I am restructuring my department. I have (or had) three female employees that were just Gawd-awful. I have been writing them up for months. Can I fire them yet? Well, not yet because HR and the CFO are deciding whether or not I have enough dirt on them. HR told me "If they were young men you could have fired them a year ago.
One of the women quit before I could fire her. She gave a scathing exit interview. AMong her claims was one of sexual harassment. She alleged 2 things. First, that when she asked me how my wife’s and my in-vitro fertilization was going, I responded “I am tired of going into the little room with a cup.” THe other was that I favored the men in the department which created an environment hostile to women. Well, I have one male employee who is a super star and who is vital to my success. Second, the women in the dpartment used to have secret meetings to tear me apart.
So the secret meetings to pick on the male are OK, but rewarding a great employee is hostile. I handle all lawsuits for our company and have been handling lawsuits for 11 years now. I very, very rarely see one that amounts to true harassment. And the fact that women (and blacks and jews and gays and the disabled and the old and the young and…) are protected means that I, as a manager, can rain hell on a straight, white, under forty male, but I can barely reprimand a woman.
Does this lead to bias? well, if there is a person that you have to treat differently nmerely because of that person’s sex or color, is that bias? YOu can’t tell an off color joke to a woman, but you can to a man.
Personally, the law makes me want to hire nothing but men.
It is exactly this sentiment that I believe encourages gender (and all the other) bias. It was not me that created the situation. Some men in the past exploited their positions. Not this man. How can I not have my opinion of women affected when it is I who has to walk on egg shells around them, and when I have never done anything to deserve their suspicion? I am sick of all this talk of equality and rectifying the inequality of the past with all new inequalities.
PeeQueue:How can I not have my opinion of women affected when it is I who has to walk on egg shells around them, and when I have never done anything to deserve their suspicion?
How? By recognizing that this whole distasteful “eggshell-walking” situation has deep and complex historical roots, and that it is not specifically the fault of women, any more than it is specifically the fault of you. I’m not saying I wouldn’t respect you because you feel uncomfortable in this situation—it’s a very uncomfortable situation for all of us. I’m saying I wouldn’t respect you if you reacted by lazily blaming the whole mess on women.
Kimstu, I understand what you are trying to say. I am not proposing wolf whistles, off color jokes, and fanny pats as office norms either. All I am trying to say is that people naturally gravitate towards those subjects if they become friends, even casual friends. It’s too easy to go from stories of “Did you see ER last night?” to things like “Oh wow! Did you see the outfit Jennifer Aniston wore to the Emmy Awards?” Sex has a way of creeping into conversations between friends without announcing its presence, or even wiping its feet at the door, simply because it’s all around us. When casual comments like these form the basis of lawsuits, they get attention out of all proportion to the numbers of occurrences, and they fuel the feeling that people are expected to be mechanical little office drones.
I know that you are trying to set forth a reasonable protocol, but it’s the unreasonable expectations (as exemplified in the Seinfeld harassment case, in which common sense triumphed for once), held by very few individuals, that are actually shaping the fears of people in the workplace, as well as the sometimes draconian “Office Conduct Policies” that result. It’s a sad fact that harassment laws are written generally to criminalize not only what behavior is forbidden (some of which is undeniably criminal), but also by how behavior is perceived by an offended party. And, to make matters worse, there is little incentive for a company to do much for someone accused of such activity. When faced by the threat of a lawsuit (admittedly, purely anecdotal) evidence suggests that companies will fold rather than fight in most cases.
For the record, I do not know if there is a better solution to he situation than what we have now. You cannot legislate common sense, but it seems silly to have the laws written so one-sidedly that one party’s aggrieved feelings can be the foundation upon which our codes rest.
Being easily offended carries a lot of rewards in our society. If you are easily offended, you get handled with kid gloves, you wont get fired and you can potentially make some cash by filing suit. We are rewarding the wrong things, IMHO.
For the record, it is still acceptable to openly berate white men and the wealthy. Anything outside of that will get you a lawsuit sooner or later.
