Is touching co-workers OK?

[Kimstu]

@UltraVires

I don’t disagree with much of what you said, but I would point out that I never said that touching was ALWAYS appropriate.

I never said you did. But when you respond to specific objections to certain kinds of touching in certain situations with such a simplistic and vague generalization about “human experience” as a whole, then it needs to be pointed out that all cultures have always had quite complex rules about touching.

@UltraVires

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

The dishonesty of this framing is in its implication that anybody who objects to “light non-sexual touching” in any context is somehow being “hypersensitive”, because such touching is a “mainstay of human experience”.

You are deliberately glossing over all the complex ways that such touching has been culturally limited and regulated throughout human experience, in order to portray people who object to a particular form of it as being “hypersensitive”.

No, it is not necessarily “hypersensitive” to consider a particular form of “light non-sexual touching” unnecessary or inappropriate in certain circumstances. And your vague handwaving about how human beings have always accepted some forms of such touching under some circumstances doesn’t really support your assertion that it is.

[Shodan]

I see no reason that a fleeting, non-sexual contact like a touch on the wrist to get someone to recognize that the meeting is over, would be inappropriate to apply to a man. Therefore, I see no reason why it wouldn’t be appropriate to apply to a woman either. Gender dynamics don’t enter into it.

It’s normal behavior. Normal behavior is normal. Running to HR and getting them (for instance) to issue a directive saying “employees should not act normal in this way if there is a woman in the room” is not the way to encourage equality in the workplace.

Person A: “I don’t like being touched.”

Person B: “OK, sorry. You didn’t seem to notice when the person running the meeting said we were done. What would be the best way to get your attention next time?”

What’s the difference if A is a woman, B is a man, or vice versa?

Regards,
Shodan

[Czarcasm]

@Shodan

It’s normal behavior. Normal behavior is normal. Running to HR and getting them (for instance) to issue a directive saying “employees should not act normal in this way if there is a woman in the room” is not the way to encourage equality in the workplace.

Your “for instance” is nothing more than a ridiculous exaggeration of the situation in the OP. Who is “running” to HR and forcing them to make directives? Is there some reason you don’t want HR to keep a record of incidents to see if a pattern emerges?

[Velocity]

**Shodan’s **question raises an interesting legal tangent. Could a company/HR be accused of gender discrimination if their policies crack down on male coworkers who tap female coworkers on the wrist or shoulder to get attention (“hey we are running over time on this meeting”) but do not crack down on women who do the same to men, or women to women, or men to men?

[Czarcasm]

@Velocity

**Shodan’s **question raises an interesting legal tangent. Could a company/HR be accused of gender discrimination if their policies crack down on male coworkers who tap female coworkers on the wrist or shoulder to get attention (“hey we are running over time on this meeting”) but do not crack down on women who do the same to men, or women to women, or men to men?

Maybe…if the other instances weren’t for the most part hypotheticals used to obscure the issue.

[Ann_Hedonia]

@jackdavinci

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

QFT. This is the best assessment so far in the thread.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Christ almighty.

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.

LHoD, I’m with you this except for one thing. Which you’ve said before. I don’t really understand why you would be “mortified” in the above situation, especially since you’ve made it clear that you don’t consider the casual touching to be inappropriate.

I was in a similar situation recently. It didn’t involve touching but it was still very similar. I work with the installation of automation systems, and I had the habit of introducing my client to my technician working in the field and stressing his importance to my business. “Mr. Client, this is Bill. He’s the guy that knows how to make this actually work”.
Now I don’t think I was wrong in doing this. When I was working as a technician I liked this. But Bill was kind of shy and he didn’t like it at all. And I failed to pick up on that. So Bill asked me not to do it anymore. So I stopped.

But I wasn’t mortified. I wasn’t even slightly embarrassed. And if he had gone to a third party to make this request I don’t think I would’ve been mortified. I mostly would have been disturbed that he didn’t feel he could go to me directly and I would examine my behavior to try to make myself more accessible.

Anyway, to reiterate— I think you need to operate under the assumption that both parties in a conflict are good people with good intentions and there isn’t necessarily a bad guy and a good guy. I’m disturbed by the posts that refer to the two parties as Susan and Mr. McFeely, although the issue was a touch on the wrist from someone that has not exhibited a pattern of bad behavior. That’s making a judgment just as much as I would be making a judgement if I referred to the two parties as Bob and Ms. Overly Sensitive Tattletale.

