posted
My husband attended a seminar yesterday designed to keep all officers in the fire dept. up to date on sexual harassment law.
At the end the chief of the department told them they could not discuss religion, sex, or politics in the fire station and were not to allow any of their firefighters to discuss such things either.
While I can appreciate that in a professional setting those certainly might not be perferred topics, fire fighters are in a unique situation - they are together 24 hours a day, live, eat, and sleep in the same house. My hubby was concerned because he is known at the dept. for his faith, often prays and reads his Bible at work, especially when there on Sundays, and he's often been asked questions by other firefighters and he's answered them. On one occasion, a firefighter mentioned he wished he had a Bible, so Wes bought him one and took it to him. Now, he's wondering if he could lose his job if he did something like that again.
So what do you guys think? Do you think an employuer has the right to tell you you can't talk about certain things? Where do you draw the line between the employer's rights to control the work environment and the employee's right to free expression?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are they paid for the entire time they're in the building waiting for a call? I don't think that alone is determinative, but I'd like to have the whole situation before venturing an opinion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Freedom of Speech as an ammendment to the Constitution has to do with Government restrictions on communication. There is no "right" of "free speech" otherwise. Speech in an employment setting can and should be appropriate and regulated if necessary. As an employeer I would agree completely with your chief. I have had at least 3 bad incidents, just this year, where speech of a sexual nature in the fire department has resulted in restricting a persons "right" to come to work and do their job without being made to feel crummy.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, they are paid salary, not hourly and if you can figure out how it works, good luck. Firefighters are exempt from Federal Wage and Hour law, they can be worked over 40 hours a week without being paid overtime, they essentially have their own wage and hour laws that don't affect anybody but firefighters. The typical workweek is 52 hours, on average.
And just for the record, I'm just curious how other people see things, my husband does not think that the fire house is his personal evangelistic location - he does not pray out loud or force anyone to do anything. He's planning on following the chief's recommendation as much as possible because he values his job. But, one does wonder how far they intend to take the restrictions. For example, is it okay if a firefighter sits down at the meal table and bows his head in silent prayer? Can he bring his Bible to work and read it?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not legal advice. Please, please don't rely on anything I say here.
I would suspect that the silent prayer and reading his Bible would not be barred. I doubt they want to bar it - neither is "discussion" - and I doubt they constitutionally could bar it. But that is entirely a guess at this point.
Neither, in my opinion, should be barred.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This creates a unique situation, though. What if a hypothetical Baptist is discussing the Bible and explains that he believes a woman's place is in the home -- to a female firefighter? At what point does this cross over into harassment, if ever?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I don't mean to make this Christian-centric either. They were told that they couldn't do anything religious that might offend someone who is not their religion - so a Christian could not pray out loud or read from the Bible around others. So Wes asked if that meant that a Muslim couldn't pray at the fire station? He was told that "Oh you know what we're talking about."
But what does that mean? It really is frustrating because they are telling them is they can't offend another person but really, how do you draw the line, how do you know what is offensive to each person? They were even told (and this I had a hard time believing) that they (as in the officers) would be held responsible if a member of the public came in and said something that offended a female fire fighter. According to the chief, that would mean that they were allowing a hostile work environment.
Now, the fire houses belong to the tax payers, are you going to say that no one from the public can come in any more? How do you control what random people off the street do and say?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last I checked, religious beliefs were one of the things workplaces were (generally) not allowed to discriminate upon, and part of not being discriminatory was allowing for all reasonable accomodations -- since his religious beliefs involve prayer and reading the bible, and especially since his job takes up so much of his time, I (strongly) bet any purely personal interlude he took that did not impair his ability to carry out his job would be acceptable.
As for talking to a coworker who initiates the conversation, I just don't know. I suspect there's a strong argument to be made based upon not just working at the fire station but living there for periods of time that reasonable accomodations might include that, but beyond that I don't know.
Personally I'm all in favor of allowing in the workplace all that you've described; evangelism not requested by the person being talked with or particularly where the other person has requested he desist is another matter, but I know Wes isn't doing those things.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My chief beef with harassment law is that it is worded vaguely and it's *entirely* defined by the person complaining.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This creates a unique situation, though. What if a hypothetical Baptist is discussing the Bible and explains that he believes a woman's place is in the home -- to a female firefighter? At what point does this cross over into harassment, if ever?
