Corporal Punishment in the Workplace

[GoodGame]

Should corporal punishment be allowed in the workplace or should we restrict the choices available to a business on how to motivate employees? Many employees seem a bit spoiled these days and sometimes certain methods of discipline are just not adequate. If you object to this, but are in favor of corporal punishment of children, why are you more willing to see a child being on the receiving end of physical punishment, but not an adult? If a company's employees are unionized, should they be able to bargain for the corporal punishment of a member of management that violates a clause in the collective bargaining agreement? Should just low level employess be subject to corporal punishment, or should it extend to the President, CEO, and Board of Directors if that is what the shareholders want?

Sounds like Chi.Com. Being fired, denied a paycheck, etc... is punishment enough. If you want extra punishment for failing, you must be pretty gungho, so join the military. Be sure to brag about how much the fear of extra punishment turns you on, as the military is starting to get selective and has a large waiting list for basic training.

Also interesting that people pay for corporal punishment as their hobby. And other people are paid to provide that hobby.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm going to come out and say I'd totally accept a job that uses corporal punishment if I was compensated in some other way.

 

[Tarquelne]

Theoretically adults can and do respond to reason, so something as visceral as corporal punishment isn't needed.

But why not use it anyway? Especially since the above is false much of the time? Because adults tend to have a much higher tolerance for both pain and fear. An effective amount of pain is much more likely to cause significant harm. (Not necessarily a lot, but "significant.")

An adult is far more likely to be able to fight back if they get too pissed off while you're exploring their pain threshold. And that'd lead to harm.

Abuse can and should be prohibited. So chewing someone out/yelling is allowed... but often somewhat regulated. Because it can be abusive. The potential for abuse in corporal punishment is much higher. Playing on the safe side, it's generally automatically considered "abuse."

 

[JollyRoger]

Playing on the safe side, it's generally automatically considered "abuse."

Unless the victim is a child.

 

[galdre]

Unless the victim is a child.

yes, but children don't have as many rights

 

[Tarquelne]

Unless the victim is a child.

Yes. For the reasons given above, children and adults have different standards applied.

 

[Flying Pig]

Only if you're in the army because you forfeit many of your rights upon joining it IMO.
.

...no you don't, you keep the rights, but if you choose to act on some of them you are no longer allowed to work there. You still have the right to join the BNP, because you don't have the right to be in the army.

It is no longer an issue of morality to inflict punishment; it is now an issue of life or death as disciplined troops are a must.

You still don't go around hitting recruits. While very occasionally that sort of thing may be used to reinforce a point (Richard Dannatt had a story about how his platoon sergeant thumped him in the chest with a radio that he'd forgotten upon returning from patrol in Belfast), it's bad leadership to get your authority from being the biggest and hardest, however indirectly - because as every sqauddie knows there's always someone bigger and harder, but if you never try to compete you can never be beaten.

 

[Tani Coyote]

...no you don't, you keep the rights, but if you choose to act on some of them you are no longer allowed to work there. You still have the right to join the BNP, because you don't have the right to be in the army.

I'm talking morally, not legally.

Soldiers give up their rights for their duration of service as far as I'm concerned. If the command wants their life to be thrown away, it will be thrown away.

You still don't go around hitting recruits. While very occasionally that sort of thing may be used to reinforce a point (Richard Dannatt had a story about how his platoon sergeant thumped him in the chest with a radio that he'd forgotten upon returning from patrol in Belfast), it's bad leadership to get your authority from being the biggest and hardest, however indirectly - because as every sqauddie knows there's always someone bigger and harder, but if you never try to compete you can never be beaten.

Oh I know about the practical issues about it. One's ideals are not one's policies... or did I imagine all those Vietnam-era soldiers who killed their commanders by leaving grenades or whatnot in their tents?

 

[Flying Pig]

Oh I know about the practical issues about it. One's ideals are not one's policies... or did I imagine all those Vietnam-era soldiers who killed their commanders by leaving grenades or whatnot in their tents?

With the officers you leave the pin in and just wait for him to see what it does... but anyway, being abusive to those under you is looked upon very, very dimly indeed. Don't forget that all officers have been at the mercy of nasty colour sergeants before and know exactly how the relationship should work and how bad it can be if it doesn't, and all NCOs have been recruits - the next stage up in the chain of command would not be happy to find Corporal Atkins punching his section when they screwed up.

If the command wants their life to be thrown away, it will be thrown away.

No. If the CoC wants it risked, it will be risked, but they do not have the authority to order soldiers to do something which will certainly cost them their lives.

 

[Hygro]

Yes. For the reasons given above, children and adults have different standards applied.

The reason given above was "for obvious reasons".

I think adults have the mental reasoning to understand why corporal punishment is shorthand for logic, whereas it makes more sense for something to be explained to a kid in a longhand reasoned way, rather than employing corporal punishment.