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?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I bet being a government employee likely affects the situation.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
My chief beef with harassment law is that it is worded vaguely and it's *entirely* defined by the person complaining.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
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.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, It might make a difference if the employer is the Federal Government.
Take out "Federal" and you would be closer to a correct statement.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
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.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
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.
-Bok
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
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.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
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.
--Enigmatic
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
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. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
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.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Proof positive that the federal government is responsible for the plague of fanfiction corrupting impressionable minds.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
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.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
lol.
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.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*lol*
Bob, the picture that whole scenario paints . . .
*giggles some more*
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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.
-pH
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
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.
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
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.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
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.
-pH
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
That's especially common in the South.
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."
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
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.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Oh, and those "sweetheart" terms that are so prevalent here in the South were on the list of things you can get in trouble / fired for.
One disgruntled employee could ruin an entire office by pushing these rules to the extreme.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
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.
[ June 03, 2006, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Yeah, it's a wonder there wasn't an 'accident' with a stray pair of scissiors.
<wince>
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
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.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
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.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
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.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Belle, I'm not sure what you are asking.
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.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:NO! You guys are not listening. Harssment is still a fact of live in the work place and it shouldn't be.
Could you please point to the post that states or implies that harassment does not still occur?
quote: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.
I doubt anyone will "get over it" as long as the abuses exist, and it's fairly ridiculous to tell them to do so.
Just because a law is necessary doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to tailor it be less overinclusive.
quote:Sex is not an appropriate topic in the workplace
Why, exactly? I understand why unwelcome conversation that makes one uncomfortable is bad. I would hope that any non-work-related topic that makes someone uncomfortable is thereafter handled respectfully - out of earshot of the uncomfortable person.
Why is sex (and religion and politics in Belle's firehouse case) elevated above other topics which cause just as much discomfort for others?
quote: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.
I agree. I just want to make sure that overintepretation is as small as possible.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
How were you at a disadvantage to this security guard?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He had worked there for twenty years, he was older, and I was forced to march past him on the way out of the building everyday.
Think about it, Porter. I asked him to just call me Kate, and he came up with another affectionate nickname out of it. I never initiated any conversation, and I avoided all contact when possible. When I did finally say something, he stopped being cloying and started being rude. I'm glad it was handled easily by a comment from my boss, but if it would have taken a big deal to make him stop making me run a gauntlet every day to leave the building, that would have been completely justifiable.
Another time at the office I was personable and friendly to a (married) employee in the course of the day, and he decided to start our next conversation by slipping his (meaty, ugly) arm around my waist. I am VERY glad for today's harassment paranoia - I suspect you are not aware of how much of a problem it is.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think you're reading too much into my question.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I agree. I just want to make sure that overintepretation is as small as possible.
Agreed. Oh, totally.
---
I had an experience quite similar to kat's, and I'm debating whether or not to write it out. Stirs up some old stuff I never dealt with well. I'll think on it and see if it would possibly be of help in any way, either to me or to the discussion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote: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.
If Joe Worker was constantly called "Buddy" by his co-worker, and absolutely hated it, I would expect him to live with it rather than sue the company. I don't think it should be any different with a name like "Sweetie-Pie", unless there was some further reason to think it was part of a more serious threat to your personal privacy than that.
quote: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.
I disagree. I think that if there is a tie, it is better to slant against using government force to solve the dilemma. Freedom is better than government intervention, except when the intervention is clearly necessary. The law tends to be a pretty blunt instrument of justice.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
There are quite a few options between "live with it" and "sue the company." Kat was perfectly right to bring the problem to the attention of a supervisor, who apparently handled it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:
quote: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.
I disagree. I think that if there is a tie, it is better to slant against using government force to solve the dilemma. Freedom is better than government intervention, except when the intervention is clearly necessary. The law tends to be a pretty blunt instrument of justice.
Re: "Freedom is better than government intervention, except when the intervention is clearly necessary." How does what I wrote satisfy the negation of your conditional clause? Or the prior?
*puzzled
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I disagree. I think that if there is a tie, it is better to slant against using government force to solve the dilemma. Freedom is better than government intervention, except when the intervention is clearly necessary. The law tends to be a pretty blunt instrument of justice.
