Google Pledges To Overhaul Its Sexual Harassment Policy After Global Protests (theguardian.com) 295
In an email to staff on Thursday, Google CEO Sundar Pichai said the company would overhaul its sexual harassment policies, "meeting some of the demands of employees who organized historic walkouts across the globe," the Guardian reports. "Pichai said Google would end forced arbitration of sexual miconduct claims, revamp its investigations process, share data on harassment claims and outcomes, and provide new support systems for people who come forward. From the report: Some critics, however, said the commitments were inadequate, failed to address pay disparities, and ignored demands to improve the rights of temporary employees and contractors. Pichai said Google would now make arbitration "optional for individual sexual harassment and sexual assault claims," but noted that employees could still choose to keep their claims confidential. [...] Pichai also said Google would disclose trends about investigations and disciplinary actions and would create "one dedicated site" that included "live support" for people with complaints. Google would now also offer "extra care and resources" to employees, including counseling and "career support" and a "support person," the CEO added.
Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone commits a crime against you, call the police and charge them with a crime; otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Re:Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't satisfy the mob.
Re:Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google deserves every little bit of it. They wanted to play the deep state and shadow government, divide and conquer, SJW bullshit activist and mass censor game and it is turning right around and biting them on the ass, hard, funny and fuck. As you sew, so shall you reap and they are being reaped hard, right up the economic ass and it is going to get worse, the SJW freaks at Google are empowered now. We all shall mock and laugh and don't the shit heads at Alphabet deserve it, corrupt propagandistic shadow government asshats.
Re:Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:5, Funny)
ITYM rip.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe because HR or your boss quietly asking that you please stop doing X is better for everyone involved than launching an immediate forensic investigation and hauling you into court to defend against a criminal conviction.
And in any case, it's often not a crime, it's a civil employment issue.
Re: (Score:3)
In what state or country is sexual harassment not a crime? D.C. maybe, at least now, but else?
Re: (Score:3)
Making lewd sexual comments about someone is generally not a crime in most places I think... I'm not an expert on US law but isn't that something you cite on a hostile work environment lawsuit, not something you take to the police?
And note that even to get to the lawsuit stage it would have to be a pattern of behaviour, not just a one off or something that stopped when raised with HR/your boss. The barrier is actually quite high.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It may not actually be a crime, but it's still illegal. That's why you can be subjected to civil penalties. Any form of ongoing harassment should be a crime, not just a civil issue, since it affects quality of life.
Re: Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:2)
This is why you can't get a date. Go back to /pol/, creep.
Re:Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:4, Informative)
In what state or country is sexual harassment not a crime?
All of them. Sexual Harassment (in the workplace) is a civil offense, not a crime. You can't go to jail for it.
The reason a company has to get involved is they don't want the civil liability caused by doing nothing about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot, the US makes a huge fuss about how something illegal is classified. Let me rephrase this: In what state is sexual harassment something you don't get into trouble with the law for?
At the end of the day, you're in deep shit and very likely out of a job. Whether you go to jail for it doesn't exactly matter that much.
Re: (Score:2)
In what state is sexual harassment something you don't get into trouble with the law for?
All of them. All that fuss is actually kinda important.
Precisely zero people in the government will care if someone is sexually harassed at a private business. Instead, "justice" requires paying for a pseduo-prosecution yourself.
At the end of the day, you're in deep shit and very likely out of a job
It's not nearly that guaranteed. It's heavily covered up, especially if you're not at the bottom of the org chart.
And suing your employer over anything, even if the employer is 100% in the wrong, will likely make it very difficult for you to find a job for the rest of your life.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a crime anywhere in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is a troll?
VC's age of consent was 12, until just a few years ago. Only priests, nuns and the Swiss guard live there.
Criminality (Score:2)
And in any case, it's often not a crime, it's a civil employment issue.
It also very often IS a crime [wikipedia.org] in many circumstances. For example the moment anyone is denied benefits, promotions, punitively fired, given an adverse decision, interfere with their work, intimidate, etc, then it can very easily become a crime. And even in cases where it is not a crime it is certainly not decent behavior.
Innocent until guilty only applies to government (Score:2)
Because "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't satisfy the mob.