For people who have to live together for 24 hours at a time, there ought to be a convention allowing any person to put a topic off limit during conversations with that person. Hopefully the space is big enough to allow people who want to discuss a particular topic that someone else prefers not to hear to do so out of their hearing.
By no means should that be limited to religion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So Wes asked if that meant that a Muslim couldn't pray at the fire station? He was told that "Oh you know what we're talking about."
As a sidenote, I HATE when employers give you a policy and then answer questions in that way. No, clearly I don't know what you're talking about because I just requested a clarification.
As for the larger issue, I'm non-Christian and anybody trying to push their religion on others does annoy me... but the sight of someone reading from a bible, or praying, or similar activities is not evangelizing, is not offensive, should not be a problem for anyone else.
If someone was actively trying to convert others, I'd see that as innappropriate and they should be asked nicely to stop. An outright ban seems overkill, IMO.
posted
Yes, It might make a difference if the employer is the Federal Government. Otherwise, no it dosen't. The employer has the right, and the responsibility, to limit speech in the workplace. No, they are not talking about silent prayer, unless it is interfering with work. But, "prayer meetings" with several employees and the opportunity to notice and "innocently" (read; snidely) comment on non-participation is not appropriate in the workplace. All the guys pitching in for a subscription to the playboy channel for the day room is not appropriate. (althought still far too common in fire service facilities) Rants about the damn President, or Mayor, or any other polictical figure or party are not appropriate.
Yes harassment is defined by the person complaining. But common courtesy in the workplace was not common not many years ago. Your Chief is on the right track, just overdue.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yikes! The guys and I at work throw this out the window then completely. We'll sit and discuss politics, religion, and anything else when ever we have an opportunity to sit and talk. An' I work with some huge believers.
Posts: 2208 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like maybe they thought they had to either recognize all religions (including the "annoying: ones, like Islam, which require adherents to pray at specified times of the day), or ignore them all equally.
SO they took the easy way out, because it can be written off by people upset with it as being part of some PC thought police deal.
posted
Now they're telling them they are considering banning cable tv in the fire stations, because cable shows might have something offensive in them.
Heck, if a woman wants to take offense at sexual stereotypes on tv, cable isn't necessary. Beer commercials, anyone?
Before, it was stated that the city would not pay for "luxuries" like cable, but the men could pay for it themselves. Most of the TVs in the fire stations are privately owned as well, the one in the officer's quarters belongs to my husband, he bought and paid for it himself so he could watch tv in his quarters at night.
What has happened is there has been a big sexual harassment lawsuit and the city is over-reacting, I think. NOt that sexual harassment is okay - of course it isn't, but to tell officers they're going to be held responsible for what random members of the public say and do is overkill. There's no possible way they can control that.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: They were even told (and this I had a hard time believing) that they (as in the officers) would be held responsible if a member of the public came in and said something that offended a female fire fighter.
This is the a crucial part of enforcement against harassment. But the other side of it is that the harassed person has to say they are being made uncomfortable. (Edit: It is a managers responsibility to ensure that an environment tolerating harassment does not exist, including vendors and customers.)
Also, harassment isn't determined by the person who feels harassed. It is determined in court by the opinion of the average/reasonable woman (or whatever category the person was feeling harassed as.) I wish I could remember the wording better. I can't quite remember where they get their opinion from. I wrote a paper about it just after the Clarence Thomas hearings.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the other side of it is that the harassed person has to say they are being made uncomfortable.
I used to think this too, pooka but it's not correct. According to both Wes from his seminar and my mom (whose job it is to know this and who consults as a sexual harassment investigator) there is no burden on the offended party to tell the person that they're offended. They can proceed to file a complaint without ever notifying the other person. That's what makes this so crazy, it requires that people be mind readers and try to decide what offends someone without even being able to ask.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that as long as he doesn't openly proselytize he is probably fine. Since this cracking down seems to stem from a recent lawsuit and is just the department overreacting, I would just have him lay low, read in private and pray silently for a little while until the dust settles. Things will loosen up again after a while.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: What has happened is there has been a big sexual harassment lawsuit and the city is over-reacting, I think.
