| ▲ | dekhn 10 hours ago |
| Here's one I don't know how to solve: at work some folks take meetings in the bathroom. They're on their phone, they walk to a stall, do their... business while doing their business, all the while talking and listening, while toilets flush in the background. I understand cultural differences but taking business meetings in the bathroom seems inappropriate under effectively all circumstances. |
|
| ▲ | logicx24 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Robert Caro, in the LBJ series, wrote about how LBJ would use the discomfort of being the bathroom as a negotiating technique and a show of dominance. He would drag senators into the bathroom and force them to listen to him talk as he used the urinal, or force his staffers to take dictation as he took a shit. |
| |
| ▲ | newsoftheday 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Also, LBJ allegedly unzipped his fly and exposed himself to reporters demanding to know why the U.S. was in Vietnam, declaring, "This is why!". | | |
| ▲ | knowitnone3 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | his limp biscuit is why the US was in Vietnam? Was Vietnam hording the viagra? The US sure has a history of psychopathic presidents. | | |
| |
| ▲ | tyleo 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Crazily enough, I’ve also heard he pulled his Johnson out in meetings. | | | |
| ▲ | darth_avocado 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have seen more than one CEOs of big companies do this. The number VPs is probably a lot more. | | |
| ▲ | lostlogin 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The TV show Veep is great. She behaves like this sort of arsehole, with utterly crass behaviour, and coming from a female makes it more striking. Amazing show. |
| |
| ▲ | jasonwatkinspdx 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Apparently he urinated on the shoes of a secret service agent just as a flex. | |
| ▲ | strangattractor 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We now know why he served only one term:) | | |
| ▲ | normie3000 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why? It sounds like he was a number two term president. | | |
| ▲ | strangattractor 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It was somewhat of a joke;) He completed Kennedy's term and and was only only elected once. He refused to run for a 3rd. Given the immense ego's of these guys one might assume it was because he was unlikely to win. Peeing on people is unlikely to win you a lot of friends. |
| |
| ▲ | kgwxd 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | These days, stunts like that might get you a third term. | |
| ▲ | furyofantares 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, one and a half. |
| |
| ▲ | farceSpherule 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | anal_reactor 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Try this on me. It won't work. |
|
|
| ▲ | jlarocco 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A previous CTO at my company would do this and it always weirded me out. Standing at the urinal, and suddenly hear him talking to a customer over in the stall. Very strange and uncomfortable. I won't lie, though, I secretly enjoyed timing flushes to match when he was talking. |
| |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > timing flushes Or porcelain-shattering dumps. Such a liberating experience by itself in a public bathroom, doing it to someone on the phone would give me a memory that would bring a smile to my lips for many years. |
|
|
| ▲ | abalashov 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I understand the overwhelming opposition to this, and I wouldn't do it myself. However, I lead a life of very few meetings (I'd actually appreciate more--this stance puts me in a very small company, to be sure), so it's easy for me to say that one should be more judicious with one's timing. I can emphathise with someone stuck in meetings all day in a predominantly listening role, that they consider perfunctory or mostly pointless, or maybe in a very active role that has them stressfully bouncing from meeting to meeting. I can easily envision how this would lead to a kind of nihilistic resignation and a determination to just do normal life stuff with a headset on one's head. |
| |
| ▲ | gouggoug 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | There’s a difference between passively listening to a meeting and actively participating, while being in the bathroom. I would never do either. But one is less weird than the other. | | |
| ▲ | array_key_first 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And if you're going to be playing audio in the bathroom, any audio, wear some god damn headphones. I don't want to listen to your standup or your tiktok. | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly. If you’re just listening on a headset and are muted, then it’s way less obnoxious. |
| |
| ▲ | matwood 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > However, I lead a life of very few meetings An old business partner had meetings which felt like 24/7. He had zero issue taking a phone call in the bathroom. I doubt anyone on the other end ever knew. | | |
| ▲ | Scoundreller 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | But my 1 pair of Bluetooth headphones are dead and who could possibly sleep at night if their phone was 1mm thicker for a headphone jack??? |
| |
| ▲ | krick 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As a matter of fact, I do NOT understand the overwhelming opposition to this. What's your deal if a guy is good at multitasking and people on the other end of the wire don't mind it? It isn't like he is desecrating a temple, or intruding into your home and using your toilet, or jerking off in the public... Wait, actually I'd say even the latter shouldn't be your business, unless he stains something. Why cannot people mind their own business? | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > It isn't like he is desecrating a temple, or intruding into your home and using your toilet, or jerking off in the public... Just like jerking off, defecation should be done in private. Meetings are not private.