[Jasmine]

@Velocity

**Shodan’s **question raises an interesting legal tangent. Could a company/HR be accused of gender discrimination if their policies crack down on male coworkers who tap female coworkers on the wrist or shoulder to get attention (“hey we are running over time on this meeting”) but do not crack down on women who do the same to men, or women to women, or men to men?

They aren’t “cracking down” on anything. They are responding to a complaint. If a male went to HR with the same complaint about a woman touching him, I would expect them to follow up on it.

[Dinsdale]

I wonder how often HR tells a complaining employee, “I understand what you are saying, but what you describe is acceptable human behavior.” Or tell the “complained of” employee, “Your colleague complained of x-behavior. We don’t think you did anything wrong, but do us all a favor and see if you can steer clear of that employee because they seem to misinterpret normal employee interaction.”

[thorny_locust]

@DrDeth

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.

I just can’t let this pass; especially with the italics in the original post including the phrase “people who know each other well.”

No, this discussion is not about such touching among people who know each other well.

What set all of this going was a case in which one person complained about another touching her during a business meeting. We haven’t been told whether this was the first time they met, or the fifth, or whether they’ve worked together twenty years, or whether they’re first cousins who grew up in the same household. But the fact that two people are at the same business meeting does not automatically mean that they “know each other well.”

That was followed by an example (post #34) in which one person defended tapping another to get them to move away from a piece of equipment at a meeting. Again, there’s no indication whether they’d ever met before, and the context is a business meeting.

Nearly every post in this thread has been discussing touching specifically in the workplace. I thought I remembered one in which the poster was talking about poking somebody in a movie theater, but I think I’m remembering post #90, which on re-reading is probably discussing a movie being shown in a business context.

I don’t think anybody’s been talking about whether it’s OK to, say, kick your sister under the table to get her to shut up about politics. (Depends on the sister, and yes, you ought to know your sister well enough to tell, and yes, some sisters would appreciate it; though it’s possible you’ve been poking her under the table since you were three, and just don’t realize that’s part of the reason you now only see her once a year and she always sits at the far end of the table when you do see her.)

So no, this thread is not solely about casual touching solely between people who know each other well. It’s at least primarily about casual touching in a business situation; which is an entirely different context. Trying to use at work the same manners that are acceptable in a casual context within your particular family and/or circle of acquaintances is very likely not going to go over well. Even if it’s acceptable in some workplaces, that’s very certainly far from universal.

– if somebody put their hand on me under the table at a business meeting, my immediate reaction wouldn’t be ‘I should stop talking now.’ It would be ‘why has this person got their hand on me?’ And if they nudged me with their foot or leg, I’d assume that the person was stretching their legs and had done so by accident. Another advantage of using your words is that the person’s more likely to actually understand you. I don’t see why one would stand up to do so, unless for some reason the workplace culture is that anyone who says anything is expected to do so while standing – in which case the running-on speaker would presumably also be standing.

Discussing with one’s client before court what signal should be used to discreetly tell the client to can it if necessary strikes me as a really good idea.

[MandaJo]

@Ann_Hedonia

LHoD, I’m with you this except for one thing. Which you’ve said before. I don’t really understand why you would be “mortified” in the above situation, especially since you’ve made it clear that you don’t consider the casual touching to be inappropriate.

I would be mortified because I would assume that they had tried to communicate it to me directly and that I had failed to understand/notice that I was making them uncomfortable. I would give THEM the benefit of the doubt, I wouldn’t jump to the defensive position of “I couldn’t possibly have known and they ran straight to HR without telling me”.

@Dinsdale

I wonder how often HR tells a complaining employee, “I understand what you are saying, but what you describe is acceptable human behavior.” Or tell the “complained of” employee, “Your colleague complained of x-behavior. We don’t think you did anything wrong, but do us all a favor and see if you can steer clear of that employee because they seem to misinterpret normal employee interaction.”

Is it ever acceptable behavior to touch someone that doesn’t want to be touched? Real question. Because I am very down with the idea that different people have different comfort zones and that figuring those out can be messy–which is why we have to communicate.

If someone comes to HR and says 'So-and-so has a habit of touching me in innocuous ways that I still find uncomfortable–fixes my tag if it protrudes out of the back of my shirt, wants to shake hands every time we see each other, punches my shoulder with the punchline of every joke. I have tried everything short of outright rudeness to get him to stop, but he just doesn’t hear it". All that is pretty normal touching, but it’s the sort of thing that makes some people very uncomfortable. Do you think that in an ideal world, the toucher’s preference to communicate by touch should supercede the touchee’s discomfort?