This happened at someplace I used to work. The incident which eventually caused the lawsuit was pretty bad. What made it worse is when two women complained to HR and our Center Director, they did nothing about the situation. That's why they felt they had to sue.
Anyway, after the Center Director got fired a bunch of bigwigs and HR folk from corporate came down and laid out huge lists of things we (the supervisors and managers) shouldn't do (almost none of which had anything to do with the actual offense). The dumbest part was that they told us we shouldn't have any social contact with our team members outside of work. (At which point my manager turned and looked very pointedly at the other third-shift supervisor and myself ) So basically all these friends I had, including my gaming group, most of whom I'd known for over a year before being promoted to a supervisor, I wasn't supposed to talk to any of them anymore. Yeah, right.
posted
This sort of thing is getting ridiculous. There's a big difference between someone making sexual comments about a co-worker, and someone watching cable TV.
Harassment should not be permitted, but people should also learn to have a little bit thicker skin. It's insane the slippery slope that these things tend to take. A boss propositions his assistant for sex, and suddenly nobody in the office is allowed to discuss Sleepless in Seattle because there's a fake orgasm scene.
Oh crap, I just said orgasm. I'll probably lose my job for that. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I bet being a government employee likely affects the situation.
Just popping in (when I really should be elsewhere), to say that being a government employee DOES affect your freedom of speech.
When I was a Federal employee, for instance, it was illegal for me to campaign for any elected official(even off duty), or volunteer at a polling place. I was also not allowed to accept money for any writing (including fiction) or public speaking. This was part of a law banning honoraria, intened to keep elected officials from moonlighting on the speech circuit, but it was extended to all employees.
So, for ten years of my life it was actually illegal for me to be paid for writing, and as a result I never bothered trying to sell anything. *shrug*
I don't have a list of other restrictions, but there was a rather long list of things.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Proof positive that the federal government is responsible for the plague of fanfiction corrupting impressionable minds.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A boss propositions his assistant for sex, and suddenly nobody in the office is allowed to discuss Sleepless in Seattle because there's a fake orgasm scene.
Are you referring to When Harry Met Sally? I don't remember a fake orgasm scene in Sleepless.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Higher ups over-reactions are a sign of how out of touch they are. They suddenly find out they can get sued for things they didn't know were against the law, or didn't know were going on. And THAT'S when they start having lawyers advise them about the EEO statutes.
Suddenly EVERYTHING is a threat.
I've seen the same thing happen with OSHA violations. You go from nobody paying attention to anything to suddenly having to sit through 1/2 training sessions about "don't lick the toner cartridges."
This could be solved proactively, but most organizations are no proactive about stuff like this because it costs money and its easy to ignore.
Want to have a scary conversation though, be a manager in a government setting and get called in to the EEO lawyer's office to "discuss" someone you fired. You suddenly find out all the things that can be done to you and what a total screw up you were for not remediating an employee who was terrible. I mean, I knew all the laws about documenting problems and developing work plans. We did that stuff, it didn't work.
It didn't matter that my office had the highest proportion minorities and women in the city, that we had women and minority managers, whatever. The point was that a savvy lawyer could say I had fired this particular woman because of her gender and ethnicity because they can say that and you have to prove otherwise.
It was one of the situations that contributed to my readiness to leave civil service. I went from enjoying my work to thinking that any staff person I had could wreck my career just because they didn't want to do the job they'd been assigned. I had one employee tell me that she'd had a miscarriage because I'd placed her under a supervisor she didn't like. She was accusing me of murder, basically, because I reorganized the department and made the clerical staff start doing things like show up for work and doing their fingernails on their own time.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The point was that a savvy lawyer could say I had fired this particular woman because of her gender and ethnicity because they can say that and you have to prove otherwise.
We paid off a VP to keep him from trying something like that. We had fully documented performance deficiencies, including customer complaints and unmet deadlines. We offered him 10k if he'd waive future claims, simply because his filing a single complaint would have cost us more than that, even though he had no chance of final recovery.
quote:I reorganized the department and made the clerical staff start doing things like show up for work and doing their fingernails on their own time.
You messed with the GS 5-9s' God-given right to do their nails and have private phone conversations on the job? You're a brave man.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Actually, my first tactic was to buy them a high-speed nail dryer.
