Dear dimwit on the phone

Well, the decision to fight (figuratively, not literally) or leave can only be made by the person involved. I have no idea how Batman feels about the current job, how long he has been there, what his family/financial situation might be or whether he wants to stand up for what he believes is right.

I've have jobs I felt worth fighting for and others I couldn't wait to get canned from. It's a very personal decision.

 

This.

It's 2014 and you were just threatened with physical violence by a supervisor. Take it to HR and show him about expendability.

 

Seconded. Get your resume and clips together and get out of there. The guy is looking for a reason to get rid of you or make your life a living hell until you quit.

Meeting with the person's bosses and HR is a good idea, too.

 

I think there's some room on the other end of the spectrum, too, that if played correctly, Batman has a golden ticket to be working there as long as he wants to work there (whether he wants to may be another question, obviously).

From my admittedly small sample size in the HR world, if this is pursued through all the proper channels, and the company is made well-aware that he isn't afraid of bringing out the big guns and won't be backing down, the directive will be that no superior so much as sneezes in his direction. If there's even a whiff of retaliation in any way for Batman standing up for his rights to feel safe in the workplace (hardly an unreasonable request), that could get real ugly for the paper/chain.

 

The suggestion to take things outside is where the line was crossed, regardless whose argument was correct in the beginning. From that point, a threat of bodily harm was made and it instantly becomes an HR matter where AME-1 needs to make a gigantic mea culpa or start cleaning out his desk. If the company is smart, any action against Batman at this point should be categorically avoided or they could face one hell of a lawsuit.

 

Agreed. If Batman likes his job (minus the one a-hole), he has every reason to stand up for himself. He did nothing in the wrong, why should he be the one to tuck tail and run? It's not this AME has a decade of seniority or is family of the paper's owner. Hold HIM responsible for his actions. Sure, it may create and uncomfortable working environment and that may or may not be worth it. Batman's call.

 

Well, a long-winded update...

Had a two-hour talk with the ME yesterday and I think we hashed out some of our issues. He blamed his performance on stress. The chain has had him doing some computer work at another paper a few hours away, and he admitted he was kind of fried.
I still think there's some underlying stuff there. For whatever reason he's interpreted my lack of enthusiasm for certain assignments (he's pushing hard to do more with our local youth leagues) as pushback and resistance. We've also worked together a long time, well before he became ME, so part of that might actually be on me. I still see him as more of an equal than "the boss" which, when there's a disagreement, can certainly cause problems for both of us.
But whatever. We can work on that. I think there's at least some level of mutual respect there, to where we can iron out differences eventually.
It also seems like he's going to be occupied for a while, which will be good. I've got a lot of vacation time coming up (including next week, which was well timed) and so does he, and then we launch into football tab season in a month. There's also a new sports/news swing reporter coming in that he wants me to mentor, and that'll take a lot of the load off of me. I think he'll go back to letting me do my thing for the most part, as long as I don't fight too hard on a few of his ideas.

I made clear my feelings about AME-1 and his attitude toward me, and the ME assured me that it wouldn't happen again. I get the feeling the ME and the quasi-publisher came down hard on AME-1, but stopped just short of termination. ME told me that AME-1 got written up, and would not be handling any disciplinary issues in the future. ME also said that if the incident had gone any further, AME-1 would've been terminated. I guess "any further" would've meant AME-1 is heading to the unemployment office while I was heading to the hospital with a broken jaw, so it's all still a little disconcerting.
He's going to try and avoid having us work the same weekend shifts, when there's usually only two or three people in the newsroom. Apparently AME-1 is handling my section while I'm on vacation next week, however, so that ought to be interesting. I left a detailed budget for AME-2 and the ME. I'm wondering how closely it'll be followed, and how much State U. will be played up in the section when we have some other local stories to surround it.
Hell, in a perverse way I'm actually looking forward to that a little bit. Part of me hopes he buries State U. and has to answer 100 phone calls about it on Monday.

AME-1 also was ordered to apologize to me, which he finally did at the end of the day yesterday. I'd been there almost 12 hours, and he was probably there about 10 at that point. He flagged me down as I was heading to the door and said he was sorry. I asked him what this was all about, and he just tried to laugh it off and said, "I think my blood sugar was low."
I asked again, pointing out that this seemed to be a developing pattern for no apparent reason -- I've barely even talked to the guy outside of our two blow-ups -- and he just kind of smiled and said, "Sorry, man."
I could tell it was killing him having to swallow his pride. I also don't think the apology was sincere. He's been going around the newsroom trying to buddy up to some of the others and get them on his side. Happily, all of the ones I've heard from have backed me up and told him he's dead wrong about this issue and his perception of me. That really did make me feel good, to have that level of respect from colleagues.
I think AME-1 has clearly blown his credibility in the newsroom with this. He'd already rubbed a few folks the wrong way with a know-it-all attitude. This has made him look like a lunatic.
AME-1 hardly said anything all day yesterday that I noticed, and it seemed like he was trying to be on his best behavior. He has a loud voice and is a bit boisterous. Yesterday was the quietest I've heard him. The only time he said anything to me was when I had to give him a sports teaser for A1.

