Meanwhile in Japan

[mahnmut]

Japanese bosses forced female employee to wear bunny ears

A 61-year-old Japanese woman was forced to wear bunny ears as a penalty for missing her sales targets, with photos of her humiliation used in company training programs, reports said.

The woman, who was not named, was employed by cosmetics maker Kanebo in southwestern Oita.

She sued the company claiming mental distress after her bosses instructed her to don costumes if she did not meet her targets, including over-sized rabbit ears on one occasion, several papers reported.

Comments

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Saying 'this is how it is' is simply stating the reality of existence (acknowledging it is a problem and it does exist), as your experience clearly shows.

It is NOT a statement of acceptance status quo on my part. Clearly there was a translation/intent issue here.

You are at the point where any word or comment I make you are going to default to 'oh here is the old asshole rich racist guy spouting his bullshit' mode, we are never going to be able to discuss issues in a rational manner. Can you please show a bit of tolerance here?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

That's a cool proposal. Perhaps you'd then be so kind to explain exactly what your initial comment meant. Here it is:

"horrible treatment! I bet he forced her to work there too!"

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

It means, yes it was wrong and yes ultimately no one is forced to keep a job. That is slavery. An employee has three choices: quite, litigate or tolerate. No one is forced to lick boots, as you replied. No one should put up with abuse. And no one is forced to work for anyone. It all applies here.

The second sentence was pathos. The first was accurate, but technically kind of 'bosses POV'. I'll admit that. But a chat and the reality of laws in GA are always two different thing. It was written in the exact vein your licking boots comment was, only the opposite point.

Many times I will type something that simultaneously point out a different perspective such as above. While it foments misunderstanding, it does provoke more in depth conversation and detail.

Dashing to lunch will type later. I want to understand more about your social work and how you deal with the daily burden of caring for so many.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

"The second sentence was pathos"

But still you wanted to discuss issues in a rational manner, and "in depth" conversation - right?

Well, you could've opted for a more rational intro to that in-depth conversation. One which, you know, doesn't foment misunderstanding.

I cope somehow.

Have a good lunch.