My comment re CT's post was based on the premise that the "over-interpretation" would be done by the companies, not the government.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By the way, for some insight into the law's standard, remember that at least one trial judge in a prominent case held that a boss dropping his pants and asking for oral sex, if done once with no repercussions for refusal, does not amount to sexual harassment.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
If someone had mistakenly acceeded to the offer with undue force, presuming -- understandably -- that someone to whom such a particularly unusual request in these circumstances was matter of course would therefore be expecting (and acceeding to) a response of an equally unusual quality, perhaps the judge would have been equally unperturbed.
You know, as long as he's going there. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If someone had mistakenly acceeded to the offer with undue force, presuming -- understandably -- that someone to whom such a particularly unusual request in these circumstances was matter of course would therefore be expecting (and acceeding to) a response of an equally unusual quality, perhaps the judge would have been equally unperturbed.
One can hope.
Judge was a she, by the way.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Re: "Freedom is better than government intervention, except when the intervention is clearly necessary." How does what I wrote satisfy the negation of your conditional clause? Or the prior?
In the case of harassment laws, overinterpretation of the meaning of harassment to apply to more than actually is harassment implies that people can sue over more things, and thus means more government involvement. A less strict law means there are fewer things you can win a lawsuit over, and thus means less government involvement.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ahhh! A good reminder to me. *doffs cap
I've come a long way, baby, at least with my level of comfort in responding to sexual harrassment.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Re: "Freedom is better than government intervention, except when the intervention is clearly necessary." How does what I wrote satisfy the negation of your conditional clause? Or the prior?
In the case of harassment laws, overinterpretation of the meaning of harassment to apply to more than actually is harassment implies that people can sue over more things, and thus means more government involvement. A less strict law means there are fewer things you can win a lawsuit over, and thus means less government involvement.
My apologies, but I still do not understand. How is my comment a negation of the conditional? An a priori standard comes before the resultant.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If Joe Worker was constantly called "Buddy" by his co-worker, and absolutely hated it, I would expect him to live with it rather than sue the company. I don't think it should be any different with a name like "Sweetie-Pie", unless there was some further reason to think it was part of a more serious threat to your personal privacy than that.
I can't help but wonder how those people that are implying that this shouldn't bother the ladies would react if they were in their shoes. Picture yourself as Mr. Joe 'Straight' Worker. Then have his homosexual co-worker put his beefy hairy arm around you, and call you pet names. Maybe he'll give you a pat on the butt as he leaves, in front of other people. Day in and day out, every day he does this. You shouldn't bring it to a supervisor though....just don't let it bother you.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
He would just redefine the meaning of "sweetie-pie" in his own head so that it wouldn't bother him. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Maybe he'll give you a pat on the butt as he leaves, in front of other people.
Being touched in an inappropriate manner is significantly different than what Tres was talking about.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Fine, forget the butt
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I'm not looking for responses on that, I don't really care. I just wish people would have a little more empathy sometimes. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal to us males. Hopefully, guys can put themselves in the shoes of these girls.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I just wish people would have a little more empathy sometimes.
I just wish people wouldn't assume that those who disagree with them don't have empathy.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, I personally wouldn't object to being called pet names. But when I was at my internship, one of my male coworkers and I used to make pseudo-suggestive, sarcastic comments to one another. It was clear that we were both joking around, and it never bothered either of us.
I don't start getting uncomfortable until one of the owners of a company who's asked me to work for them starts telling me about how much he wants to kiss me and how hot he thinks I am.
I'm not really sure how to explain the difference to you. It's not like Guy #1 never joked around about my attractiveness, but Guy #2 just...seemed squicky.
-pH
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think it would be worthwhile to explore the question of whether someone who feels harrassed needs to tell someone to stop, or that they feel harrassed. Only a handful of comments have addressed it, but I think it's an interesting question.
I think it is reasonable that one should. Not in the case of actions that are already criminal: sexual assault as in a couple of the cases described above. But in terms of telling jokes or calling people pet names or cursing and stuff. I realize there's a power imbalance in many of those cases to begin with, but I think such a confrontation is still reasonable to expect before a lawsuit.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I think it would be worthwhile to explore the question of whether someone who feels harrassed needs to tell someone to stop, or that they feel harrassed. Only a handful of comments have addressed it, but I think it's an interesting question.