Innocent until proven guilty ONLY applies to criminal court cases brought by the government. It has NOTHING to do with internal HR actions of a private company unless it deals directly with actions regarding a protected class of individuals. Even then "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply unless the parties involved are standing in a courtroom. With some restrictions a company has wide discretion in how it treats the people working for it and they absolutely can treat you as guilty until proven in
Re: (Score:3)
Which was kind of the point. If sexual harassment is handled in court, then the presumption of innocence applies. The prevailing sentiment -- at least of those who make the most noise -- is that those accused of sexual harassment should be punished without that standard of proof. And that's why those people push to have punishments meted out by employers rather than the government.
Re: Innocent until guilty only applies to governm (Score:2)
Not really. It's just a reassertion of the reasonable-doubt standard. When you're no longer fooling anybody, that's enough. When the arguments against the charges are clear bullshit, they hold no value. Essentially, this is removing the veils that abusers and rapists hide behind to escape the consequences of their actions despite there being no reasonable doubt that they are guilty.
(If you want more proof of that, consider that they're hailing decisions like Google's to allow these cases to be settled in co
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Because trial lawyers and sensitivity trainers need to eat too
Do we get to vote on that, please?
Re:Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, lots of things can occur outside the bounds of decent and proper behavior at a workplace which don't happen to be a crime.
Re:Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Then why are they trying to make it a "crime" in the workplace. Either it's a crime or it isn't. I'm offended every damn day by the shit-hole this country is becoming at the hands of professional victimization industry. Fuck all of you. It's time to take back the agenda. No FUCK YOU! Your feelings don't mean shit to me! Do your fucking job and let me do my job and shut the fuck up.
It's time for people to stand up and say enough is enough. We're stopping you. You shall not go no further. Fuck your goddamn victimhood. Stop being such a fucking piece of shit always demanding everyone else suffer for your inability to assert yourself and stand up for yourself. You are thieves who only seek to steal power that you haven't earned. Fuck you!
Re: (Score:1)
Mr. Butler, now please tell us how you really feel. Don't hold back this time.
Re:Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. Then why are they trying to make it a "crime" in the workplace. Either it's a crime or it isn't.
I'm sorry you are such a snowflake when it comes to following the rules but these are private businesses and they make their own rules. If you don't like it then you can make your own business where anything goes. You may find this hard to believe but society frowns upon such things.
Frankly, I don't know anyone who want's to go to work and deal with people like you who say shit like...
And that's only a few of the most recent things you have written.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What's your fucking point? You don't like the words I use? So fucking what.
Freedom of speech merely means you will not be jailed for political speech. It is not a freedom from consequences of what you say from everyone.
Say what you like but you will be held to account because how you feel about the matter is of no consequence.
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to, "I may find your ideas abhorrent, but, I will defend to the death your right to express them"?
Are you being prohibited from expressing those ideas? No. Will you be held accountable for your actions? Yes.
This is what you fail to understand, free speech is about the right to say something that the government doesn't want to hear without being thrown in jail. People can't jail you but they don't have to listen to you.
Feel free to trash talk your boss. That's sure to explain the concept to you very quickly.
Re: Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:3)
There are lots of actions that I would fire someone for but which are not crimes.
I donâ(TM)t know the details of any specific case being discussed, but in general harassment does not belong in the workplace for many reasons. Among those is that it drives away talented workers.
Re: Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:2)
Re: Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Out of interest, how many times have you put forth this theory to your employees and NOT had them turn around, walk out and seek employment elsewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Even the law isn't as black and white as crime/not a crime. There are misdemeanours, and law enforcement has leeway to stop you doing stuff without actually charging you of a crime. Some stuff is processed as a civil matter, like parking fines.
Re: (Score:2)
No FUCK YOU! Your feelings don't mean shit to me!
I'd like to present to you the internet worst boss of the year award.
No doubt you're not actually a boss of anyone. With that attitude you probably tired once and were promptly demoted after your team productivity went down the same shitter you got your attitude from.
Re: (Score:2)
There are tons of things that are inappropriate in a workplace that are appropriate outside a workplace. If you don't understand that, please attend some remedial life skills class.
Did you read the fucking summary? It's the employees who insisted on these corporate policies as a condition for working there. That's
Re: Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:2)
When you drag shit down and ruin things for everyone, you wind up hurting the company more than the value your work provides, and people stop wanting you around. You are not a bunny-ears lawyer [tvtropes.org]. The very few in existence are either learning to grow up or get kicked to the curb they always belonged. You'll be a lot happier if you learn too.
Re:Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, lots of things can occur outside the bounds of decent and proper behavior at a workplace which don't happen to be a crime.
The incident being protested occurred in a hotel room, and it happened between two people that were in a pre-existing consensual relationship. They both worked for Google, but they were not at work, and I am not sure why Google felt any obligation to get involved. I'll bet they are now wishing they hadn't.