The worst thing about sexual harassment is that it is, for the most part, an uninsured peril. So even a frivolous case will cost $10-20k. It doesn’t matter if you are in the right or not. The plaintiff either pays nothing or gets a chunk of cash. The company pays a chunk of cash or pays a bigger chunk of cash.
agisofia - perhaps part of the problem occurs when you say “frivolous” complaints. Certainly the people who complained in each case did not consider them frivolous. Also, you have to look at the total picture. For example, the person who referred to his female dog : A. Was this person saying something about his “female dog” while glaring at a female co worker with whom they’d recently had an argument? Was is an innocent remark that was overheard, complained about, investigated then dropped?
On the other hand, The manager touching the shoulder - nope, I teach folks DON’T TOUCH COWORKERS (unless you’re pushing them out of the way of the oncoming train). I don’t touch my employees. I saw, in a public meeting once, a CEO make a comment about his great staff, turned to a female employee, grasped her shoulder. It was clear from her body language she was VERY uncomfortable with that. I would be, too.
We get problems because while we all might agree on the extreme cases, we don’t agree in the middler ground. I really, really liked Kimstu’s world.
obviously stated by some one who has not been victimized. and being the normally caring and considerate person he is, I’m sure Mr. Zambezi meant this ONLY to refer to unfounded harassment complaints, didn’t you?
Ptahlis, you’re pretty much right on the money. I can only suggest, besides the voluntary reinstatement of more “proper” workplace manners that I already proposed (and thanks for your vote, wring! ;)), that third parties need to speak up more to defend someone unfairly accused. It’s heartening to see how many people here can make sensible distinctions between really bad behavior and friendly informality, and perhaps workers accused of sexual harassment should be able to call such levelheaded folks as “character witnesses” to back up their defense of their actions.
Another thing that I think might help (and would be easier with the new workplace-manners default I suggested) would be to provide a middle ground between “acceptable behavior” and “sexual harassment”. Many people just don’t like touching or personal remarks or off-color jokes (or maybe they just don’t like them coming from me or you ;)), but they feel that if they complain about them they’d just get laughed at or called “prudish.” They figure the only alternative to putting up with it is to make an official complaint that sounds very serious. Why give them such a drastic choice? If your workplace is one in which someone can come right out and say “You know, I think that sort of talk is kind of distasteful” or “too personal” or whatever and get treated with respect instead of with jeers or patronizing condescension, you can probably take care of all the potentially difficult situations unofficially without turning them into full-blown complaints or lawsuits. (And anybody who, after such a gentle protest, would vociferously insist on his/her right knowingly to continue making remarks that coworkers find offensive can have the ass sued right off him/her for all I care.)
Wring, in my world, well founded claims do not cost anythjing in terms of defense because we take care of the victim. If one of our managers was out of line, the manager is fired, the victim is accommodated and if he or she is out any money, it is promplty paid. We do not tolerate any kind of coersion or harassment in the workplace. It is bad business to have miserable employees.
The frivolous suits tend to cost more because of defense.
that is really the rub. Say you have 10 employees. 9 of them are fairly jocular and informal. One gets gravelty offended if you say “damn” or “jesus” or even “shit”. IS it reasonable to force 9 folks to alter their natural, friendly behavior because of one zealot?
That is really the hard question to answer. Personally, I would want to fire the zealot and hire someone who fits better. But then, that is how these suits start.
One lady in my office alled that a manager pointed his thumb at her in a sexist manner. To him it was nothing. To her it was demeaning. This would not be considered “frivolous” but would be pretty ridiculous none the less.
I have to disagree with Mr. Zambezi - I’ve seen several women file sexual harrassment claims with their HR departments - one for existing in a highly inappropriate sexualized (lots of dirty jokes, lots of sexual innuendo, one manager on the prowl) workplace, then complaining when she finally broke (after being called a cunt); one for having a fellow coworker tell her sleep with me or I’ll make your life hell. Both were fired from their jobs - no reprocussions for the men.
I was the victim of quid pro quo sexual harrassment (i.e. sleep with me or risk your job), complained and was quietly moved to another department where I was perpetually on “probation” for doing a poor job. I kept my job through documenting what a good job I did, laughing at them when they threatened to fire me, and occationally mentioning that I did have a lawyer. When I left, it took three people to replace me - at 30% more money apiece.