I think it is reasonable that one should. Not in the case of actions that are already criminal: sexual assault as in a couple of the cases described above. But in terms of telling jokes or calling people pet names or cursing and stuff. I realize there's a power imbalance in many of those cases to begin with, but I think such a confrontation is still reasonable to expect before a lawsuit.
I think it depends on the situation, which is why it isn't required. For example, if one of the people I work with who is either my equal or below me in the company makes comments I'm not comfortable with, I don't think I'd have a problem saying, "Hey that makes me uncomfortable stop it," before I went to a supervisor. But if it was my supervisor or someone else above me, I'm not sure I would be comfortable asking them to stop. After all, they have the power to write me up and that can affect my career.
In reference to my previous post, as a waitress, I really couldn't tell the customer, "hey your comment was inappropriate and I don't appreciate it." I couldn't for a couple of reasons. First, the way he was about it really freaked me out. I got the shakes and when my manager didn't do anything, I turned the table over to a waiter. Second, if I had made such a comment, the customer could have gone to my manager and told him that I was being rude, thus potentially getting me in trouble for something inappropriate that he did. I did what my company's policy stated that I should do, and nothing was done by the manager on duty. Should I have gone further up the ladder? Probably.
I decided not to pursue it because it was a customer not another employee, and he wasn't a regular so I wasn't likely to have to deal with him again. If it had been another employee and my manager refused to deal with it, I certainly would have gone over his head.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Fine, forget the butt
If you also forget the part where he "puts his beefy hairy arm around" me, and include ONLY the fact that he is calling me pet names, then I don't think there should be any grounds for me to sue the company. I may not like it, and I may even complain to the supervisor, but I should not have a legal right to expect the supervisor to force the guy to stop, when all he is doing is calling me a pet name - unless there is additional reason to believe there is more of a threat behind that behavior.
quote:My apologies, but I still do not understand. How is my comment a negation of the conditional? An a priori standard comes before the resultant.
What conditional clause are you talking about?
I'm not sure what you are refering to, but you have said your "preference is to slant overinterpretation in favor of those with less power" and I have said "it is better to slant against using government force". These conflict, because in harassment cases in order to favor those with less power you typically have to allow the government to interfere more. In order to legally allow the "less powerful" employee to be favored over the "more powerful" employer, you have to give the employee more situations in which they can sue the employer - more situations in which they appeal to the government to set things right.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Tres..no right for the company to force him to stop calling you names that make you uncomfortable?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tres, why do you think the only options are to keep silent or sue the company?
Reporting the person to a supervisor is actually a middle ground.
The only way you're contention makes any kind of sense is if you dismiss any possibility of harm coming from an uncomfortable work environment. In other words, you want women to shrug off inappropriate affection because...they shouldn't make trouble for anyone? They should accept that creepy overtures is the price of being pretty? Men have the right to treat them as sex objects despite their objections?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tres, why do you think the only options are to keep silent or sue the company?
Reporting the person to a supervisor is actually a middle ground.
The only way your contention makes any kind of sense is if you dismiss any possibility of harm coming from an uncomfortable work environment. In other words, you want women to shrug off inappropriate affection because...they shouldn't make trouble for anyone? They should accept that creepy overtures is the price of being pretty? Men have the right to treat them familiarly?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:I'm not really sure how to explain the difference to you. It's not like Guy #1 never joked around about my attractiveness, but Guy #2 just...seemed squicky.
This is the point. Its fun until its not fun anymore. Workers shouldn't have to spend time and energy in trying to decide when its ok and when its not. Sex talk and sex play are not appropriate in the workplace. Not in fun, not between friends, not as general "it includes us all", not ever.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Again, Artes, in that particular situation I didn't and still don't consider it inappropriate, especially in that it wasn't making either of us uncomfortable. No harm, no foul.
-pH
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
It never is, until it isn't fun anymore. If a Supervisor allows that kind of "play" and then has to deal with a "its not fun anymore" incident with those persons or other persons in the same shop, they are disadvantaged. But, if they cannot effctifvely deal with the "not fun" situation, they are out of line and liable for the legal sanctions that are in place.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I didn't say it was no harm, no foul for all people. I'm just saying that for SOME people, it wouldn't constitute harassment. In my particular situation, it wasn't.