Re: (Score:2)
and I am not sure why Google felt any obligation to get involved
There has never been a workplace relationship between people who share a reporting line in history consensual or otherwise which hasn't also had an affect on the workplace itself.
It is in the best interest of companies to stay involved in private issues that can have an affect on them, for better or worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Even more than that as I understand it the problem these workers have is that the guy left with a golden parachute. At that level managers take the job via contract and the contract usually includes a buyout so that if they don't work out they still get something for the time they've invested and what they've lost because they didn't take another job.
Now as I understand it the contract usually include outs for the company if the manager is found guilty of a crime. What they don't include is cutouts for HR a
Re:Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google had to get involved because a relationship between a superior and their subordinate is always a problem. At the very least the superior should excuse themselves and move to a position where they are no influence over the subordinate, and that didn't happen.
Otherwise it presents two problems. Firstly other employees may feel that the subordinate is getting unfair treatment. Even if a promotion is deserved, there will be suspicion that it was influenced by the relationship. Secondly if the relationship breaks down it could create an extremely awkward situation, and makes it hard for the company to avoid accusations of a hostile environment if the superior later needs to give a bad review or discipline the subordinate.
For that reason many companies have an explicit policy on this, requiring people to declare relationships with subordinates and be moved to resolve the issue. In the case of C level execs moving is often impossible so if they want to pursue it they have to resign.
They're not protesting the incident (Score:4, Interesting)
If I may go off on a tangent here (feel free to stop readying if you're not into a libtard libtarding out) I've been complaining about our right wing media narratives for years. Workers are understandably angry that a sexual harassment claim is forced into binding arbitration instead of being litigated as it should. Workers have lost a valuable right. This is barely discussed in most media outlets (CNN, to their credit, did) in favor of a focus on the part most likely to rile up the anti-SJW crowd. This is what I mean about the right wing media bias.
Another amazing example. Fiat-Chrysler just got caught bribing Union leaders to weaken worker benefits and pay. The news stories all ran it as a Union Corruption scandal and did everything they could to gloss over the fact that Fiat-Chrysler was the one paying the bribes. The message is loud and clear: Unions are bad because they are corrupt. Again, right wing narrative at play.
The media is a bit left on a few social issues. A bit. They (like Hilary Clinton I might add) opposed Gay marriage until changing times forced their hand. I'm sick of it. It's like living in bizzaro world where everyone around me clamors on about the left wing media meanwhile I watch stories like the above unfold over and over again...
That's the point (Score:2)
I'm not saying excessive Political Correctness and over eager SJWs and hucksters like Anita Sarkeesian aren't a problem (they're fanning flames to make quick cash). But I _am_ saying that a safe work environment is a good thing and that sexual harassment is a real problem. Men can be predatory. Not always, not even in a majority of the time. But that doesn
That's an awfully long post (Score:2)
You're being had. Right wing politics and anti-SJW bullshit is just a trick to get you to side with the Mega corps. They let you hate on feminists and you let them have all the money and land. Doesn't seem like a fair trade to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this something for companies to solve?
Because companies want productive employees. Such employees can easily find jobs. If the working environment is unpleasant then those workers will leave and it wil hurt the bottom line of the company.
If someone commits a crime against you, call the police and charge them with a crime
Firstly, there are many sorts of behaviour that are not literally illegal that said productive employees won't put up with. The bar for actually illegal is pretty high, as it should b
Re:Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:5, Insightful)
Works just the other way around, too. Do I want to work in an environment where I have to wonder and worry what I can or cannot say, no matter how innocent, because some self proclaimed Cardinal Richelieu made it his or her mission to collect 6 lines from everyone to hang them for?
Re: Why is this something for companies to solve? (Score:2)
The witch hunts will continue until morale improves!
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the "other way", that's the same way. Lack of clear statements on what is acceptable and lack of clear procedures for resolving disputes cause both these issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. "Nice dress" is a compliment or sexual harassment, depending who says it, whether the person wearing the dress likes them and whether a biased witness wants to fuck over the person saying it.
When HR's guidance is "it's offensive if someone is offended" then workplace interactions become a fucking minefield.
This isn't constructive, productive or pleasant but is the direction modern workplaces are going. I already avoid saying anything nice to women in the office because I don't know which one is g
Re: (Score:2)
I'd still like to see an actual, verifiable example of this happening in real life. Until then I'll just assume it's paranoia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be really interested in hearing a legal definition here that's unambiguous, because that's what you'd need here.
