Yeah, I can't see how a professional services company overlooks this casually, unless they're really hurting for new work. Can you imagine a client treating their tax lawyers or accountants like this ?

But then, if the service company needs the new business that bad, that's hard to square with "there are not enough IT people".

I report it, they told me "She wasnt serious"

If it was me I'd report it to the police before management.

People get worked up and over-react over dumb shit. It happens. Making a big deal out of it does not do anything to improve the situation. I'm not wasting everyone's time by calling the cops unless the threat is at least remotely credible. I know that in this day and age of shunning responsibility being the person willing to define "remotely credible" is not going to be popular but whatever. Calling the cops when some stressed out person goes a little too far isn't smart and doesn't improve safety. It's just ass covering that lets you pat yourself on the back for "doing something". If you really want to address the situation your best bet is probably to chew out whoever did it later after they have cooled off.

As ethbro pointed out[1], criminal statutes have been interpreted such that a non-credible thread does not usually fall within them. Cops generally don't like it when you call them for non-criminal things. Honestly you're probably best off asking whoever got threatened what they want to do rather than optimizing for corporate ass covering.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19359233

Are you qualified to assess threats for credibility? It’s actually a fairly involved skillset, and unless you’re used to working with MOSAIC you might want to leave it to people who are qualified.

And the beat cop who was to take your statement is going to be more qualified? They know even less of the details of the situation.

The only thing calling the cops does is make the prosecution's job easier in the highly unlikely event that the threat does turn out to be credible. Calling the cops doesn't actually protect you from anything in a situation like this. I don't understand why people don't understand that. They take statements and leave. On the off chance the prosecutor is feeling bored and wants to pursue charges then yet more people's time is wasted and nothing happens, maybe someone gets a fine.

Even as someone who is in some regards-but not all-annoyed with and frustrated about the state of policing in America, this take is even too cynical for me.

And the beat cop who was to take your statement is going to be more qualified?

Emphatically: yes.

Threat assessment is literally one of the things police departments are trained on in some degree or another, and they have a pretty powerful escalation path at their disposal when working to vet and take action on those threats if deemed credible when someone says "I will come to your office and kill you"--if the situation warrants it (PNI).

You may not like the outcomes, but one's personal opinions on how effective an investigation is doesn't preclude the constabulary from having much more expertise in their ranks than a direct line supervisor at investigating a threat to someone's life.

"If you don't hide these piles of cash that I got from drug trades, then I'll send someone over and cut off your hand" not an uncommon thing in the tax business.

It's certainly an, "Okay, in that case I'm leaving," offense. If your manager gets pissed off about that leave.

IT can pay well but not that well.

>Isn't that a criminal offence?

Think how it plays out.

"Accountant said she'd kill me."

"I did not."

Ends with nothing happening.

That's why your pocket phone is on record

Legality varies by state.

(IanaL) Generally speaking, in the US, no.

Specifically speaking, if it's done in person, state law holds. In Virginia v Black (2003), the Supreme Court found [1] that states may ban speech which represents a "true threat" (i.e. one whose intent it to cause another party to fear for their lives). But there's generally a high bar and more aimed at allowing regulation of cross burning and neo Nazis than an angry co-worker.

If it's done via the Internet, federal §875 [2] governs. Because of some strange wording and first ammendment concerns, the Supreme Court has held that the intent to actually commit a crime must be present in order for the words to be illegal.

[1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/537/465.html

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/875

Yes, but filing a police report against a client isn't good for business.

If good IT work is in high demand as claimed, that shouldn't be a problem. And "we make sure customers don't abuse our staff" should be the baseline of "how do I keep any good employees I might have", not a luxury.

If anything my ex-employer would be pissed that they skipped the line on being abusive to me.

I ended up getting fired within 18 hours after reporting harassment.

I mean, now you've got a strong case for wrongful termination and a report of retaliatory termination to your state's DoL.

There's a perception among management that they need to remain competitive. The IT service truly isn't a oligopoly like telcos are. My company hasn't increased rates in over 4 years out of fear that we would lose business even though we have more business than we have the resources to handle.

In most situations, the client is the business and the offender an employee.