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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He would just redefine the meaning of "sweetie-pie" in his own head so that it wouldn't bother him. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres..no right for the company to force him to stop calling you names that make you uncomfortable?
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.)
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