Very few people want to see/hear/smell you do that and that includes over zoom or phone conference. Most people really do want to mind their own business, and that means having no part in you doing those very private things. If someone is in a meeting on their phone while in a bathroom stall it's also very rude to everyone else in the bathroom trying to do their own business as privately as they possibly can under the circumstances. | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I do not wish to hear anyone else's bathroom noises. Yes, we all use the bathroom. No, I still don't want to hear anyone else doing it. | | |
| ▲ | krick 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Even that I'd call somewhat petty, but it is more defensible if it's insulting to you when you hear toilet noises from your phone, and you are totally in your right to tell it straight to the person who is calling you, that it's hard to hear him behind all farts and flushes. That's ok. People here seem to be complaining that somebody else is talking to somebody else on a phone while being in the public (office) toilet. I mean, I kinda understand if it distracts them from their business due to some psychological difficulties they may have, but that's the public toilet design fault when you cannot feel isolated enough, not the guy's talking. | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Me either, which is why I find it so satisfying to shake the stall with explosive bowel movements when necessary. I’m very private by nature so it makes me giddy to cut loose. Only when necessary of course. | |
| ▲ | ChipopLeMoral 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I take noise cancelling headphones to the bathroom at work, especially after lunch. | |
| ▲ | socalgal2 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Talk about a spoiled 1st world problem | | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | What a weird take. If I'm also in the bathroom, I can tune out all the other noises around me because everyone's in there to do the same thing. If I were on the phone with someone, paying close attention to what they're saying, and then I'm treated to a thunderstorm of bowl challenges, I'm going to be annoyed. Humans pee, fart, and burp. That's perfectly normal. And yet, it's considered basic politeness not to do those things in a freaking business meeting if you can help it. | |
| ▲ | array_key_first 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | At the end of the day it's very easy and free to not shit while on a conference call. I think 99% of people would prefer a shit-free conference call, so, maybe we're all spoiled. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Spooky23 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s either a weird power flex, or someone who lacks agency at the point that they let themselves be bullied and not taking a break to take a dump. It’s the breaking of a norm that makes me be question your judgment, either way. | |
| ▲ | filoleg 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Is this a sarcastic take? Asking because I was pretty much on-board with the comment and took it as being fully serious, up until the point of “jerking off in public shouldn’t be anybody else’s business, unless they stain something” being mentioned. Now, I am not so sure. Either the entire comment was sarcastic or I am missing something major. But putting jerking off in public and talking on the phone in a public bathroom into the same bucket of activities (in terms of appropriateness) feels crazy to me. | | |
| ▲ | krick 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | They are not in the same bucket, and I'm being intentionally provocative, if this confession makes things easier for you, but I really don't think you should mind that much if somebody is jerking off in public unless it harms you in some way (in broad sense, e.g. being intentionally annoying, loud and doing it right into your face). The point is that you should do whatever you want unless it harms others, and shouldn't mind other people doing whatever they want unless it actually harms you. I would say a guy watching tiktok without a headset right next to you in the airport harms you waaay more than a guy jerking off in the same airport standing 10 m away from you or anyone else. I mean, it's disconcerning, because you'd rightfully assume he must be crazy, but the activity itself really shouldn't bother you. And surely anyone mentioned is a hundred times less harmful than a guy smoking on the street. That should be illegal. Yet people for some reason act as if it's ok, and it is broadly legal in most places (unlike jerking off in public). | | |
| ▲ | freedomben 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Are you talking about jerking off in a stall, or on a park bench with your dick out? Or some third option in the middle somewhere? | |
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | lostlogin 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not to mention, it’s a crime which may get you on a register. And I don’t have a problem with it being classified as a crime. This is like some 4chan post. | |
| ▲ | rootusrootus 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I assumed they meant jerking off in a stall. Something I don’t want to know about but definitely happens. |