What is acceptable social interaction and what's sexual harassment? Is "that new dress looks great on you" one or the other? And don't say "depends", a legal definition does not "depend". And that's what you're aiming for here since you want to give people legal troubles if they break the rules.
Re: (Score:2)
A hostile work environment is not a crime, it's a civil employment matter. The police will tell you to get a lawyer and sue.
The crimes are just the worst examples.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone commits a crime against you
Because being an arsehole isn't a crime while at the same time making work environments hostile and stressful. You have this completely backwards. The question is not "why is this something for companies to solve" but rather "why are a few companies not working on this given that it affects employee productivity and happiness?"
Re: (Score:2)
If someone commits a crime against you, call the police and charge them with a crime; otherwise, shut the fuck up.
If you wait for the police to get involved before you address a problem, you have already failed. You are the fuck up.
Why are fire exists (Score:2)
Also it's good for the work environment. Women are essential to modern business. Like it or not more of them are graduating college right now. The reason is girls calm down sooner in their early childhood and can focus on school, meanwhile boys ar
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather work for a woman than a short man. Just my experience.
I won't work for a cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what happens when you put the snowflakes in charge, they eventually turn on their own. “Damore Suit [pjmedia.com]: Google Caters to Furries, Transgenderism, and 'A Yellow-Scaled Wingless Dragonkin'”
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are not free to set their working conditions because SJW terrorists like you are blackmailing and extorting them.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, let's all feel sorry for the multi-billion-dollar multinational.
Damn me if that isn't the funniest thing I've read all week.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are not free to set their working conditions because SJW terrorists like you are blackmailing and extorting them.
Huh and you were all over the "muh freeze peach" earlier. Interesting that you seek to deny free speech and free association to people who you disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Freeze Peach Warriors don't actually want free speech, they want to be able to say whatever they like and not get criticised. In other words, no free speech for critics, just those who already agree.
Re: (Score:2)
You got a new liver lined up?
Following those rules will cook the one you got.
Re: (Score:2)
They have the right to protest, speak, walk-out, or whatever.
Make up your mind. Previously you called them terrorists and blackmailers, both things which can land you gaol time. Now you say they have a right. Make up your mind.
But, the company should also have the right to fire them if it wants.
It does in many places. California is a right to work state so it can certainly fire them there. Google chose not to.
They are being blackmailed
Do make up your mind. Blackmail is illegal. Are they engaging in illegal
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarianism is about liberty, which is the complete opposite of the state creating laws to control individuals' behavior (that doesn't _directly_ harm others). That's why Google is creating these policies - because the state says they're responsible for sexual harassment by their employees. Here's a quote about this:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-... [quora.com]
> Consider the sexual harassment which continually occurs between a secretary and a boss . . . while objectionable to many women, [it] is not a coercive
SJW eat their own (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: SJW eat their own (Score:5, Informative)
See also Jamie Kilstein talking the SJW mob turning on him on the Joe Rogan Experience. [youtube.com] Kilstein had the same thing happen to him. Only, he wasn't just an SJW, but he was an SJW leader. He targeted dissenters for harassment and the mob followed his lead. He did real harm to people. But...eventually his own mob turned on him. Let's listen to his own words when he actually meets his former enemies for the first time in his life: [quillette.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to switch to a color palette with more depth than one bit per pixel.
It won't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is trying to appease the SJW mob. This never works. It just energizes them and makes them sure to make even more extreme demands of the future. We've seen this again and again.
You know what we've seen works? Ignoring them. They get sullen and bitter and move on to the next cause. Nothing worse than throwing a protest and nobody cares. The opposite of SJW hate is not love. The opposite is indifference.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This. Never give in to SJWs, they just demand more and more.
After all, if they admitted that they had achieved their goals they would have to stop being SJWs, and they wouldn't get to act superior to everyone, which is what they really want.
Re: (Score:2)
Appeasement never worked. Ask Neville Chamberlain.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is trying to appease the SJW mob.
Looks more like Google is simply late to the party of creating a code of conduct that prohibits workplace relationships with conflicts of interest. This is standard shit at every other large company.
Re: (Score:2)
There were huge protests.
Of course there were. Google is late to provide workplace protections that are standard and exposed a massive power disconnect in the process.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bullshit. There weren't mass protests. A few people took an early lunch and made a lot of noise about it.
