Yes, it’s funny how people accusing a large number of rich and powerful people of illegal conduct might be unwilling to have their names announced in the media.
And the thing with the NDA: most people doing food service are not generally in a financial position to walk away from a paying job once they are committed to it. If they were indeed presented with an NDA at the last moment they were given little or no time to read, no opportunity to discuss with others and no chance to review afterwards, at a time when they were already at the venue and unable to arrange for other paying work at the time, that is a form of coercion and (assuming they could corroborate the story) they’d have a decent case to make for breaking it.
Also, having them sign the contract when they are there for the evening in question isn’t really giving them “fair warning”, in even a best case scenario. If a woman took a job thinking it would be like being a Hooter’s Server and buys a special dress for it and turns down other work and pays for childcare or whatever, only to show up and discover that this is maybe going to be a lot more rape-y than she thought, it’s easy to see how she’d feel trapped, and maybe feel like she had to go along and hope for the best.
Let’s say 75% show up the next year, and 25% are shocked, horrified, and humiliated and never do it again. What’s happening to that 25%–which, over time, adds up to a lot of women, more than the 75% who think it’s a good deal–doesn’t seem important to you? It’s unfair to the 75% to do anything to reform the situation for the 25%?
So, you are making the claim that they were harassed based on like, your gut feeling of what must have happened?
The article says that when they were hired they were told the men might be “annoying”. I see no reason to think it was unreasonable to expect “Hooters-rules”: look but don’t touch, a lot of flirting and nothing else.
You made a claim… you’re not willing to back it up? When you asked for a cite, I gave you one. Now I ask, and you’re not willing? If you’re not willing to back up your own claims, then there’s not much point to discussing things with you.
One, could you answer my question–what if 25% are shocked/horrified/humiliated. Do you consider that an acceptable level of collateral damage, as long as 75% found it tolerable enough to come back?
Two, do you have ANY REASON to believe they were unambiguously warned when they first took the job, or is it just you feel sure that they would be?
Ok, the cite given, which is muck raking, terrible and one sided, admits they were warned.
Now, that being said I would hope that newcomers would be given a rather clear warning. Maybe they were, maybe the agency simply hoped that the expereinced hostesses would give them the skinny.
But you know how millenials are- maybe they were but they didnt pay attention.
I don’t think they even had any contact with the experienced hostesses before the night in question. And “annoying” is not a clear warning.
There’s a lot of reasons NOT to give clear warnings–it makes it a lot harder to hire people if you tell them they are expected to put up with a constant barrage of wandering hands and weenie-wagglers and insulting comments. Much lower attrition rate if you wait until they are trapped. Why are you so damn sure they didn’t soft-shoe this?
And, again, if 75% return and 25% are ashamed/humiliated, do you feel like the fact that 75% returns means that the other 25% did not authentically feel those things?
I’ll just remind everyone that this is false; the cite does not include any information that the hostesses were all warned they would be groped or harassed, nor has any cite in this thread.
What, specifically, is your source for claiming that they were “warned that they would be groped or harassed”? Is it that they were told the guests might be “annoying”? Or is there some other source for your claim?
They could have soft shoed it. But I am banking on the high rate of returnees, who were actually “loking forward” to this event. An event that paid 125 pounds ($175 US, with no tips), which isnt bad for a nights work, but hardly enuf so that they would be "looking forward’ to doing it again.
So, I am guessing there were no weenie-wagglers (since eveyone quoted has said nothing like that happened) but yes some salacious comments and butt grabbing - but that overall the experience was so favorable that the hostesses were mostly “looking forward to it”.
Look, go to a niteclub some day dancing (in the guise of a sexy young woman in a short dress). Women do that all the time, even tho yes, they will get a couple stiffs/morons to make inappropriate comments and sure, even get your butt grabbed. But even with that, they still really have fun and come back every weekend.
Look, if there were weenie-wagglers and massive groping- why would the vast majority look forward to this and do it year after year? For $175? Meh.