| |
| ▲ | anigbrowl 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I have no wish to listen to other people's bodily functions when I'm working, or conversely to listen to them working while I'm answering a call of nature. The correct response to these behavior is to either hang up on them or tell them to shut the fuck up, respectively. It's not OK to impose yourself on others like this. | |
| ▲ | dekhn 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Taking a meeting in the bathroom is desecrating the temple. | |
| ▲ | pc86 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Thank you for helping me clarify something. Your last example, jerking off in public, is not only a crime (as it should be) but is clearly antisocial behavior. That helped me realize that's what all the other shit is too, no pun intended. Using the restroom while you're talking to other people on the phone, or generally just doing anything that forces other people to listen to you use the restroom, is antisocial behavior and shouldn't be tolerated by anyone civilized. "Minding your own business" when it comes to antisocial behavior is enabling when the correct response in shaming and ostracizing. It's not going to work with LBJ but it will probably work with Kevin from accounting. | |
| ▲ | lostlogin 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Was this supposed to be on an alt account? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | joecool1029 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Here's one I don't know how to solve: at work some folks take meetings in the bathroom. Not legal but there’s a technical solution that’s worked in the past: pocket cell jammer. Range isn’t very far but it’ll work to boot callers a stall away or a booth away at a diner, etc. Only need to run it a few seconds to drop a call. Do want to stress these do see enforcement now (in the US at least) but a low power pocket one used occasionally is unlikely to attract attention. It will be noticed if it’s higher power or runs in a regular location. Fines are severe and risk jailtime but hey it’s your life. |
| |
| ▲ | amelius 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Question: if two people are caught having SDR units that could cause the jamming, how do they know who is guilty? | | |
| ▲ | linohh 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Both. It's not who caused the jam. Operating these things isn't legal to begin with. | | |
| ▲ | joecool1029 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Actually, just being in possession of such a device in the US isn't legal. Whole FCC page on it with citations: https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement This is probably an area where SDR's with send capability could in theory be prosecuted as a jamming device. Whether it's been interpreted that way or enforced ever is unknown to me. A purpose built device advertised as a jammer would absolutely be a problem. Oh also, the 1934 communications act is supposed to prohibit US/state governments from using such devices as well, but they've ignored the law. Some companies in the 2000's challenged it for use in their buildings and afaik lost the cases. My experience dates from that same time range when they were sort of accepted as de jure illegal but there wasn't de facto enforcement.... also networks use more bands now so a jammer covering more frequency ranges would be needed. back then they could do 3 ranges (850mhz-ish, 1900mhz-ish, 2100mhz-ish), now there would be way more like 3.7ghz down to 600mhz. Ignoring mmwave, that's not going to be in your bathroom. | | |
| ▲ | amelius 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Actually, just being in possession of such a device in the US isn't legal. Wait, SDR devices are not legal in the US? That doesn't sound plausible. My "computerized legal advisor" says: > There’s no rule from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that forbids individuals or hobbyists from buying, importing, or owning SDR hardware in the United States. You can legally purchase and have them. > Radios that transmit need FCC equipment authorization (such as certification or Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity) before they can be marketed in the U.S. if they are capable of operating in ways that could cause interference. That’s primarily a manufacturer obligation, not something that restricts private ownership. > Owning a device is fine, but you must not transmit illegally. Sending signals on unauthorized frequencies or at unauthorized power levels can lead to fines, equipment seizure, and other penalties. | | |
| ▲ | kstrauser 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | As with so many other things, intent matters. Owning lockpicks? Fine! Owning lockpicks when you're caught burgling a house? You're extra screwed. Owning an SDR? Fine! Owning an SDR and getting caught using it to illegally disrupt communications? You're extra screwed. Yes, you can absolutely own an SDR, and transmit with it on legal frequencies. If you're busted using it to break the law, then it's strong evidence that you went out of your way to deliberately, premeditatedly break it, and that makes for a bad day. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | matthewfcarlson 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I wonder if there’s a jammer out there that also sends WiFi deauth packets | | |