-pH
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I just finished a court case, the basics of which were: 1. A small tight knit work group where "zingers" were the order of the day. (Hey, I wanted your invoice number, not your birthday)(I'll bet you could have remembered that 50 years ago; Oh yeah, I forgot more than you will ever know before I started dating your Mama)etc 2. An older, long time employee who made several bad mistakes which appropriately were repremanded. 3. A claim to an outside agency that the supervisor "made frequent derrogatory reference" to the diciplined employee's age.
We paid that one to go away. It would have cost more to take it to court, even if we won. Sex play works just the same. This example is recent, but I have seen many similar situations with sex and a few with religon.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It sounds then like you are simply advocating that individuals cover their behinds, not that you are making a case for the appropriateness of hypersensitivity.
You shouldn't joke around with people who can't take it, and you should learn to recognize those people. Sure. That's true in many areas of life. For some people, that may nean never joking around. (Or never calling anybody by pet names.) But I think work would be a great deal more unpleasant if you could never joke around with the colleagues you consider friends.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think the point is that people who can take it, and give it back, can suddenly decide they don't like it and file a complaint when they get a bad performance review, or feel that their job is in danger, and you're sunk. So it's much better not to put yourself in that position.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Right on ElJay. Joke arround if you want. But, Age, Race, Sex, Religion, and Politics are not appropriate subjects for said joking. A Supervisor is out of line if he/she allows that in the workplace. EDIT: Back to the topic of the thread, this has nothing to do with "free speech" in any legal sense. It has to do with not being a jerk at work.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Not everyone who jokes around is being a jerk. Some people really don't mind. If you want to try to tell me that I was victimized because I joked around with someone who was technically my superior, go ahead, but you'll be wrong.
-pH
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I'm not saying that. I am saying that if you recieve treatment from that Supervisor that you feel is unfair and it comes right after the joking arround, you may well see a connection and your Supervisor will be hard pressed to "prove" that it isn't so.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, you weren't victimized. But you were behaving in an unprofessional manner. And you also set yourself up for the comments from creepy guy #2, who could have overheard your conversations and concluded that you were okay with sexual banter.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Forget most recent, let me give you last months senario: 1. A work crew with several young workers of both sexes who engage in an ongoing game of joke and tickle whenever they are arround each other. 2. The work crew has another member, older, less attractive (read creepy) and less articulate. 3. The older worker engages in identical behavior as his co-workers, which is mentally and physically upsetting to several younger members of the crew. Quite frankly, he is a jerk. They appropriatly complain.
4. The OW cannot understand any misconduct on his part. Therefore, he is not likely to change and will probably end up fired.
Now, who is at fault? I say, the Supervisor, for not insisting on workplace appropriate behavior from all workers.
[ June 06, 2006, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Artemisia Tridentata ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, why do you think the only options are to keep silent or sue the company?
I don't. All I said was that the situation being described didn't merit a lawsuit.
You were the only one who suggested that those are the only two options. When I said women shouldn't be able to sue over affectionate pet names, you said you were "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." In other words, you are saying that if I think women can't sue over it, I must be requiring them to shut up and take it. You may disagree, but I don't think those are the only two options. I think there are far better middle ground solutions - including complaining to a supervisor.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That was the thing with our last big sexual harassment case at work. The guy was put through sensitivity training several times, and was clearly told that his behavior was not acceptable. And he responded that his behavior was no different from the behaviors of guys X, Y, and Z, who weren't being talking to, and who the complainers seemed to welcome the attention from.
And he was completely right. The other guys were "fun," and he was "creepy." And he felt discriminated against that what was perfectly acceptable behavior from other co-workers got him fired.
So it's not a question of if some people really don't mind. It's a question of what's going to get you sued. and what level of risk of that the company is comfortable with.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*Sigh* Having recently been put through a very trying situation, clearly involving a hostile work environment, with possible gender discrimination implications from a supervisor, towards me, I'm trying to decide what I think.
My answer at this point is: I don't know. Even having been through what I went through (which included inappropriate touching) I'm not sure where the line is.