[Dinsdale]

@MandaJo

…
Is it ever acceptable behavior to touch someone that doesn’t want to be touched? Real question. Because I am very down with the idea that different people have different comfort zones and that figuring those out can be messy–which is why we have to communicate.

If someone comes to HR and says 'So-and-so has a habit of touching me in innocuous ways that I still find uncomfortable–fixes my tag if it protrudes out of the back of my shirt, wants to shake hands every time we see each other, punches my shoulder with the punchline of every joke. I have tried everything short of outright rudeness to get him to stop, but he just doesn’t hear it". All that is pretty normal touching, but it’s the sort of thing that makes some people very uncomfortable. Do you think that in an ideal world, the toucher’s preference to communicate by touch should supercede the touchee’s discomfort?

The “habitual” touching by a particular employee you describe is a far cry from an isolated instance of someone touching their wrist. Or other instances I and others offered such as tapping the shoulder to get someone’s attention.

So yes, I will suggest it some types of occasional touching are “acceptable” - in workplaces and elsewhere. If you are someone who reacts strongly even to that sort of innocuous touching, well, I’m not sure whether it is better for HR to tell you that you are unusual and need to deal with it, or to tell everyone else that you are hypersensitive and they should be careful around you.

You describe something quite different - a pattern of behavior which the employee has unsuccessfully tried to address themself.

Are you not able to distinguish between the two?

[DrDeth]

@thorny_locust

I just can’t let this pass; especially with the italics in the original post including the phrase “people who know each other well.”

No, this discussion is not about such touching among people who know each other well.

What set all of this going was a case in which one person complained about another touching her during a business meeting. We haven’t been told whether this was the first time they met, or the fifth, or whether they’ve worked together twenty years, or whether they’re first cousins who grew up in the same household. But the fact that two people are at the same business meeting does not automatically mean that they “know each other well.”

That was followed by an example (post #34) in which one person defended tapping another to get them to move away from a piece of equipment at a meeting. Again, there’s no indication whether they’d ever met before, and the context is a business meeting.

Nearly every post in this thread has been discussing touching specifically in the workplace. I thought I remembered one in which the poster was talking about poking somebody in a movie theater, but I think I’m remembering post #90, which on re-reading is probably discussing a movie being shown in a business context. …
So no, this thread is not solely about casual touching solely between people who know each other well. It’s at least primarily about casual touching in a business situation; which is an entirely different context. Trying to use at work the same manners that are acceptable in a casual context within your particular family and/or circle of acquaintances is very likely not going to go over well. Even if it’s acceptable in some workplaces, that’s very certainly far from universal.
…

While I agree that this thread is about workplace encounters, I am assuming that you “know well” - at least professionally- your co-workers. They are not* strangers. * A person you know the name, of, whom you have been working with in the same room for several years , etc is different than some rando on the subway.

I agree that among family members again it changes. Sure you may not want Aunt Bertha to hug you, but family is family.

[DrDeth]

@MandaJo

…
Is it ever acceptable behavior to touch someone that doesn’t want to be touched? Real question. Because I am very down with the idea that different people have different comfort zones and that figuring those out can be messy–which is why we have to communicate.

If someone comes to HR and says 'So-and-so has a habit of touching me in innocuous ways that I still find uncomfortable–fixes my tag if it protrudes out of the back of my shirt, wants to shake hands every time we see each other, punches my shoulder with the punchline of every joke. I have tried everything short of outright rudeness to get him to stop, but he just doesn’t hear it". All that is pretty normal touching, but it’s the sort of thing that makes some people very uncomfortable. Do you think that in an ideal world, the toucher’s preference to communicate by touch should supercede the touchee’s discomfort?

Once they know you dont want to be touched, it’s not appropriate. Of course a occasional slip up can be tolerated. Depending. ymmv.

As we have said before, if you tell someone you are uncomfortable with being touched, and they continue to do so deliberately, then indeed you have a *totally valid complaint. * So, no, the INFORMED toucher’s preference to communicate by touch should NOT supercede the touchee’s discomfort.

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

Once they know you dont want to be touched, it’s not appropriate. Of course a occasional slip up can be tolerated. Depending. ymmv.

As we have said before, if you tell someone you are uncomfortable with being touched, and they continue to do so deliberately, then indeed you have a *totally valid complaint. * So, no, the INFORMED toucher’s preference to communicate by touch should NOT supercede the touchee’s discomfort.

So the default is that it is o.k. to touch or lightly grab a woman’s bare wrist in a business meeting until told otherwise?

[DrDeth]

@Czarcasm

So the default is that it is o.k. to touch or lightly grab a woman’s bare wrist in a business meeting until told otherwise?

