Retail/Fast food managers who abuse their power (and sometimes employees too!)

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

http://consumerist.com/2010/01/fast-...-into-sex.html

Do low level supervisors power trip more than they should and take advantage of younger coworkers? Or is it a larger problem of companies protecting the abuser when they should be kicking them to the curb or making it incredibly difficult for the abused to make a formal complaint?

[HYHYBT]

Some things take time to work out of the system: looking at that, I was mostly wondering why a piece about the goings-on at Starbucks was accompanied by a photo of a very stale Quarter Pounder EVM...

There seems to be something missing from the linked page. It's like a teaser for an article that's not even there. So if there's more explanation that I've missed, some of this may already be answered, but here goes.

Some of it may be a 'power trip,' but I'd guess it's more likely simply to be people who would if they could finding themselves in a position where they're able to. As for it being hard to make a complaint, I don't know... but the trouble (again, as I understand it) is that this sort of thing doesn't usually lend itself to evidence. So it comes down either to assuming the accuser is going to be telling the truth, or assuming that the accuser is lying, or going with whoever you think is more credible. And none of them work well. The accuser must be telling the truth, or they wouldn't have made the accusation? Doesn't work: if you know you'll be believed, it's entirely too easy to make something up against an ethical supervisor or coworker you don't happen to like. "The accuser must by lying," of course, is complete nonsense and leaves everyone in the company open for abuse. And the trouble with credibility is that the next level up will likely have known and worked with the supervisor longer, and wouldn't have *made* them supervisor if they didn't think they were trustworthy. On the bright side, that's shifted when you go from a single incident to a pattern, and such people *will* do it again. But that's not very helpful to the first one or two victims.

[Greenday]

Four months in jail? What a joke.

I've never heard any of these stories happening in my personal life, but this doesn't surprise me. Does it happen all the time? I highly doubt it. But I'm sure it's heavily under-reported.

[kiwi]

That poor employee, what a scum of a boss.
I think in that case the person would have abused anyone in their power reguardless of their position.

However I personally witnessed and was subject to many bosses abuse of power, they would withhold bathroom and meal breaks as punishments, they would re-write your time sheets to what they think you worked, they stole employee rewards, refused to fire you and wrote you off the time sheet (that one never happened to me but I saw it at least twice) or were just so plain nasty and demeaning towards you work became to miserable to bare anymore.

I quit after a manager slapped me in front of a customer and another employee then laughed it off, she had the gaul to be angry at ME about me quitting.... that looser was fired and now works for daddy surprise surprise.

[Rageaholic]

Here's a video with more information on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIqpNe4K3sk

I am not surprised at some of the comments blaming her for all this. They are saying she should have said no, but what they forget is she wouldn't have been in the situation had this scumbag manager hadn't initiated it in the first place.

[BlaqueKatt]

I am not surprised at some of the comments blaming her for all this. They are saying she should have said no

and according to the article linked on ABC news S*bucks is "blaming the victim"-they got a federal judge to make public her sexual history

"The case turned ugly as the Starbucks law firm, Aiken Gump, used hard ball tactics to defend their client, including successfully seeking to make public the young woman's sexual history"

"Federal judge Andrew J. Guilford agreed with Starbucks lawyers and ordered the information unsealed because of the company's need "to defend themselves" and "level the playing field."

Starbucks disclosed in court papers that the woman has had sexual encounters with 12 men other than Horton, seven of them before she met Horton. "


Why is her sexual history being questioned, and not his? THat's not exactly "level"....How does this even apply as a "defense tactic"?

[Rageaholic]

Shame on starbucks for resorting to placing the blame on her and bringing up her history. Yes, let's make victims even more afraid to report harassment or abuse. That is such a sleezy tactic and it's even worse that people are falling for it. He was the one who had power over her and he was the one who initiated it. It also sounds like she tried to report it but her claims went ignored.

[jackfaire]

It depends on the circumstances. In my state a girl could be trying to sleep her way through an entire group of guys can even be something she said to people. Hell she could have said she was going to sleep with the guy that later she accuses of raping her.

When a girl accused my little brother of forcing himself on her the fact that she had said she wanted to get him into bed, slept with all of his friends etc was not admissible in a court of law.

A person's character should be a factor in any trial. That is part of establishing motivation. With that said her sexual history should have a provable impact on the case.

When the case is sexual harrasment or rape at work then it is not applicable.

[Savannah]

Wait, she left her school and went to him whenever he texted her for sex? She kept doing so after she was transfered?!? (The first she explicitly states in the video, the second is strongly implied.)

Either there is something more going on here than we know about or her parents seriously dropped the ball on teaching her to say "no".

That being said, Starbucks is really out of line, trying to make her out to be a slut as a defense. (It's not even a defense; what are they thinking?)

[Lace Neil Singer]

I personally don't understand why she felt she couldn't tell anyone. Did he threaten to sack her? Spread rumours? Threaten her with her parents' deaths? There's something that isn't being told here. I find it hard to believe that a teenage girl (judging by the ones I've encountered, anyway) would meekly go to their boss for sex without a murmur to anyone.

Much as I hate having to ask this question, I think it must be asked. Was she, in fact, having a relationship with this guy and is just trying to damage him now he's ditched her? Women have done similar things in the past; crying rape is sadly a very common thing to do for some women if they get dumped.

While the boss's side shouldn't automatically be believed, neither should hers. If her sexual history is to be aired, then so should his. It should be an equal thing. Having said that, even if he's innocent of rape and/or coercion, he's still guilty of sex with a minor, so should be charged with that, regardless.

[tropicsgoddess]

I personally don't understand why she felt she couldn't tell anyone. Did he threaten to sack her? Spread rumours? Threaten her with her parents' deaths? There's something that isn't being told here. I find it hard to believe that a teenage girl (judging by the ones I've encountered, anyway) would meekly go to their boss for sex without a murmur to anyone.

Much as I hate having to ask this question, I think it must be asked. Was she, in fact, having a relationship with this guy and is just trying to damage him now he's ditched her? Women have done similar things in the past; crying rape is sadly a very common thing to do for some women if they get dumped.

While the boss's side shouldn't automatically be believed, neither should hers. If her sexual history is to be aired, then so should his. It should be an equal thing. Having said that, even if he's innocent of rape and/or coercion, he's still guilty of sex with a minor, so should be charged with that, regardless.

I agree with you on this one Lace. There's got to be more to the story than "He forced me to have sex with him because he's my supervisor" and "She's a slut" . I'm personally on the fence with this one because on one hand Starbucks is saying that the plaintiff may have been trying to keep her (alleged) relationship with her supervisor on the low due to company policy. While on the other hand the plaintiff is saying that she was forced (possibly by intimidation) to have sex with her supervisor. Not everybody is going to report right then and there that they were forced by their superiors to have sex with them because of fear of retribution, shame and such. But because there's some details from this story that were left out, it's hard to believe if the plaintiff is truly telling the truth or trying to besmirch the defendant (her supervisor)'s name out of spite.

[PepperElf]

For me....

the big factor is regret.


I saw a girl online who was crying about the sexual situation she had been in. I don't remember if she's using the "rape" word, but she did press charges on the man for hitting on her when she was underage.

The thing is, apparently at one point she was going out to meet him. And yes sex was involved. Apparently more than once.


All I can think is that... Is this really "rape" at this point, or is it "regret"?

Because yes I do think the mentality of "If I call it rape, I'm not a slut" comes into play sometimes. especially if the worker starts seeking the attentions.