However, I *definitely* appreciate the fact that my company has policies in place to protect me and deal with these situations. In my case I was actually physically afraid to confront the supervisor. And as it was the supervisor that exhibited extremely irrational behavior including uncontrolled screaming, it wasn't exactly my place to tell him I wanted an apology. He also refused to talk with me for weeks after the screaming incident, which made it extremely difficult to do my job, as I should collaborating with my supervisor to make sure that my tasks are done correctly, not doing while holding my breath waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Thankfully he was let go before the end of his probationary period. I've never felt such a sense of relief in my entire life. I am glad that there are also retaliation policies in place, because otherwise I'm absolutely certain I would be retaliated against, by the manager who was compelled to fire the guy. He didn't want to do it, even though the body of evidence was overwhelming. (I actually had to go above this manager because he blew off some of the major issues in my first complaint. Of course that didn't go over well either.) The erratic and innappropriate behavior was demonstrated towards others in other cases, and *thankfully* I had a witness for the worst incident.
He also made comments on my appearance and lack of high heels and makeup to other co-workers. He got along with the secretary just fine because she fit in her "proper place" I didn't cause I was an engineer, and I knew that he didn't know everything.
Overall though, it's hard to absolutely say he was gender discriminating or personality discriminating, but either way it wasn't good.
And I'm very, very glad the policies protected me. I never, ever thought I would ever report anyone about anything. I had lab partners who were Navy Submariners and had no problems with their level of repartee.
But this was different. I don't know how else to put it but that it made me feel like a non-person.
AJ
(Also at the level of documentation I had, with a remotely decent lawyer, it probably could have been an easy lawsuit. If the company had not taken action, my only real recourse was legal... also a situation I'd never thought I'd ever have to contemplate.)
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
quote: So what do you guys think? Do you think an employer 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?
The following language from the recent Supreme Court case of GARCETTI v. CEBALLOS (Decided May 30, 2006) I think is instructive:
quote: Thus, a government entity has broader discretion to restrict speech when it acts in its employer role, but the restrictions it imposes must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect its operations. On the other hand, a citizen who works for the government is nonetheless still a citizen. The First Amendment limits a public employer's ability to leverage the employment relationship to restrict, incidentally or intentionally, the liberties employees enjoy in their capacities as private citizens.
In this case a supervising deputy district attorney was disciplined for telling a defense attorney about his concerns regarding, what he believed to be, a deficient search warrant. The court held that public employees can be disciplined for statements made in their official capacity.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tres, you brought up suing the company. I never mentioned suing the company - I said I talked to my supervisor, and you suggested that I should have just shut up and taken it because it wasn't worth suing the company over. I don't think it merited a law suit either, but that doesn't mean that it didn't merit any action from me at all. A lawsuit is not the only available action.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
As I understand it, you need to follow your company's formal compliant process before you can bring a law suit. That may mean talking to your supervisor, but in many companies that may mean taking your complaint to another authority. I you complain to the wrong person (the wrong person may be your supervisor) you may not be fully protecting yourself or doing yourself any good if the problem escalates. I recommend that you begin by reviewing your companying written policies and procedures regarding harassment. In this day age I think most companies have these written policies and procedures in order to protect them selves from law suits.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, you brought up suing the company. I never mentioned suing the company - I said I talked to my supervisor, and you suggested that I should have just shut up and taken it because it wasn't worth suing the company over. I don't think it merited a law suit either, but that doesn't mean that it didn't merit any action from me at all.
No, I said:
"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."
And then you said:
"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."
You were the one who brought up the idea that "women should shut up and live with" it, and presented it as the only alternative to my claim that a lawsuit is not warranted.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You equated it with an annoying dress code and said it didn't warrant a lawsuit.
Whatever. Either way, your recent line about it warranting talking to a supervisor should have come about 20 posts earlier.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
That's how I would deal with unfriendly coworkers, dress codes, or bureaucratic rules... If it didn't bother me much I would live with it, or I might complain to the person doing it. If it bothered me enough I would talk to a supervisor, and if it really really bothered me I might eventually look for a different job with a better work environment. But my employer should only be legally required to fix things if the threat or harm posed to me and my personal rights is great enough to warrant the costs that would be inevitable from getting the government involved. We shouldn't be in a state where employers are afraid to allow anything informal to go by - as seems to be the case with this fire deptartment.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: No, you weren't victimized. But you were behaving in an unprofessional manner. And you also set yourself up for the comments from creepy guy #2, who could have overheard your conversations and concluded that you were okay with sexual banter.