Anyone who makes a frivolus claim is opening up their life to hell - their private life will be pryed into, their work ethic questioned, their co-workers will turn against them. I have never seen it happen any other way, and I’ve been involved in these cases for ten years. I feel truly sorry for someone who makes a frivolous claim for money or attention. The money probably won’t be there and the attention will all be of the wrong kind.
Mr. Z.: *Say you have 10 employees. 9 of them are fairly jocular and informal. One gets gravelty offended if you say “damn” or “jesus” or even “shit”. IS it reasonable to force 9 folks to alter their natural, friendly behavior because of one zealot? *
Well, that’s what good manners requires (and most jocular, informal people I have known are capable of remaining natural and friendly even when deprived of the opportunity to say “damn” or “jesus” or “shit”). Polite people do not swear in front of other people to whom they know it will be offensive. If your employees aren’t polite, naturally some people will eventually be offended by them.
My proposed solution of “the new default workplace manners” would take care of that automatically: people would realize that they were expected not to swear unless they knew all their hearers were comfortable with it. But if that seems like an intolerable imposition, I don’t see why more people don’t adopt the other reasonable alternative: namely, warn the “zealot” before you hire him or her that your workplace stands up for the right of employees to use obscene or profane language, and that people who are offended by it should expect to have their objections ignored. Not prepared to come out with that as an official policy? Then don’t go around trying to shame or intimidate the “zealot” into accepting it unofficially.
MR. Z – There is a difference between refraining from behavior that employees consider offensive – burping, farting, swearing – and sexual harassment. We should also be clear that and sexual harassment are two different things as well – one is failing to hire/promote because of gender, the other is creating a hostile work environment based upon gender or sexual orientation.
Not every claim that the HR or legal department denies is frivolous. If a case is the word of the supervisor against the word of the supervised, it may well be one that can only be resolved through arbitration or trial – especially of the parties are both adamant in their irreconcilable positions (“He harrassed me.” “I never did.”). The best way to cut down on defense costs is not to determine that claims requiring defense are a priori frivolous, but by cutting down on the claims in the first place. I agree with Kimstu that the best way to do that is to return to a much more formal – and, yes, in some cases less friendly – work environment. It’s a shame, really, but I don’t see an alternative.
And for those of you who comment that women smell good and look good – I appreciate your good intentions, really I do. But please recognize that by making statements indicating that one function of women is or should be to decorate the office, you unwittingly add to the difficulty women encounter in being treated with the same degree of respect their male coworkers enjoy.
Come on guys. Are things really that bad? It’s easy to be critical of sexual harassment suits by bringing up worst-case-scenarios, but in my experience, these aren’t the norm by any means. Reasonable people can and do conduct themselves appropriately within the different contexts of different work environments. I work on a project with 20 guys, and we can get pretty rank at times. When people outside the project are around, we tone it down. Occasionally someone gets sloppy, and management will remind them to shut their yap. I like ass jokes as much as the next guy, but I don’t make them around my grandma, and I don’t need to make them around the marketing reps either. In 15 years I’ve seen one guy fired over a sexual harassment claim, and it was more than deserved. I’ve also seen dozens of truly appalling things go totally unpunished. Maybe I’m just lucky, but I haven’t seen anyone turned into the Orwellian automatons you guys are worrying about.
Jodi: *I agree with Kimstu that the best way to do that is to return to a much more formal – and, yes, in some cases less friendly – work environment. It’s a shame, really, but I don’t see an alternative. *
A word of comfort: I don’t think it’ll really end up being less friendly—I mean, friendly in the basic sense of cheery and pleasant—in the long run. The level of boldness or modesty acceptable in general conversation seems to be mostly a fashion, and it can change without changing the essential good-humor (or otherwise) of people’s interactions.
Heck, look at dancing. Have you noticed the way college kids are crazy for ballroom and swing these days, not to mention folk and contra? Remember “slow dancing” back in the '70’s which basically involved gluing yourself to your partner from knees to shoulders and staying that way for the duration of the song? Would you have thought that later generations would voluntarily return to the less intimate, more formal manners of the older couple and group dances? But they did, and they still seem pretty friendly. Likewise, I don’t think workplace camaraderie is going to sputter and die just because we don’t swap dirty limericks. (Though Dumbguy, I will trade you my limerick about the two sisters from Birmingham for one of what you call “ass jokes”: I haven’t heard that term before and I’m curious about what exactly they are. :))
Just in case you are talking to me, please do not mistake my observation/appreciation for the way that women choose to dress on their own volition, with a suggestion that they are somehow required to do so for such a reason that you stated (i.e., “decoration”).