Sure. Or a man’s. Or tap them on the shoulder.

[filmore]

@DrDeth

While I agree that this thread is about workplace encounters, I am assuming that you “know well” - at least professionally- your co-workers. They are not* strangers. * A person you know the name, of, whom you have been working with in the same room for several years , etc is different than some rando on the subway.

But clearly the guy in the OP did not know his coworker well enough. If he did, she wouldn’t have objected, gone to HR, and this thread wouldn’t be 6 pages long. I feel touching people often goes into a category of behaviors done by people who aren’t good at reading other people and social situations. For example:

• Talking someone’s ear off about something they don’t care about
• Wearing excessive fragrance
• Talking loudly on speakerphone
• Listening to radio on speaker
• etc.

Touch is often done by people who aren’t aware or don’t care that the other person doesn’t want to be touched. They touch because they like to touch or be touched, and the preference of the person they are touching is ignored. They assume the other person feels the same way they do, and then we get into these situations. If empathic touchers truly could read other people and would only touch receptive people, I would have no trouble with touch in the workplace. But since I have had unwanted touch in the workplace, I know that’s not the case.

[Czarcasm]

@DrDeth

Sure. Or a man’s. Or tap them on the shoulder.

Are you incapable of understanding the difference?

[Jasmine]

@Dinsdale

I wonder how often HR tells a complaining employee, “I understand what you are saying, but what you describe is acceptable human behavior.” Or tell the “complained of” employee, “Your colleague complained of x-behavior. We don’t think you did anything wrong, but do us all a favor and see if you can steer clear of that employee because they seem to misinterpret normal employee interaction.”

If someone doesn’t like being touched then, by definition, it’s not “acceptable human behavior” for that person, which is what counts in a workplace scenario. So, I can only hope the answer to your question is, “never”.

In regards to part two of your statement, it is overly dramatic and unnecessary. He doesn’t have to “steer clear” of the woman, simply not put his hands on her in any way.

[Dinsdale]

@Jasmine

If someone doesn’t like being touched then, by definition, it’s not “acceptable human behavior” for that person, which is what counts in a workplace scenario. So, I can only hope the answer to your question is, “never”.

In regards to part two of your statement, it is overly dramatic and unnecessary. He doesn’t have to “steer clear” of the woman, simply not put his hands on her in any way.

Fine - we disagree.

I don’t think that, when addressing interaction within a group, that it is practicable to proscribe EVERY manner in which one individual might interpret things in an unusual and extreme manner. Mary doesn’t like ANY physical contact, so no one touch ANYONE. Bob dislikes religion, so NO ONE say Merry Christmas. Sammy is a Bears fan, so no one wear Packers gear…

Re: part 2 - I dunno. If someone is going to over-react regarding one specific aspect of human interaction, I’m assuming it is more likely that they might be offended by some other form of innocuous interaction. Fuck - tell me what I can and can’t do with respect to this freak. If I ignore them, then THAT might offend them…

[MandaJo]

@DrDeth

Once they know you dont want to be touched, it’s not appropriate. Of course a occasional slip up can be tolerated. Depending. ymmv.

As we have said before, if you tell someone you are uncomfortable with being touched, and they continue to do so deliberately, then indeed you have a *totally valid complaint. * So, no, the INFORMED toucher’s preference to communicate by touch should NOT supercede the touchee’s discomfort.

@Dinsdale

The “habitual” touching by a particular employee you describe is a far cry from an isolated instance of someone touching their wrist. Or other instances I and others offered such as tapping the shoulder to get someone’s attention.

So yes, I will suggest it some types of occasional touching are “acceptable” - in workplaces and elsewhere. If you are someone who reacts strongly even to that sort of innocuous touching, well, I’m not sure whether it is better for HR to tell you that you are unusual and need to deal with it, or to tell everyone else that you are hypersensitive and they should be careful around you.

You describe something quite different - a pattern of behavior which the employee has unsuccessfully tried to address themself.

Are you not able to distinguish between the two?

I think that very often things escalate to HR because people think they HAVE told the other person and the other person simply doesn’t hear, because they can’t register it as important. It’s a really rare duck that wants to escalate things and potentially cause a whole new level of problems. I find it much more believable that in the vast majority of the “went straight to HR” cases had a level of “I tried everything short of outright rudeness, but they just don’t take me seriously” to them. Yes, grownups should use their words, but co-workers should also LISTEN, and when there is a break-down between the two, it should be possible to have a neutral, non-punitive way to get the message across.