No, considering that #1 and #2 are completely unrelated and do not know each other. He couldn't have overheard anything, and he WASN'T engaging in banter. He was being creepy and serious.
As for it being unprofessional, it's the music industry. It's not "professional" in the traditional suit-and-tie sense to begin with.
-pH
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:As for it being unprofessional, it's the music industry. It's not "professional" in the traditional suit-and-tie sense to begin with.
How many times have I heard that one. "Its the fire service. It's not "professional" in the traditional suit-and-tie sense." "Its the security service", Its not "Professional" "medical services" and on and on. It is still not appropriate in the workplace, and supervisors who allow those kinds of behaviors are not good supervisors.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata:
quote:As for it being unprofessional, it's the music industry. It's not "professional" in the traditional suit-and-tie sense to begin with.
How many times have I heard that one. "Its the fire service. It's not "professional" in the traditional suit-and-tie sense." "Its the security service", Its not "Professional" "medical services" and on and on. It is still not appropriate in the workplace, and supervisors who allow those kinds of behaviors are not good supervisors.
Unless you've worked in the music industry, you have no idea what you're talking about.
-pH
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Unless you've worked in the music industry, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't quite understand the logic here. "It's not harassment, because it's the music industry...?"
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Just because a group thinks they are special, does not exempt them from the law. (Except for the Congress of the United States when acting as an employeer.) You may have a greater percentage of group members that are willing to put up with substandard treatment. But, the liability is still the same if one of them decides to quit playing the game.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Unless you've worked in the music industry, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't quite understand the logic here. "It's not harassment, because it's the music industry...?"
That's not what I'm saying. I'm also not saying that sexual harassment doesn't exist.
In fact, I had a very well thought-out response to Art's last post, but at this point, it will serve no purpose for me to disagree, since nothing that I say will make any difference, as I am clearly just accepting "substandard" treatment because I'm a silly, helpless woman who doesn't know any better.
Done with this thread. Carry on.
-pH
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
No one was really calling it harassment, pH, but they WERE calling it unprofessional and not appropriate for the work place.
There is a difference.
Also, if you participated in the banter, you were as much at fault as he was rather than a victim.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Best bet is to sit at your desk and not look at or speak to anyone. All it takes is one misunderstanding or (worse) one person out to get you to ruin your career.
For instance, the following scenario is possible:
I was working with Nancy in the lab, just us. It was good work, we really didn't interact at all - but I did notice that she left out some classified material. I report it supervisor (as I am required to do), and it gets back to Nancy. She proceeds to accuse me of trying to grope her and making lewd comments. Now, I have to spend all this time fighting back, plus none of my female coworkers like me anymore.
It seems that all a woman has to do is accuse a man of sexual misconduct, and his life is ruined. Pretty effective, if you ask me - not to mention terribly unjust.
Anyways. I sometimes say things that I don't realize sound sexual, but others take them that way. Watch me get in trouble for that, one day.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:It seems that all a woman has to do is accuse a man of sexual misconduct, and his life is ruined. Pretty effective, if you ask me - not to mention terribly unjust.
You're being a bit melodramatic here, I think.
All a man has to do is plant evidence in a woman's purse and rat her out to the FBI and her life is ruined!
I mean, come on. The reaction to accusations of sexual harassment in the vast majority of work places in this country is luke warm, disbelieving, dilatory, and lacks a certain thoroughness, shall we say...
If you happened to hit some place where there had recently been an expensive loss in a lawsuit over such stuff, then, yeah, maybe you'd find yourself prejudged as a man accused of something.
But the most likely scenario is: 1) she accuses 2) you deny 3) they take no action
Sadly, this is true even when there IS sexual harrassment going on.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Even if the company doesn't take action Bob, it doesn't mean there aren't repercussion in the work place. If you work with a lot of women then it can get downright hostile, even if there was no proof to back up the allegations.
I had something like that happen to me when I worked at Cracker Barrel, and while I had not done anything wrong it was not a good place to work for weeks after.
![[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)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)