Mr. Z: my comment to you was in direct relation to the quote I submitted. The “worst” thing about sexual harassment is NOT the cost to the company for unfounded claims, it is the cost to all of us (the company included) for the legitimate complaint.
Jodi - I agree about the “gee you smell terrific” comment. When giving personal comments in a workplace, you’re focused on issues NOT relating to the work. I’d rather hear “you did a nice job on that” than “wow, nice shoes” any day.
I would also like to add a hearty “AMEN” to the “not every complaint that HR denies is frivolous”.
When dealing with interpersonal communication issues, please remember that there are at least two humans involved, which automatically means a potential for misunderstandings. What you say and how you say it, plus what it means to me.
I’m saddened by the fact that the term “politically correct” is used now as a put down. I don’t WANT to return to the days when the male supervisor felt perfectly fine to pat women on the butt and call them “girls” or when racist humor was standard fare around the water cooler. What is so wrong with treating your coworkers with dignity and respect, anyhow? * (disclaimer, I do in fact know that there is middle ground between the “girls” and a climate where coworkers need to only communicate in carefully written memos)
Kimstu, et al.: I am not stating that sexual harassment does not exist nor that every claim that is denied is frivolous. What I am saying is that the mere fact that a person is offended is not proof of harassment and/or poor taste.
I think that there is generally a presumption of guilt if a person is sufficiently upset. Saying “damn” may be considered by some to be impolite. A dirty joke may be in bad taste. But these are not things that should be legislated, litigated and fixed.
Instead I suggest that people cultivate a personality that is less easily offended. It has gotten to a point where being easily offended is seen as a positive trait. Those without power use the facade of being offended to gain power. I can’t tellyou how many times minority groups have threatened us with accusations of discrimination just to get money out of us.
Personally, I will never hire a zealot. If you wont get along with the current employees, you are not wanted. But I guess that is harassment?
The problem with the politically correct (idealogy? movement?) is that it went haywire and ran amok. It changed, or at least the perception of it did, from a philosophy of treating people with common courtesy and respect, where everyone enjoyed fair treatment under the law, into a politeness enforcing brigade and euphemism making machine that sought to turn every affront suffered into a noble virtue. It came to be identified as hopelessly intertwined with the victim culture that is exemplified by the squeakiest of wheels in our society.
When I was a kid, “colored” was in its death throes, and “black” was the term of the day. Now it’s “African American.” What the proper term for a black man not residing here happens to be I have no earthly idea. “Handicapped” morphed into “physically challenged” into “disabled” into “differently abled.” “American Indian” became “Native American” which some don’t like because it includes Hawaiians, Eskimos, and Samoans, so they (meaning the folks so designated) are still wrangling over that one. I’m still confused as to the propriety of “Latino” versus “Chicano” versus “Latin American.” Waiting in the background are also the radical few who lash out at any use of a male pronoun to refer to a hypothetical or generic person, despite the fact that it has been so for centuries and we were all taught to do that very thing. While “humanity” makes a good substitute for “mankind,” when people insist on, or even use in ordinary writing, the he/she him/her constructions they sound pretentious and ridiculous. And university policies? You know, the ones about how a man must ask each step of the way whether or not he can proceed to kiss, to touch, and so on? Some of the same policies say if a woman has had any alcohol during the night, she can claim date rape, even if the man is every bit as drunk as she was.
Yeah, just about every time I say the words “Politically Correct” it’s with a sneer-- not because I think people shouldn’t be treated with respect, and not because I think people deserve to be discriminated against-- but because the movement degenerated into ridiculousness, and gave rise to herds of Politeness Police bent on enlightening the barbarian masses as to the proper way to do and phrase everything, as if they could change the essential nature of things via a pat euphemism.
Likewise, I don’t think workplace camaraderie is going to sputter and die just because we don’t swap dirty limericks. (Though Dumbguy, I will trade you my limerick about the two sisters from Birmingham for one of what you call “ass jokes”: I haven’t heard that term before and I’m curious about what exactly they are. :))