I'm really not sure where to go from here. I'm certainly going to be on guard. I don't trust this guy as far as I could throw him, which isn't far. He's a decent-sized fella. As I said, I'm on vacation next week so it won't be an issue for a while.
I still have the meeting with the ME and quasi-publisher. That'll be toned down a lot, I think. If it had been the other day, it would've been an ugly screaming match. Now, I think I can use it to address some larger newsroom issues and re-emphasize to the quasi-publisher my thoughts and concerns about AME-1 and that whole incident.
I don't think I need to lawyer up at this point, but I might bring a tape recorder to the meeting.
On some level, deep down, I'm also realizing I need to send out resumes and get out of this place, but I don't know where the ripcord is. I've been here a long time and have a lot invested in it. I still enjoy a lot of things about the work itself and, frankly, I'm stuck. My wife and I don't want to pick up and move just anywhere. So if I leave my shop, it means I'm probably leaving journalism and starting over in a new career at the very bottom.
The job market still sucks. The few resumes I've sent out that have gotten hits have gone nowhere. It's not like I can just walk out the door, make a phone call to someone, and be filling out a W-4 form somewhere else tomorrow.
So, I think my best course here is to try and find a solution. Figure out a way to co-exist, maybe leverage this into some greater freedom, address some lingering concerns that I and others in the newsroom have.
Hopefully, I'm not misreading this whole thing and being too naive.

 

Batman, really proud of you for taking the high road, mate.

I don't know AME and the "low blood sugar" thing may or may not be legit. However, being diabetic myself, I can vouch for the fact that when my sugar gets too low, I can get very irritable, cranky and do and say some weird stuff. Not an excuse, of course, but not imaginary, either.

Many of us have had certain persons along the road with whom working relationships were just difficult. Sometimes it isn't even anyone's fault, just a personality clash. That's life. You just gotta decide whether it's worth dealing with or not. Only you can make that call.

My suggestion would be to get your materials (resume, clips, tearsheets, etc.) together and take a look around. Maybe you find something that interests you and maybe you don't. But you can look while you still have the luxury of a paycheck coming in and don't feel as pressured. Best of luck in whatever you decide to do.

 

Thanks, Mark. Appreciate that.

I really don't think the blood sugar line was legit. I think he was just trying to make a joke, do the forced apology, and get on with his life. I didn't want to press the issue too hard and create another incident. I only asked the follow-up because I felt I was in control of that situation and do like to know if and why people have a beef with me. As far as I know, I'm a pretty likable guy.

And FWIW, I have a feeling he won't be long for our part of the journalism world. Either he'll feel slighted by the way this was handled and alienated by other people not backing him up, and leave on his own; or he'll be out on an assignment, something will happen to set him off, and that'll be that.
If he's going to flip out over something mundane like a section front, what will it be like when a cop tells him he can't be in a certain place at a wreck? Or someone calls in to complain about something he wrote? Or -- irony of ironies -- the way State U.'s game was placed on one of HIS section fronts?

 

I don't buy the low blood sugar thing. I've seen family members get to that point and some fall into violent episodes but none were neither coherent enough or incoherent enough to actually make a challenge to fight.

 

I have also worked for a boss who was previously my equal and had the same issues. I felt like I could push back a little more because he had always been one of my drinking buddies and I knew he respected my opinion, but occasionally I'd snap back at him or make him look bad in front of co-workers, and that didn't always go over well.

Also think you're 100 percent right that this guy won't be around long. My guess would be he is already poking around for something new. His plan to get folks to take his side clearly backfired, he has no credibility and no power. I'm just wondering why they'd hire this jackass in the first place. His boisterous/opinionated nature must have come through in interviews. Why are places so BAD at hiring people sometimes?

 

This AME has only been at your place for a month? Does he have extensive experience elsewhere? If not, you always can pull the, "I've been here X amount of years. You've been here a month," line to put him in his place.

Seems like if I'm the new guy at any place and I have been, I'm going to be pretty damn humble until I actually get to know some people and how things work. Your guy doesn't seem to have much of a clue.