No, it doesn’t. If the workplace policy is “default to never touching anybody”, you are still free to exercise your individual “interpersonal responsibility” by specifically asking a co-worker for permission to touch them in circumstances where you think it’s warranted.
If you feel it would be unfairly burdensome to have to explicitly state your preferences about touching before you can touch other people, ask yourself why you’re willing to saddle other people with the burden of having to explicitly state their preferences about touching before they can expect not to be touched.
AFAICT, what it boils down to in most cases is that the pro-touch people don’t want to run the risk of seeming “weird” by asking to touch someone, but they don’t really notice or care that the anti-touch people have to run the risk of seeming “weird” by asking not to be touched.
I disagree, but let’s suppose that is true and you don’t want your co-worker to “get an attitude” because you told him that you would prefer he not touch you. So you don’t tell him and run to HR.
Do you think his attitude will improve because of that?
Again, this is what happens in adult conversations. You tell someone that you do not appreciate activity X that they are doing which affects you. The response can be anywhere on the line from, “I’m very sorry. It will never happen again” all the way to “Fuck you. I’ll do what I want and you can shove it up your ass.”
Wherever that response lies, then, as an adult, you take the next step as needed. You don’t not lodge an objection with someone because you are afraid that they will be a meany pants to you.
The non-aggressive thing to do is… don’t touch them. Touching someone who doesn’t want to be touched is being aggressive towards them. If you don’t know, then don’t touch them until you do. And we all know that this isn’t actually about tapping people on the shoulder, and the fact that people like you keep trying to change the example to tapping on the shoulder says a lot more about the kind of touch you’re inflicting on people than you think it does.
I will also note that touching someone who doesn’t want to be touched, then getting them fired from a company for complaining at your unwanted touch is pretty much the direct, polar opposite of ‘non-aggressive’. You’re clearly and undeniably stating your intent to touch someone despite their unwillingness to be touched, then retaliate if they object, which is EXTREMELY aggressive.
I don’t think I agree with this statement, that touching someone is necessarily aggressive, at least if you do not know someone does not like to be touched.
I’m generally in favor of individuals’ preferences being respected, but I don’t think I care for some uses I have recently seen for the word “aggression” - whether micro or not. Perhaps I am expressing my biases and agenda, as I suspect other folk are doing by (mis)using the word that way.
“Don’t tap someone on the clothed shoulder unless you’ve previously gotten explicit verbal confirmation that it’s okay to tap their clothed shoulder”
or
“When you go in to hug someone, always telegraph it way in advance and be sure to shift to a handshake if their body language doesn’t seem to enthusiastically mirror yours”
or somewhere in between? If in between, where?
Because I totally agree with you that there are people who are too touchy, and who don’t respect other’s boundaries. But there are types of touching that I would assume are acceptable unless given evidence to the contrary (not just verbal, but also just if I noticed they avoided touching others, or reacted poorly when touched). It’s a pretty small range–mostly taps on shoulders–but it exists. Claiming there’s NO touching, not even shoulder taps, does seem extreme.
I’ve been in a meeting where something similar happened, although as I recall, it was an elbow rather than a wrist that was touched. I’ve also been in a few meetings where a speaker was nudged because their screensaver came on and they had to move the mouse to bring the presentation back up. Years ago, I was in a meeting where a man had prepared a presentation but forgot to check if it was compatible with the Powerpoint version of the meeting room computer. It wasn’t, he got flustered, and his project manager went up and put his hand on the presenter’s shoulder and huddled with him for about 20 seconds before announcing they were moving the presentation to the end of the meeting so the man could re-save the presentation. I’ve also been in meetings where I was tapped on the arm so somebody could pass me something, or ask to borrow my pen. And shockingly, I’ve been touched on the hand, which was resting on the table, in the same circumstance because that was the part of my body that was most convenient for the person next to me to touch so they could get my attention. And I’ve seen several other people doing the same thing, both men and women. All of these physical contacts happen infrequently, but I wouldn’t say they were rare. And that’s just discussing interactions in meetings. If people are working together at a single workstation, or in close proximity in an open-plan office, I’d expect, and have observed, similar physical contact to occur with more frequency.
I believe thorny locust and others will say that these touches are unnecessary and alternatives are available. That’s obviously true. The point of the debate is a) whether such touching is inappropriate, and b) if there should be general workplace policies against that type of casual touching. Regarding a), my position is that when someone touches someone else to get their attention, it’s because that was the easiest or least disruptive way of getting their attention. And absent knowing that the person being touched is touch-adverse, that contact is appropriate in an office environment. Regarding b), I don’t think society should be creating workplace environments where everybody is touch-adverse because some people are touch adverse. I don’t go around hugging my co-workers. A few weeks ago, I co-worker I’m friendly with but not close to came in with a “Baby On Board” badge on her coat. (Women wear these so they can get a seat on public transport.) I smiled and said congratulations. However, several of the women in the office chose to hug the pregnant woman. The pregnant woman was hugging back, and as far as I could tell, enjoying the attention. I don’t want to work at a workplace that forbids or discourages that sort of friendly physical contact. Should people be protected if some bad actor is crossing boundaries? Definitely. But having no physical contact as the default policy? I think that’s an unfriendly policy and disagree with it.