|
|
| ▲ | alsetmusic 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My previous employer was a twenty-something person shop and the owner would do this while speaking with clients. Granted, it was a single-person bathroom, but it still drove me mad. There’s no way people couldn’t hear what was happening while he spoke and flushed the toilet. Maybe that’s part of why we weren’t getting new clients. |
|
| ▲ | keeganpoppen 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| this is, and forgive me the lowering of quality discourse here, what ripping one’s loudest farts and triple flushing is for. if they are so important that they can live through the embarrassment that i would assume 99.9% of people would feel in that situation, then good on ‘em. |
| |
| ▲ | Henchman21 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Being unable to feel embarrassment is not a "good on 'em" situation. The inability to feel shame is a serious impairment of one's faculties. It is literal brain damage. |
|
|
| ▲ | m463 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > I understand cultural differences These are not cultural differences. This behavior is across-all-cultures lack of decency. I would say the answer is education, but like the law doesn't even prevent all speeding, maybe the answer is speed bumps (this app?) |
|
| ▲ | not_a_bot_4sho 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Tangentially, I did this once years ago. I had consumed a large amount of spicy food the day prior, and it pulled the fire alarm right in the middle of a phone screen. I foolishly thought I could silently and secretly handle both tasks at once. These were the days before background noise filters. The poor candidate obviously heard unpleasant things but neither of us acknowledged it directly. He accepted the job though. But this still bothers me decades later. Never again! |
|
| ▲ | mmmlinux 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just join in the conversation. People hate that for some reason. |
|
| ▲ | tsoukase 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| During toilet and all other breaks between my patients' visits I always call back the numbers had reached me. During the flush moment I increase my voice volume. I don't know how it's heard on the other side. There is no other way I return home on time. |
|
| ▲ | RomanPushkin 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Have you thought it could be because of the pressure they're getting at work? Today you're forced to work when you're sick, to do your business while doing your business... I agree that flushing toilets could have been muted, but isn't it a Zoom/Google-Meets issue when they're supposed to remove the noise? |
| |
|
| ▲ | 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | HendrikHensen 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Go to the stall next door, play pooping and farting noises on your phone, very loudly. |
| |
| ▲ | dekhn 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I really don't need a phone to do that. That's what I'm in there for already. |
|
|
| ▲ | linohh 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Oh, I had that in my old office building, everyone but me was buying and selling fruit and they were dealing while shitting in the communal bathrooms. Really weird when you just want to defecate and suddenly someone yells into their phone YES I'LL BUY EVERYTHING. |
|
| ▲ | morkalork 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I worked in a building that shared the floor with a small law office, the number of lawyers that would cruise on in to take a piss while chatting away on their Bluetooth earphones was too high. They would be talking about their client's cases too, no respect for privacy at all. |
|
| ▲ | 7bit 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Once you took a meeting while taking a shit, you will see things differently. It just makes problems look insignificant, when you're pumping one out while you listen to someone explain how the issue is company critical. Of course, disable your camera and mute your mic while dropping or flushing. And how to deal with it becomes vastly different when you've done it. It's just human. Just ignore it. |
|
| ▲ | Pxtl 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In 1-on-1 it would be awkward to call it out but in a group meeting where I wouldn't be singling a person out it'd be pretty easy to just ask "could whoever's in the bathroom please mute?" without any kind of confrontation. |
|
| ▲ | mc32 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Agree that this is very annoying and I can’t imagine taking calls much less having discussions while on the toilet. |
|
| ▲ | throw310822 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Let me guess: Ireland? |
|
| ▲ | NoSalt 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This ... is disgusting and appalling. |
|
| ▲ | sublinear 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Report it to HR |
| |