I never did actually try to STOP them from doing their nails. I just made them more efficient at it.
As for private phone calls, anyone who could get our phone system to work was welcome to use it as much as they wanted as far as I was concerned.
Every time they waxed our floors, we had to do a service call to AT&T. They'd have to pull a guy out of retirement to come and restring copper-impregnated horsehair between the connections.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did the lawsuit directly involve the fire department? Because if anything, I'd think that firefighters would have a little MORE leeway just because they have to spend such long hours together. I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to be in "work behavior mode" for 24 hours at a time. They should be able to be friends, not just co-workers.
posted
mph - For the record, I never wrote any fanfic while I was in gov't service. I did write a few short things and dabbled with a novel, but I didn't do it very seriously.
And I think expecting someone to be careful of every word they say for 24 hour shifts is extrememly excessive.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, if you ever meet my mom, don't get her started on what she has to go through to fire someone to make sure they don't claim unemployment. She's had people that had repeated, documented offenses like stealing from one of the store try to claim they were fired without cause.
Scary thing is, you never know which way the committee is going to turn. She's actually had them force her to pay in situations when she never expected to. It's crazy.
No one can deny we do need some protections in the workplace for certain groups and that no one should be fired for being pregnant, being female, or being sick, etc. But we've gone so far the other way it's virtually impossible to fire anyone without repercussions. Sometimes firings are justified, but the EEOC committees seem to start out biased against the employer and place a huge burden of proof on them.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind the part of the harassment law that says someone does not have to confront their harasser. A lot of the time, in true harassment situations, it takes place precisely because the person being harassed is at a disadvantage power or personality wise. I think it's fair to protect them without requiring they overcome the disadvantages that made them vulnerable in the first place.
I was thinking about the security guard that made me so uncomfortable at the Boy Scouts. It wasn't a huge deal - not my supervisor, and I only saw him once a day as I was leaving. However, every day he'd say "Goodbye, dolly" or "dollface" or "Sugar" or "Sweetheart."
I didn't say anything because I tried avoid all conversation and eye contact as much as possible, and becaues I felt bad for ragging on someone who is seventy years old and still working as a security guard. Still, it kind of sucked - I don't like being called pet names by creepy strangers. When I finally told my boss, I said I didn't want it to be a big deal, I just wanted him to stop. I think someone did talk to him, because he stopped talking to me altogether and would then glare whenever I walked by. Moron.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a great example of the nebulous nature of the word "offensive." I wouldn't find what happened to you, kat, offensive at all. Maybe because where I live I get called "Sweetheart" or "Darling" every day by both men or women and use the terms myself.
What's difficult here is that while I don't think anyone should be fired for calling someone "sweetheart" (and I note you didn't want him fired over it either - you just wanted it to stop) I do think someone like Kat who is uncomfortable should be able to expect a work environment where she isn't called names she doesn't like.
According to the fire dept., now, however, what happened with kat's situation woulnd't happen anymore. They aren't allowed to "just talk to somebody." If there's any report of potential sexual harassment they have to send the report up the chain of command and bring in an outside investigator, who will interview all parties and witnesses and make a determination.
Now if that's the case, kat, would you have reported it? would you have wanted to subject yourself to an invetigation? If you knew that not only would you be interviewed but so would the guard and a bunch of your co-workers?
See, I think these rules will actually make it less likely that some things will be reported. Someone like kat who doesn't want a huge fuss but just wants the behavior to stop can't do that any longer - the huge fuss is a given if she ever even brings it up.
That's the thing my husband had a big problem with, if one of his firefighters steps out of line with a female ff or a female member of the public, say - he wants to be able to correct it if it's just a minor thing. He can't anymore, they've taken it completely out of the officer's hands and told them they have to report everything, even if the parties involved don't want it reported. He was told that if he witnesses something that is offensive, he has to proceed with the process even if no one ever says anything.
I would be in sooo much trouble. Because I enjoy banter and joking and having a good, easy-going relationship with people I work with and I can't imagine how I'd feel if my superior suddenly told me I was in the middle of a sexual harassment investigation because he overheard a co-worker telling me about that scene in When Harry Met Sally for example.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm guessing that the employer/s was/were just trying to put up a tough front... It will kind of all boil over after a couple of weeks, in which case discussions could start again... And it would drift closer and closer until it was found offensive again, and then the employer/s would put up a brand new tough front.