Thank you for expressing a view I share extremely reasonably. Others obviously disagree, and I doubt the gap will ever be bridged. Fortunately, I’ve been able to get through 30+ years of professional life without ever encountering this. Imagine this would be more of a problem for people who were extremely touchy, extremely touch averse, or abusive.
I often wonder what it would be like if I had some area in which I was apparently in a small minority - whether I would expect society to adapt to reflect my preference/sensitivity. I dunno.
Throughout this thread, I’ve been thinking that anybody who is touch-adverse should never engage in after-work socialising with a cross-European workforce. I generally presume that I have no idea what the social rules are, let others take the lead, and just go with the flow. But I’ve been kissed (on the cheek) by my female boss and colleague’s wives who I’d just met, hugged by both men and women, and had total strangers put their hand on my shoulder while in conversation. And I work mainly with accountants and IT people.
Coming back to this one: do you seriously mean that because someone yelled at you on a messageboard you’re going to consider yourself entitled to annoy other people entirely who don’t even know that the yelling happened?
And, while it’s possible that SmartAleq meant ‘don’t touch anyone ever’, nobody else in this thread has said that.
As I think I posted somewhere in this thread when I was drunk one night, in REAL life, I don’t actually care. The few times where touching became annoying (like the guy who liked to playfully punch people and grab them in bear hugs), I just told the guy to quit. Of course, I was in the military, so my words probably meant more.
But, I don’t know how other people react to such stuff, so the EASIEST course of action for ME, is to NOT touch, since it involves less thinking and less physical action. I say “Excuse me” in a progressively louder voice if I need to get someones attention. Or I say “Do you mind?” when about to touch them to brush bird poop off their coat. I’m not a hugger, so I would never try to hug someone at work. My boss started the hug yesterday, so I just hugged her. As I said, it’s cool with me. I don’t really care.
But on this message board, and this thread in particular, it’s interesting to discuss the edge cases of such a policy and see what others think on the topic and what they experience in their work place. For me personally, I’d rather work in a place where the rule was “Don’t touch until you know they are cool with it” than a place where “hugging was the norm”. Because in a place where hugging was the norm, I’m sure I’d get sick of doing it, and tell people to not hug me, and be thought of as a weirdo for not liking hugs (again, see that Seinfeld episode).
I don’t mean “never touch anyone ever” I said that in a workplace context it is absolutely inappropriate to initiate physical contact without affirmative permission. I said that if the touch was brief and innocuous there might be no repercussions but that there will always be a risk and a prudent person would refrain from touching in the workplace unless they were absolutely sure they had the other person’s consent and even then there’s the chance that you will be wrong about that and reap the consequences.
I’m not a very touchy feely person in general and I’m self employed so it seldom comes up, but I do have people who come in to help with big projects on the regular. I’m very lucky because two of my oldest and best friends have flexible schedules and are almost always available to help. Since I’ve been close to the both of them for over 20 years we’re all very comfortable with hugs and working in close and neck rubs and the like–but the other two are both touchy people and they get downright snuggly with each other, which is not a level of physicality I’m comfortable with but they’re just fine and it’s not my place to decide for them what their comfort level is. They respect my boundaries just fine though and I appreciate that.
When I worked in a call center with several hundred other people, though, I did not have a close personal relationship with my coworkers and there were some I actively disliked. I’m a professional, I can be polite to anyone within reason but if one of the ones I didn’t like decided to lay hands on me I’d have been profoundly uncomfortable with it and if my PTSD was exceptionally active someone coming up behind me and touching my shoulder might very well have gotten a reflexive elbow slam. Those reflexes are hard for me to control when I’m in the middle of a panic attack and I don’t want to end up in HR for breaking some idiot’s nose because they simply HAD to put a hand on me.
So my point is that YOU DON’T KNOW what’s going on in a coworker’s head or in their life and it’s very possible to unknowingly set someone off badly with what YOU think is an innocuous touch. There have been days when I was at work with my clothes hiding multiple bruises and contusions from intimate partner violence and a touch from any person would not be welcome at all but a touch from a man would be quite likely to set off a very violent shitstorm.
Hence my policy of keeping my hands to myself and expecting others to do the same. Inadvertent touches, like in a crowded elevator or if someone trips and falls into you are not the same thing as intentional touches and any sane person knows which is which. With that being said, are you absolutely sure everyone in your workplace IS actually sane at all times? Do you really want to risk your livelihood by insisting on your right to touch people at your own whim? Well, have at it then, but don’t expect any sympathy if it goes badly for you.
If you don’t know whether the person being touched minds, then you don’t know how disruptive the touch is. And you don’t know how easy it is for the person who was touched.
If you do know that the person being touched doesn’t mind, then go ahead. But assuming it is not a good idea.
If the hugs were offered in such a fashion as to allow easily stepping back from them, or if the specific women who did the hugging were generally on friendly hugging terms in other situations, I don’t see any problem. But I doubt they did the hugging in the middle of a meeting; what you’re describing is essentially a social situation which occured in a workplace*. And I would certainly hope that nobody suddenly hugged her, giving her no chance to avoid it: which touching somebody in order to get their attention must by its nature do, as if the person sees the touch coming, you’ve already got their attention.