| ▲ | chasd00 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If the Supreme Court can do it then why not Jan in backend dev? https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/06/politics/toilet-flush-supreme... | |
| ▲ | pelagicAustral 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Under what punishable figure, pissing while working? | | |
| ▲ | sublinear 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | HR is not merely about punitive measures. This would be escalated to upper management to find out why people are under so much time pressure that they need to take calls in the bathroom, and at the very least doing so would be made some kind of violation of new policy. These are the kinds of reports the organization needs as ammunition in order to fix what sound like bigger problems with the organization and work culture. There's very little chance this hasn't been noticed and isn't a symptom of something more going on. | | |
| ▲ | closewith 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > This would be escalated to upper management to find out why people are under so much time pressure that they need to take calls in the bathroom, and at the very least doing so would be made some kind of violation of new policy. Or why there are people so idle that they can defecate without working. Remember, HR protects the company, and complaints about heavy hitters because they work on porcelain aren't going to reflect well on the complainant. | | |
| ▲ | sublinear 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, that old chestnut. It's such insanely toxic advice too. You're correct that HR is there to protect the company. The original post did not specify "heavy hitters", nor did I ever say to make an accusatory report. HR doesn't have to specifically know who is taking their calls this way. I'm sorry if you or others have had such bad experiences with the most basic of HR interactions, though if I assume you're taking your own advice I doubt you've ever tried. There's the tactful way to do this, and then there's whining to HR. I would be very careful taking advice from whiners because they're the ones who keep propagating this bad faith myth about HR. All I'm saying to do is notify them about ongoing behavior with an emphasis on how it probably makes the company look bad and that it's done by many. They don't care who is doing it and it's not personal. I'd honestly be very surprised if this behavior doesn't already fall under some existing policy. | | |
| ▲ | closewith 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I'm sorry if you or others have had such bad experiences with the most basic of HR interactions, though if I assume you're taking your own advice I doubt you've ever tried I use HR to protect my company from people like you. | | |
| ▲ | sublinear 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | And there it is. It's exactly as I suspected. The only people spreading the toxic advice about HR are the ones who benefit most from making the workplace suck for everyone else. I can only hope you just think HR is there to insulate you this way and haven't had to test it, because it simply isn't. You really don't want to be on the losing end of a wrongful termination suit. It's only because people rarely bother that you may not have come across one of those. Then it then escalates to worse when all of HR spills their guts about the pressure they were under to protect higher ups. There is no loyalty after all. It's just a job to everyone else. | | |
| ▲ | closewith 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | HR insulates me and the rest of the heavy hitters from people like you. It's a Godsend, obviously. Surveilling co-workers in the bathroom is more than sufficient grounds for dismissal - gross misconduct. | | |
| ▲ | sublinear 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's obviously not surveillance, and if it's as common as OP made it seem everyone already knows. HR isn't that dumb and doesn't need to find another squealer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | shevy-java 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > but taking business meetings in the bathroom seems inappropriate under effectively all circumstances. Now, now ... if she is pretty ... |
|
| ▲ | mystifyingpoi 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I regularly engage in meetings when taking a dump, but only when I'm working from home, and of course flushing only on mute. I don't have a problem with that, the other side has no idea where I am anyway. |
| |
| ▲ | prmoustache 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why don't you just excuse yourself for a few minutes like any normal human being would? | |
| ▲ | closewith 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Everyone knows you're in a toilet due to the acoustics, but no-one is going to bring it up out of courtesy. Everyone also thinks less of you for it. | | | |
| ▲ | riversflow 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yeah this whole thread is absolutely filled with prudes as far as I'm concerned. Everybody poops, get over it. | | |
| ▲ | NamlchakKhandro 38 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think you're mistaken sir. I myself, me... Am descendant from a long line of arms that ascend from misty lakes depensing royalty on the form of moist scimitars. |
|
|