However, silently reading your Bible, or praying, is definently not grounds for firing people. But that's in my opinion, not legal. Legally, I don't see anybody firing somebody like that and getting away with it.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a great example of the nebulous nature of the word "offensive." I wouldn't find what happened to you, kat, offensive at all. Maybe because where I live I get called "Sweetheart" or "Darling" every day by both men or women and use the terms myself.
Yeah....it's really common to be called "sweetheart" or "baby" or something around here by just about anyone of either gender.
It takes a lot of getting used to if you're from a part of the country where that isn't the norm.
Waitresses, especially, are altogether too darned personal in the South!
quote:I would be in sooo much trouble. Because I enjoy banter and joking and having a good, easy-going relationship with people I work with and I can't imagine how I'd feel if my superior suddenly told me I was in the middle of a sexual harassment investigation because he overheard a co-worker telling me about that scene in When Harry Met Sally for example.
Well, you could just fill out a huge stack of "self-report" cards and flood the system!
Like little confessions on a 3x5 card:
"Today during dessert I made a comment about "sweet cakes."
"I carried the hose in what may have been construed as a 'suggestive manner' and liquid spurted out at a prodigious rate."
"I told a fellow firefighter she looked 'hot.'"
"I put two very suggestive humps of mashed potatoes on my plate...and buttered them! I'm sorry. It only got worse when the asparagus was passed around."
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
After going through days of "training" about this type of thing, my fellow new federal employees decided that it's best to sit at your desk and never speak to anyone. Almost anything can be construed as harrassment, sexual or otherwise. For example, if two good friends are joking around and calling each other derrogatory terms, a third person who overhears the conversation can file a claim. It's totally insane.
A romantic relationship with a fellow employee is almost completely out of the question. Our briefer told us, dead serious, that if you have sex with a fellow employee that you'd better have a written contract saying that it's consentual. She said a number of men have been fired for sleeping with a coworker after they both got rip-roaring drunk. Apparently it's the man's fault by default. Geez.
The briefer did tell us about one guy who was fired for sneaking up on is subordinate females while they were sitting at their desks. He'd place his genitals on their shoulders. I can't believe idiots like that still exist.
Posts: 1069 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The briefer did tell us about one guy who was fired for sneaking up on is subordinate females while they were sitting at their desks. He'd place his genitals on their shoulders. I can't believe idiots like that still exist.
Well, if this is due to a genetic predisposition, the world will probably be safe in just one more generation.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: They were even told (and this I had a hard time believing) that they (as in the officers) would be held responsible if a member of the public came in and said something that offended a female fire fighter. According to the chief, that would mean that they were allowing a hostile work environment.
Now, the fire houses belong to the tax payers, are you going to say that no one from the public can come in any more? How do you control what random people off the street do and say?
That's not that uncommon. I used to wait tables and part of the company's harrassment policy was that I had the right to have a harassment free work environment from both fellow employees and from customers.
Not that the staff really did anything about it. When I asked one of my customers if he wanted whipped cream on his dessert one time, he asked me if my old man and I liked to use whipped cream when we *ahem*. I told the manager on duty and he thought it was funny. What he was supposed to do, according to company policy, was go ask the customer to leave the restaurant. I never went higher up the chain with it because his boss would have thought it was funny also. It was too bad though because two out of the four managers would have gone right out to his table and told him to get out. Neither one of them were there that evening.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That kind of inconsistency is how places get sued. It points to the fact that the company KNEW there were problems and didn't take steps to ensure that everyone did things the right way.
Too bad you didn't complain higher up the chain. IMO, those two managers who didn't at least go talk to the customer probably needed some targetted training.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was thinking about the security guard that made me so uncomfortable at the Boy Scouts. It wasn't a huge deal - not my supervisor, and I only saw him once a day as I was leaving. However, every day he'd say "Goodbye, dolly" or "dollface" or "Sugar" or "Sweetheart."
I didn't say anything because I tried avoid all conversation and eye contact as much as possible, and becaues I felt bad for ragging on someone who is seventy years old and still working as a security guard. Still, it kind of sucked - I don't like being called pet names by creepy strangers.