Having no physical contact as the default policy doesn’t mean ‘no physical contact’. It means ‘no physical contact is the default; but, if it’s necessary for the job or for safety, or if you’re sure that it’s welcome, then it’s OK.’
– *it occurs to me that part of what’s going on here, though not all of it, is that some people seem to think of the workplace as essentially a social space, in which everyone’s ideally close friends with each other and behave towards each other as if they were in a social context. I think this also goes on with workplaces giving social parties which everyone’s expected to show up at and which everyone’s supposed to think is a treat. But people choose their friends; and, once adults, can choose who among their family they want to hang out with (and can sort out with these people what sorts of touch are welcome.) And most people don’t get to choose their co-workers; and may well wind up working with people they have no desire to have a social-hours or social-type relationship with. That doesn’t automatically mean that they hate them, or don’t want or intend to be civil on the job; but they may have few or no interests in common outside the job, and/or some of the interests they have may be contradictory (drastically different political or religious beliefs, for instance), and/or they may have the time and energy available for social relationships already filled up with people they chose to be friends with. Genuine friendships can start in the workplace, or continue there when started elsewhere. But it’s optional: your co-workers don’t have to be friends with you; and some people just want to get the job done.
– SmartAleq, I thought most likely you didn’t mean ‘don’t ever touch anybody’, but decided not to get into that level of detail in the particular post. Apologies if you think I misrepresented you.
I wonder if some workplaces by their nature lend themselves more to social interactions. An accounting firm might be less like that than an elementary school.
A major part of my job–in addition to teaching equivalent fractions and the punctuation of dialog and the difference between culture and population and how to use a telescope and how to write a persuasive letter–is to provide social and emotional guidance and support to my students. It’s emotionally very draining. I get yelled at, screamed at, on a nearly daily basis, as do some co-workers: our student population includes a fair number of students with serious emotional disorders, as well as kids who live in near-constant crisis.
A co-worker came to my room yesterday to ask a question about a student’s note that she’d found. Her question was about some disturbing pictures on the note, and what she should do; she’s a first-year teacher and doesn’t always have a great sense of what’s within the realm of normal kid behavior, and what needs help. (She has the great sense to check in with other people about it, which is what good experienced teachers do as well).
Another aspect of the note was that the student mentioned hating the teacher. The teacher laughed wryly about it, but it was one of those I’m-exhausted-and-making-an-exaggerated-distress-face wry laughs that generally mean you’re covering up being upset. Does that make sense? She’s not used to people talking about hating her, and that shit sucks, especially if you haven’t developed a thick skin about it.
When she mentioned that it was her first time having a student say they hated her, when she made that face, it seemed to go from “give me your professional feedback” to “I could use some emotional support.” So I put a hand on her arm for like half a second and said something like, “Yeah, it sucks, I’m sorry. But it’s not personal.”
I dunno–maybe she didn’t want to be touched on the arm like that. Or maybe she wanted a hug. It’s what, at the moment, seemed to be the best thing I could do for her.
Point being, the emotional stress of some workplaces may result in workers acting as emotional support for one another, in a way that they don’t in other workplaces. May partly explain the different experiences folks have.
And there you have it–some workplaces, like teaching and health care related fields, are staffed by people who tend to be helpful and caring individuals and also be places where touching, both intentional and inadvertent, is more likely to occur and be well tolerated.
Other workplaces, like law firms and financial institutions, are very much NOT staffed by these sorts of people and will very likely have a hands off policy–whether implicit or explicit–and not be the sort of places where people are hugging willy nilly and you get someone’s attention by knocking on their office door and waiting to be invited in.
And some places, like call centers, employ hundreds of people from myriad walks of life, educational levels, ages, races, genders and social competency levels and are, as such, the sort of place where it’s much easier to step wrong than right so prudence is needed and bright line rules enacted and enforced. Call centers generally do NOT have a homogenous staff and the ways you can go wrong in dealing with others are fairly mind boggling. For instance, have any of you ever had to pull an employee off the floor to explain to them that coming to work dressed in full length latex fetish gear with visible whip marks on their skin and smelling like a zoo exhibit is not acceptable dress or deportment? I have. Do you really want to have a super touchy feely environment where someone like I’ve described has full rein to sling you into a full body stinky, sweaty, cum covered embrace? Uh huh, didn’t think so. Bet you wouldn’t want to work a ten hour shift sitting next to that person either.
It does appear to be a thing some people normally do. Others never do it. Yet others never do it in business meetings, but might to a friend. I don’t know, and don’t know how to find out, what percentage of the population comes into which category, either in general or specifically in the context of a business meeting. If you do have a way of knowing what those percentages are, cite please?
– Left Hand of Dorkness, I think it would have been entirely appropriate, in the context you just gave, to have asked your co-worker if she wanted a hug (presuming that you wanted to give one); and to have done so if desired.
I will however point out that the context you’re describing isn’t a standard business meeting. But I do agree with you that the type of work being done can affect the general attitude of the workplace.
