the thread, inventing legal-sounding fictions about protections that simply don't actually exist, like your idea that a manger raising his voice constitutes 'intimidation' and is typically a misdemeanor, when it simply isn't. People better informing themselves is great. People 'informing' others of information that is completely wrong and possibly dangerous is bad. You've got a much better chance of dealing with a bad manager if you make an argument that someone cares about than if you try to threaten him with imaginary legal consequences that don't exist.

For pity's sake: I'm telling people to inform themselves. I'm not giving them answers.

Frazzled wrote:That’s the second time you’ve slammed people of the United States in one thread.

I hesitate to call it "slamming", especially when it was intended as a lighthearted repost to a slur against Europeans and had a laughing ork at the end*

*Much as that sentence did to show that it is not entirely to be taken seriously and remains purely at the level of banter.

Now I’m not going to go Mod here because I m now involved in that thread, but frankly, this reflects poorly on you at this point, and mirrors a narrow minded view. When frazzled calls you narrow minded, you’ve got a problem…

I respect your moderating choice and your views and will admit that I have been somewhat baiting our American comrades (argh! There I go again with my socialist tongue in cheeking ways! ). As entertaining as it is poking Uncle Sam (and his legions of wiener dogs) I will try to keep myself in check from this point on (notice how I didn't mention "retreating behind the Iron Curtain" ).

Well its either a lie, or blind ignorance of your own prejudice. Stating “the rest of the civilized world” impugns the United States. Coming from a poster from the country that invented work houses, your superior view is…misplaced.

*Points to his clarification above*

Though I will admit it was also a subtle/not-so-subtle dig at American law favouring "big business" over citizens.

EDIT: Fixing quotes

BearersOfSalvation wrote:There simply is no 'your manager can't yell at you' law to back you up in any state in the US.

I am interested to know if Americans think this is a good thing or a bad thing.

Kilkrazy wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:There simply is no 'your manager can't yell at you' law to back you up in any state in the US.

I am interested to know if Americans think this is a good thing or a bad thing.

In the words of the immortal bard: "good, bad, I'm the guy with the boomstick."

You don't like it you're free to get the out and find a better job.

I'll note again this is a cultural thing (regional and business). In finance and investment there is a lot of that, especially in NY. Yelling at someone in the South, or at least Texas, is considered bad form and leads to a higher chance of a hospital visit due to the afront to personal honor (translation: be careful, the yellee may decide to say it and just kick the yeller's ass ).

I've been to the GW store at Concord Mills several times. I'm assuming it follows a typical store layout for GW, but as stores go, I wasn't impressed. I would rather visit any games store that provides access to GW products over a GW dedicated store.

Retail is harsh but nobody should ever endure the kinds of abuse talked about in this thread.

Kilkrazy wrote:

BearersOfSalvation wrote:There simply is no 'your manager can't yell at you' law to back you up in any state in the US.

I am interested to know if Americans think this is a good thing or a bad thing.

By and large I think it's ridiculous and counter productive,seeing a supposed inteligent individual,who's supposed to be "in charge" ranting and yelling like a 5 year old does very little to improve Management/Worker relations.
Sure,the employee may "listen",but respect pretty much goes out the window...and honestly,how productive are employees who " Obey" simply to shut some one up?