See, this is the way in which I think harassment has become something it never should have been. Harassment comes with very serious punishments, so it really should only be for very serious crimes - crimes that endanger or hurt people in a major way, such as truly making them unable to do their job. It should not apply to situations where people are just annoyed or made uncomfortable by something. I think that while calling you these names may have made you uncomfortable, it should fit in the category of other things that may bother you but that do not seriously harm you - things like unfriendly coworkers, bothersome dress codes, bureaucratic rules, etc. These things are grounds to be unhappy with your workplace, but they are should not be severe enough to warrant a lawsuit. Harassment should have a higher standard. For instance, if his behavior was consistently in a way that would make a reasonable person fear for their safety or for their privacy, to the point where it interfered seriously with doing the job, then I think that would be a case of harassment.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
NO! You guys are not listening. Harssment is still a fact of live in the work place and it shouldn't be. Last week (thats right not last decade, last week) a supervisor at one of our affiliated sites, ran his hand up the leg, under the skirt to the waistband of the panty, of a female subordinate. And when she left, in shock, he commented to the other THREE supervisors present, "She looks even better from the rear view." The behavior was not considered by the supervisors to be inappropiate "because she was the best looking girl on the crew! And should be proud." The comment was not remarkable as it was "hearsay". This meant to them that the target did not hear it, only the others. When the supervisor was questioned about his behavior, his reaction was to explain to the woman that "she could not be considered for a promotion, until she would withdraw her complaint. No one likes complainers."
Yes, the law is broad. And yes, it has been abused. But, unfournatly it is still necessary. Get over it and get on with life. Sex is not an appropriate topic in the workplace. And the playboy channel is not appropriate for the firehouse.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. There is no reason why you can't prosecute harassment like the example you gave above without also giving equally severe punishment to far lesser mistakes or to things that aren't harassment at all. You don't have to sue one guy who is just calling girls "Honey" in order to stop another guy from running his hand up the legs of his female coworkers.
Making harassment laws needlessly broad waters down the crime and confuses people about where the actual line should be.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In cases of policy, I think there is always going to be overinterpretation to one extreme or the other. My preference is to slant overinterpretation in favor of those with less power (since I believe it is going to go too far in some direction, regardless of which), as institutionalized power tends to work pretty effectively on its own.
That is, at least there is a counterbalance in place that way. I don't think it's the ideal situation, but given practical considerations, it's usually the one I can best live with.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
It really was obnoxious. I'm aware of Southern customs - I'm from Texas. I still don't like being called "Sugar" and "Dollface" every day by someone I have never made the slightest attempt to engage in conversation. I did want him to stop. My only regret is that I didn't say something earlier. If you're asking if I would have done it still even if it caused a major upheaval, I would ask why I would be expected to be quiet about being so uncomfortable in the interest of saving the person who is taking liberties some hassle.
In other words, if my only choices were to grit my teeth or raise a ruckus, I would choose the ruckus. At least, I hope that I would. I hate to think what would happen to my self-respect if I just took it.
quote: I think that while calling you these names may have made you uncomfortable, it should fit in the category of other things that may bother you but that do not seriously harm you - things like unfriendly coworkers, bothersome dress codes, bureaucratic rules, etc.
You're making light of my discomfort, so I am forced to conclude that you either do not understand how uncomfortable I was, or else you think that inappropriate affection from yucky strangers is just something women should shut up and live with.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you would tell this person he's making you uncomfortable before taking that to the boss, wouldn't you? EDIT - I can't spell.
Posts: 3526 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do I need to have that confrontation? I think it would have indeed been a confrontation to get the message across. I hinted several times, including avoiding him, saying "I'm not Dolly.", and saying "Please just call me Kate." It did nothing except inspire "Sweet Kate" which, if possible, was even more irritating.
More tellingly, he didn't do it to everyone. He didn't do it to my boss or my older co-workers - he only did it to the twenty-something women. It wasn't a general affection for the universe - it was icky. Blech.
I think the very nature of the situation like that is that someone is at a disadvantage - I don't think it's right to request that the person at a disadvantage force a direct confrontation before they can tell anyone else about it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
) So basically all these friends I had, including my gaming group, most of whom I'd known for over a year before being promoted to a supervisor, I wasn't supposed to talk to any of them anymore. Yeah, right.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