Google's only lack of workplace protections are for competent people trying to do their fucking job. They already had anti-harassment policies, already enforced them, already took action against abuses of power.
Unless the victims were white, male or ideally both, according to an extensive lawsuit raised against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh bullshit. There weren't mass protests.
Yeah just a few 10s of thousands of people took their early lunch in a pre-organised way at offices around the world and like with every lunch they took with them megaphones and signs.
You're a fucking moron.
Google's only lack of workplace protections are for competent people trying to do their fucking job.
Exactly what we are talking about. That is the primary purpose of code of conducts against harassment of all kinds.
They already had anti-harassment policies, already enforced them
You're a fucking moron.
Unless the victims were white, male or ideally both, according to an extensive lawsuit raised against them.
Saying it twice is enough. I'll let you off without calling you a fucking moron again.
Re: (Score:2)
I may be a fucking moron but I'm also right. Unlike you.
What sort of fucked up echo chamber are you trapped in that basic common fucking sense evokes so strong an emotional reaction? You may want to seek medical assistance, there are trained professionals out there that can help you.
Re: (Score:2)
Google's doing nothing of the sort (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite hard to change an employment contract, especially when it's a standard term included for everybody in the company.
"Ok, location, hours, salary, holiday, medicall. This is all great, I can start on Thursday. You just need to drop that arbitration clause."
"No. Sign the contract or we withdraw the offer."
What's the average 30 year old about to start a job with Google going to do?
This is oddly one of the rare occasions on which a union might actually be useful.
Problem isn't the policies (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't the policies. It's the uneven application of the policies. It's not limited to sexual harassment either. High-level execs regularly seem to be let go with a golden parachute following a myriad of things (fraud, embezzlement, etc) that would sink the career of a regular employee.* Revamping the policies won't make the slightest difference if they're still not applied evenly.
* This makes me suspect we need a law saying being let go for unethical behavior automatically nullifies any severance terms you've negotiated in your employment contract.
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY.
Brilliant idea. I can't see any way that could be abused.
Re: (Score:2)
Same way it IS abused with all employees that can't afford a 5000 bucks-an-hour lawyer?
Re: (Score:2)
> This makes me suspect we need a law...
Exactly, we need a nanny state to control our thoughts and actions. What could go wrong?
No one laughs at Mike Pence anymore (Score:2, Insightful)
Never be alone with or have a one-on-one conversation with any woman who is not your wife. Don't even look at them, lest you be accused of "eye rape". Be the most boring man in the world and they'll leave you alone. Do all your socializing and flirting with women who don't even know what industry you work in. (No big loss -- an a Slashdot reader, your job title is probably something women would dismiss as "loser nerd")
If you're a key person, e.g. the guy who codes the search algos or the guy who invented An
Orthogonal to the left/right divide... new norms? (Score:3)
It struck me as very odd to see how supportive the CEO of Google was of this walkout.... most of the left/right world just sees it as caving in to snowflake pressure, or the workers bringing about positive change through collective action.... but I have a different theory.
Normally, the hands of management are bound by lots of rules, shareholder pressure, the SEC, etc... I'm sure the CEO was aware of the issues, but too bound up by the rules and social pressures from above (shareholders, the 0.001%, etc) to effectively deal with it.
if the workers happen to "organize" a strike demanding something that the CEO would like to do, but can't.... you get the aforementioned weird reaction. Moral dilemma on the part of the CEO is solved, workers are happy that they have some power, and shareholder blame gets deflected safely away from management.
I expect this to happen more, as it might be a new corporate cultural norm.
Gattaca or worse (Score:2)
It's sad, sickening and makes me long for my retirement in the country-side and death.
I long for the days of self awareness, self-reliance and responsibility.
Humanity, the more you study it the more you realize you were sold a bunch of garbage.
Will it still be against the rules ... (Score:3)
From now on (Score:2)
From now on, sexual harrassment will not be reported; however, it will be graded.
Re: Seriously (Score:2)
So you're saying you think it's OK to just grab anything you happen to see in public?
I'm not a woman, so no, I obviously can't do that. Instead I just wear a banana hammock in public and have them grab me.
Re: (Score:2)
Please provide an objective definition of "dress like a whore". Thank you!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Please provide an objective definition of "dress like a whore". Thank you!
I think the defenition is:
Wow you're really hot go out with me pleaaaaaaassssee pllllleeeeeeaaaassseeee WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU WON'T GO OUT WITH ME YOU DRESS LIKE A WHORE.
