I completed another employer-sponsored online training session this morning. Today I learned about harassment.
In today’s lesson I learned that “it is unlawful to harass a woman because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy or childbirth.” But you know what, even if it was not unlawful, it is still a really, really bad idea.
Did I make a grammatical error in my post? Is “was” correct or should it have been the subjunctive “were”?
I think it’s “were”; but I also think that use of the subjunctive is dying, so most people might not notice.
Often the reason things are made unlawful is because they’re really, really bad ideas.
The only reason they make rules about that kind of stuff is because someone was stupid enough to do it. During my orientation for the state, I learned that we couldn’t smoke or vape marijuana in the restrooms.
Last night’s Mr. Mayor was about harassment training.
They showed the staff videos that were not that far off from the real thing. The poor acting was spot on.
Yeah, your employer is investing in this training for a couple of reasons: 1) a professional environment free of harassment will be more productive, and 2) to avoid lawsuits if some doofus does cross the line after receiving the training. Regarding the latter, in my case, we take training like that every couple of years, and they are clear that should you break the rules in this area, you are on your own, and will bear the full burden of the law (while the company gets to say “well, we provided the training…”).
You use the conditional tense: were. The conditional and subjunctive tenses are similar, but the subjunctive tense is used when writing about a wish, command, or situation.
Example: Oh, that I were a glove upon that hand!
The conditional tense is used when writing about something that occurs only under certain (real or unreal) conditions. In your sentence, the condition was the harassment not being unlawful.
That concludes today’s episode of The Pedantic Grammarian. Tune in next week, when our guest will be Sheldon Cooper, whose lecture, “Esoteric Rules That Will Make You an Insufferable Snob” is sure to be a winner. 
Interesting. I almost learned something today. However, I do not firmly grasp the distinction between “situation” and “condition.” Please explain further, if you don’t mind.
Yikes! I accidentally deleted a word. That should have been “hypothetical situation.”
Example: Hopelessly lost in the deep woods, Gus wished he were a bird so he could fly above the trees and see the campsite.
Sorry about that.
I
I still don’t quite get it. I’m a little slow sometimes. How is the legality of harassing pregnant women a “condition” in contrast to “a hypothetical situation”? I have to go to the bank right now, but I will look on Wikipedia later today.
You’re not slow at all about this! You recognized on your own that your original sentence didn’t seem quite right to you, so you’re most of the way there already.
In your OP, you said
You were talking about a condition: if it [harassment] were not unlawful. Under that condition, it would still be a very bad idea.
Let’s take another example:
If I were as smart as Ynnad, I’d apply to Harvard.
My applying to Harvard is conditional on being as smart as you are. The implication is that I’m not, but if I were…
There are some excellent websites that explain conditional clauses and sentences clearly and in more detail. Here’s one.
It’s really easy to get confused between the subjunctive and the conditional in English, so don’t get discouraged.
I noticed something else about my original post. It could be argued that “But you know what? Even if it was not unlawful, it is still a really, really bad idea.” might be more correct. However, “But you know what” is not being used as a literal question. It seems to be more of a figure of speech to me. Which way do you all think is more correct?
What if in my original post I had said, “But you know what, even if it were not unlawful in the United States at an employer having 15 or more employees who worked for the employer for at least twenty calendar weeks, it is still a really, really bad idea.”? I would then argue that this would be the subjunctive mood because it is highly unlikely, to say the least, that it would ever be lawful to harass women for being pregnant in a workplace in the United States having 15 or more employees who worked for the employer for at least twenty calendar weeks. However, if I had said, “But you know what, even if it were not unlawful somewhere in the world, it is still a really, really bad idea.” then I would argue that this is the conditional mood because it is likely that there are several places in the world as well as some workplaces in the United States with fewer than 15 employees where such conduct is not unlawful.
Am I on the right track here? Should I find some better way to spend my Friday evenings?
But they provide a safe alternative location to take your medication, right?!
My company’s Vice President of Wokeness has started a year-long training program on “microagressions”. I’ve taken the first online class and learned the following: