The solution was arrived at long ago. It should be obvious.
Thunderdome!
I’m a tiny bit serious though. There are often situations where there is just a natural apparent conflict that comes from competing values or goals, and the proper response is to recognize that and work around or above that, to understand it for what it is, a creative challenge. If instead the parties attempt to turn it adversarial and drag every one else into their conflict, well then it would seem they both need some remedial education on basic adult conflict resolution.
This particular example has some other potential issues mucking up the works too though. The above mentioned personal preference issue by itself should be left to grown ass adults to mediate between themselves without Odin getting involved. But it gets a little tricky when you insert power differentials. Let’s explore those.
Gender differences. I think it is better for both genders if these are ignored. You just can’t simultaneously aim to create an equal society and also claim that men are inherently more powerful and dangerous. There are plenty of badass women and weakass men. If you are afraid of a man it has nothing to do with his gender. How would two men handle the same situation? To the extent that there remains a cultural imbalance, there are obvious ways to encourage more balance like boxing for women and family leave for men.
Position. Even in a single gender workplace, one may feel that one must cow before ones superior, and therefore normal conflict remediation is impossible. This comes down to corporate culture. If you have a military style hierarchy and chain of command, every interaction between levels is just inherently going to have some uncomfortable subtext. There’s no sense in blaming that on individual parties. Change the system. There’s plenty of new more cooperative holarchy style formats to experiment with. The medium is the message. Touch in this context is just a cipher. Every element of interaction could be seen within the lens of control. There’s no reason to single out physical contact as the essential conflict here.
General integrity. Some people just have more internal resources. The solution here is not to villfy them, but to strengthen the weaker party. Life has dealt a lot of people some damage, true. But it doesn’t help anyone to encourage learned helplessness, and stick them in a box labeled “damaged goods, too fragile to deal with”. Rather to the extent that there is damage, there should be equal focus and effort on healing and strengthening.
This was the exact issue that caused this to be an issue in our office in the first place.
The touching in question was so innocuous and appeared to be harmless to most at this meeting. The guy in question was not know for being a “toucher” and this had never happened before. And there was zero attempt by the woman, a peer who didn’t work for the guy and was at the same level as he was, to discuss this with the guy and attempt any resolution. That was the issue that most in the office that discussed it with me had. It seemed very minor, and it became an issue when it didn’t necessarily didn’t have to be. There was no attempt at resolution between the two adult to adult.
Kindly actually read post #186. In particular the paragraph starting “Minor point”.
– While I suppose something new might come up, I think I’ve said, sometimes repeatedly (see above), about what I’ve got to say in this thread; and/or someone else has said it for me, sometimes better.
Since this is being reiterated, I reiterate objections to this approach:
-People (in general) may be uncomfortable making a social complaint in a work setting
-Woman (more specifically) are uncomfortable discussing issues of touch and behavior with men
-Involving HR allows the company to assess whether there is a larger pattern of behavior that needs to be addressed.
The term “run to HR first” makes it sound like this is grade school and someone is tattling to teacher. Bodily autonomy is an important issue and that type of phrasing diminishes it.
Light, non-sexual touching among people you know well is a normal part of Human communication.
And “Bodily autonomy is an important issue” is false. Yes, sure, if that’s your issue it’s important to you. But you dont get to make the whole world change to your preferences.
But as many have told you, several times,** HR is not your Friend. ** Unless the sitrep is dire, do not involve them.
Yes. This is why context is important. There are times when touch is appropriate and times when it isn’t. Work has different rules than your home.
I could not disagree more. Bodily autonomy is immensely important. Does #MeToo ring a bell? What are your positions on slavery and sex trafficking? At what point are other people permitted to objection to your touches?
I have outlined my reasons for involving HR, HR professionals have explained how they would handle the situation, and we have all heard your views, repeatedly, on HR. Unlike you, I would never advise anyone not to avail themselves of all resources if a situation made them uncomfortable.
Because some people do not have social skills does not make it acceptable to have a company or social policy that normal communication between people is not first required before elevating a dispute. Until snowflakes came along, society has never enacted a rule or course of conduct that is tailored to the most hypersensitive person or the bottom 20% of hypersensitive people. Rules are based upon reasonable people and how reasonable people interact with each other.
It is not at all too much to ask a competent adult, even a shy adult, that if he has an issue with another person to first address it with that other person before escalating the dispute. Ninety-five percent of problems will be solved that way.
This is a dangerous road to go down and it feeds into the whole “women say that they want equal treatment, but they really want special treatment” argument. This is nothing more that arguing for special rules because women are too delicate to assert themselves.
Before investigating a “larger problem” a department, the police, or anyone should first ensure that there is a problem at all. This simple confusion or hypersensitivity by this person is not any sort of indicia of a necessity of such an investigation. It is a waste of resources and a stress on the subject of the investigation to be forced to undergo such an invasion simply because their accuser is unable to hold a conversation.
It sounds like tattling because that is exactly what it is. The reason why we teach kids not to tattle is that part of the maturation process is to get them to attempt to solve their own issues and only reporting things to the teacher when that first attempt has failed. You know, like adults were supposed to do until recently.
And as had been mentioned before, using the term “bodily autonomy” in this situation is technically correct, but a loaded term. It brings to mind a rape or a smack on the ass as she was walking out of the meeting. It cheapens and causes dismissal of complaints of true violations of bodily autonomy when these complaints that are trivial by comparison are described with the same terms.
One way a toucher can mitigate HR punishments is by trying non-contact methods first and only touching the person if those fail. If the reason they touched was because they said “Excuse me” several times and the person didn’t respond, then HR is not going to see the touching as a big problem. Or they had to touch the person because there was some imminent threat and there wasn’t time to try something else. But if a person is leading off with touch as the first thing they try, I would support HR talking to them to tell them to refrain from that unless necessary. So like in the example in the OP, if the man had first tried to interrupt several times and she didn’t hear him, then the touch on the wrist could be more justified. But if he just reaches over and touches her as his common way of interrupting, then that’s something he probably shouldn’t be doing.
Folks, a single person can suck all the oxygen out of a thread by posting dozens of times in it, especially if they say outrageous things. May I suggest that everyone, before posting, ask themselves whether they’re engaging in a productive conversation?
I think that’s about all I can say here.
To me that seems to be coming at it from the wrong direction. Touch, when appropriate, isn’t a last resort or a bad thing at all, any more than appropriate humor is. On the contrary, it can be a humanizing moment that makes the day a little better. When a coworker taps me on the arm with her fist while laughing at a story about the day, or rests his hand on my shoulder to get my attention, it’s not that I’m cringing and thinking, “Why didn’t he/she use her words instead?” I appreciate the touch in much the same way I appreciate a smile, or a compliment, or a joke. It’s a positive social interaction that, in a very very small way, improves my day.
Instead, going to HR should be seen as a no-harm, no-foul approach. As I said before, I’m reasonably confident that my touching of co-workers isn’t skeeving anyone out (and in case it seems otherwise, I’m hardly Bidening up the place; I might touch a co-worker twice a week if that, and then it’s usually a tap on the shoulder). But if my principal called me in and told me someone wanted me to stop touching them, I’d be mortified, and I’d change my behavior, and of course I wouldn’t get pissy and petulant about it.
Folks with different backgrounds and experiences and preferences are doing their best to be around one another and be decent and pleasant to be around. If someone makes an honest, minor mistake, they need to fix it, and the person they made a mistake to needs to forgive. HR should be able to help with that process.
And honestly I think like 99% of humans are down with that already.
I don’t have the same feelings on that as you do. I am cringing and wondering why they put their hand on my shoulder. I don’t like touch from people who are at the levels like strangers, salespeople, coworkers, acquaintances, etc. For me to find touch enjoyable the person should be at a close friend level. Even for something positive like when my manager puts his arm on my shoulder when he’s giving me an award, I don’t like his hand on my shoulder. I don’t freak out, go to HR, or do anything about it, but I don’t enjoy it. He probably thinks everyone enjoys that kind of touch because people like me don’t say anything.
We’re not talking about slavery and sex trafficking,:rolleyes: we’re talking about light, casual, non-sexual touching among people who know each other well. Context! As you said "This is why context is important…"
In the CONTEXT of light, casual, non-sexual touching among people who know each other well, "bodily autonomy " is not relevant or important.
You’re taking it out of context.** Here, in this thread, we’re not talking about groping, pussy grabbing, penis touching, or anything where Bodily autonomy would be an important issue. It is not relevant to this thread where we are talking about light, casual, non-sexual touching among people who know each other well. * That is what this discussion is about. IN THAT CONTEXT*,Bodily autonomy is not relevant, just like rape laws are not relevant in a thread about shaking hands.
And I agree with most of you post here: "Touch, when appropriate, isn’t a last resort or a bad thing at all, any more than appropriate humor is. On the contrary, it can be a humanizing moment that makes the day a little better. When a coworker taps me on the arm with her fist while laughing at a story about the day, or rests his hand on my shoulder to get my attention, it’s not that I’m cringing and thinking, “Why didn’t he/she use her words instead?” I appreciate the touch in much the same way I appreciate a smile, or a compliment, or a joke. It’s a positive social interaction that, in a very very small way, improves my day." Fantastic!
But you are totally wrong about the function of HR. HR is NOT there “to help with that process.”The purpose of HR is to protect the company. First, last, and always.
And sure "if my principal called me in and told me someone wanted me to stop touching them, " and it ended there, that wouldnt be so bad. But again, that’s not how HR works. The person who made that complaint made what HR would consider a “silly” request, which made more work from them, and made them move to protect the company. They arent going to just ask you to stop, something the touchee w=could have done. It’s gonna be documented, and go in your file. And HER file. Then if and when anything else comes up, bad things could happen. Let’s assume that they just ask you to stop, you stop, and the person you touched is fine with that.
But months later some person is angry at you- maybe you voted the wrong way, got a promo they wanted, or any of a thousand things. So they go to HR and make up out of whole cloth a sexual harassment complaint. You are gone, out of there, two strikes and you’re out.
or for her? She brings into HR what they consider a “silly” complaint. Later, she has a legit and serious sexual harassment complaint. Guess how they will view that?
Nothing you take to HR is minor, so dont take minor things to HR. And I am not the only one to say this, “HR is not your friend” has been said on this board a thousand times in some variation or other, by a hundred posters, over years.
But Ok, maybe you don’t believe me? Here are some cites:
*Even seasoned employees are apt to forget that HR isn’t likely to have your back when things go bad. “HR is not your friend,” says Kevin Mintzer, a prominent New York–based employment attorney. “HR is not your confidant.”
The reason for that is obvious if you stop and think about it: As nice and well-meaning as they may be, your colleagues in HR don’t work for you. Management signs their paychecks, and their No. 1 priority is to serve and protect the company. The “resources” in question are there for the benefit of the executive team, not the average worker. Indeed, the idea that HR isn’t your buddy isn’t exactly a novel one. *
I have to be honest, if you’ve got a grievance that is so bad you feel you must go on the record with HR, then it’s likely you aren’t going to want to work there long-term. It may be better for you personally and professionally to move on and find a new employer where you aren’t constantly reminded of a bad situation. While there are plenty of cases of companies taking swift, appropriate action and employees going on to have successful careers, there are just as many claims that end up with the employee moving on so they can start fresh someplace else.*
*HR is not there to be your friend. It’s there to protect the company…Turns out, the role of HR was never to protect employees. Their number one priority was always to protect the company. *
*The moderator asked, “Couldn’t some of these women have gone to their HR department to file a formal complaint?” The response: “HR is not your friend.”
There it was. The core issue. “HR is there mainly to protect the company. Not you.” The inconvenient truth.*
*I get a number of emails from people who have problems at work, go to HR and end up worse off than they were previously. Why is that? Shouldn’t HR step in and fix problems?
Yes, and no. There are times you should absolutely ask and expect HR to help you out, but there are other times when going to HR may not be your best move. …When you must not go to HR
You’ve done nothing to solve the problem yourself. HR is not like a playground teacher whose job it is to solve all problems and stop bullies from acting. If your coworker chomps on gum all day, driving you to distraction, don’t come to HR until you’ve mentioned it to her…You want other people to change. We all want other people to change, but if the problem isn’t actually a legal one, you’re going to have far better luck if you come to HR with the question of “what can I do differently” rather than “can you make Jane behave differently.”*
As a workplace advice columnist, I spend a lot of time telling people that HR isn’t the right place to take their concerns about their jobs or their bosses. Too often, people mistakenly think HR is a neutral referee that’s there to mediate problems with co-workers or managers. In most cases, however, it’s more effective to try to resolve problems with the person causing the conflict, and a good HR department will direct you to do that.
HR isn’t there to deliver awkward messages to co-workers on your behalf, such as “stop talking so loudly” or “pull your own weight.” …But not… when you have trouble getting along with your manager or co-workers. Those issues, while legitimate problems, aren’t ones that most HR departments will resolve for you. *
Yes they are and no they are not. It depends on the problem. There are
situations where HR should absolutely, definitely, without a doubt be brought in to help out. There are other times when it is not the best option.
People are often under the mistaken belief that HR is a neutral space that helps people resolve conflict. Or maybe they help those who come to them, because those people are in the right. HR isn’t in the business to deliver difficult messages to others on someone’s behalf, or be the champion of the person who thinks their boss is being unfair…When should HR not be involved?
If you have done nothing to resolve the issue yourself, don’t run to HR. They are not the ‘Mom and Dad’ of the workplace, there to resolve all interpersonal disputes for you. If you think the behavior of a coworker or your boss is wrong, don’t come to HR before you’ve said anything to the boss or coworker about it.*
There you go. Expert after expert, article after article that tell you "HR is not your friend" and “If you have done nothing to resolve the issue yourself, don’t run to HR. They are not the ‘Mom and Dad’ of the workplace, there to resolve all interpersonal disputes for you…When you must not go to HR- You’ve done nothing to solve the problem yourself. HR is not like a playground teacher whose job it is to solve all problems …”
So, it’s not just me, not just my opinion.
Don’t go to HR over stuff like this unless you have told the other person to please stop.
Just retrieving this grossly oversimplified assertion from a few pages earlier in the thread to correct some of its misleading implications. It most certainly has not been accepted, much less a “mainstay of human experience”, in “almost all cultures” for “thousands of years” that “slight non-sexual touching” was always appropriate.
On the contrary, for example, many cultures for thousands of years have had stringent rules against unrelated men and women engaging in any kind of touching across gender boundaries at all. Although back pats and handshakes, etc., have all “been considered normal types of human interactions” under certain circumstances, they have also been considered absolutely taboo under certain other circumstances.
Minor physical touching between adults has always been quite strictly regulated by cultural mores, sometimes in apparently very arbitrary and inconsistent ways, and has often been the cause of heated and sometimes deadly conflicts. You don’t get to brush off other people’s objections to casual workplace touching by falsely pretending that “slight non-sexual touching” was always a non-issue in cultural interactions up until today’s so-called “hypersensitive” types started objecting to it.
The discussion about the virtues of HR at a given company seems relevant, but it’s not. Discussion about whether something should be raised to that level is fair game, but extolling the merits or demerits of HR itself is not. Please drop this hijack.
I find myself wondering how feasible it might be to embrace the idea of our minds not only thoroughly finding all the weak points in this equation, but also taking it one step further and addressing all of them instead of picking the probably arbitrarily determined worst one and focusing all efforts on that while letting the others escape further notice.
If we are talking convention, whether historical or geographical, let’s be mindful of the difference between those related to gender, which have all sorts of extra baggage related to sex and procreation, and those which remain regardless or within a single gender, which are more relevant to autonomy.
I guess we have as an initial nomination, three options, which could also be seen as two polar extremes and the gradients implied and included between:
Ignore gender entirely. Conduct business between person’s as though they were the same gender.
Consider genders as oppositional, adversarial, mutually reactive, or if we must frame it positively, as two sacred but still too powerful to allow contact between elements. In which case, they must be kept separate except for at the moment of conception.
Some combination or set of combinations of 1 and 2.
Now, also factor in the metastate of various number 3 proposals interacting or competing with each other. And I think we have a loose description of the state of things. At which point in that system would you like to tweak things?
And that’s just the gendered part.
Strictly talking about autonomy, you are going to get stuck in some serious long term quagmire relayed to philosophy regarding definitions of the self, which are a much bigger rabbit hole than most people tend to realize.
These are important questions, but they aren’t easy, simple, or obvious.
What’s your preferred method for being interrupted? A firm voice cutting you off? Three knocks on the table? The interrupter standing up? I’d prefer a tap on the arm to a tap on the wrist, but if I was dragging on in a meeting and needed to be shut down, I’d prefer a light touch and a comment to continue the point after the meeting than an action that would garner more attention.
I don’t disagree with much of what you said, but I would point out that I never said that touching was ALWAYS appropriate. Yes, some religions have strict cross-gender, no touching rules, but I was under the assumption that we were not dealing with that here, or at least the man in this example was not aware of Sally’s strict religious beliefs.
But the gist of what I said is absolutely true. Light non-sexual touching is a mainstay of human experience. If you are hypersensitive to that, then there is nothing wrong with telling another person you don’t like it, but it is not a matter to report to higher authorities.
I agree. An under the table tap on the arm or wrist communicates the message that she is yammering on too long, but saves her the embarrassment of having others in the room see it. She can take the non-verbal cue, wrap up her remarks, and make it look like she did her presentation correctly. It happens all of the time and is very normal.
If you stand up and/or verbally interrupt her, it makes her look as if she was unprepared or otherwise did something wrong.
When I have a client that is getting a little too lippy with the judge, I’ll tap them on the leg under counsel table with the back of my hand. So far, none of them has reported me to the State Bar or the police for unwanted touching. What is the alternative? Interrupt him so that the judge knows the only reason he shut up is because I told him to?