Take responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
When an foolish man gets punched in the face, nobody thinks twice about "He was asking for it".
Women need to grow a pair and accept that responsibility/agency comes hand-in-hand with feminine privileges (e.g., sexual allure).
Re: (Score:2)
Put in some effort. Maybe one will let you fuck her twice?
Re: (Score:2)
Once word gets around how lame you are, there will be no more.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What part of "Look but don't touch without permission" do you fail to understand?
The part where looking is today already rape.
Re:Seriously (Score:4, Interesting)
I confess I haven't read the article - for topics like this it's the comments that inspire the largest laughs. Having said that, and sorry to interject a 'modicum' of reason, I thought the topic was sexual harassment not sexual assault. So...
It's nothing more than the old "She was asking for it" canard, so, yes, I believe that he DID say that.
"That" being it's "OK to grab anything", no, he didn't say that. He said nothing about what the 'man' did, he merely commented on the deliberated allure of the women. It's still perhaps a rather 'self-centered caveman' attitude, as it completely ignores the distinct possibility that the women are dressing for themselves and gave no consideration to the effect it might have on men, but it is still a valid perspective.
It all boils down to What part of "Look but don't touch without permission" do you fail to understand?
Honestly I can't speak for the original poster but I'm pretty sure that ninety nine to the several nines percent of men understand and abide by this, even the mentally ill ones who disagree, if only out of fear not compassion, empathy, moral reasoning or understanding.
The 'understanding' that's considerably less clear is when, and in what manner, is it OK to make a pass at a colleague? The boundaries of social decorum are vague, and pretty damn wide when it comes to different people. I still remember watching a woman in an interview for a documentary on harassment, apparently oblivious to the irony, state that it's fine for a colleague you fancy to ask you out, but if a colleague you don't find attractive does so it's harassment. To my mind this is crazy talk, yet any number of people now seem to believe in this 'definition' of harassment. Given this it should come as no surprise that people have begun to strenuously push back against what might be seen as society's slide into collective madness.
(That they go too far in their reaction should also come as no surprise, but that's a discussion for another day).
I just wish we all, men and women (and unspecified others), would take a moment to see things from the other's perspective before the knee-jerk disagreement or 'violent' reaction. If the poles get much further apart lines are likely to snap, and the 'energy' released in that moment will cause unpredictable damage to society.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'understanding' that's considerably less clear is when, and in what manner, is it OK to make a pass at a colleague?
Never.
No, seriously. It's work. It's not a bar. Don't do it. Even if you really, really wanna.
Also, your fear exemplified by this anecdote:
it's fine for a colleague you fancy to ask you out, but if a colleague you don't find attractive does so it's harassment
Is false. It has to be a pattern for it to be harassment. So if you stupidly cast aside the advice above and ask, and she says "No", then don't try and get a date again.
This is not difficult or confusing. Attempts to portray it as difficult or confusing are attempts to find a loophole or excuse shitty behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
The 'understanding' that's considerably less clear is when, and in what manner, is it OK to make a pass at a colleague?
Never.
No, seriously. It's work. It's not a bar. Don't do it.
And yet, strangely, before internet dating the workplace was the location where most couples met.
Also, your fear exemplified by this anecdote:
Oh please... unless you work as a psychoanalyst don't give up the day job!
It has to be a pattern for it to be harassment.
Agreed! Harassment is a pattern of repeated unwanted behaviour. To most 'sensible' people what it is and isn't is not difficult or confusing, and yet we do see people confusing it. Hence the anecdote, and my incredulity at what was said.
So if you stupidly cast aside the advice above and ask, and she says "No", then don't try and get a date again.
This is not difficult or confusing. Attempts to portray it as difficult or confusing are attempts to find a loophole or excuse shitty behavior.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree as to whether asking a co-worker out on a date is stupi
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, strangely, before internet dating the workplace was the location where most couples met.
Never said it was impossible. I said it was a bad idea. Your statement also ignores that sexual harassment was also incredibly rampant in the workplace - not all the women in the secretarial pool were looking to fuck.
and yet we do see people confusing it
We see people who want to engage in a pattern of harassment confusing it. There are precisely zero people actually filing civil charges over one incident. But is sure sounds scary when you want to scream about SJWs.
Re: (Score:2)
Run your business that way if you want, by should others have to run their business that way too?
If they don't want to go bankrupt paying legal fees and settlements, yeah.
Turns out starting a business is not the same as making a Tinder account.