WSJ article about the long standing toxic work environment at the FDIC, primarily within the bank examiners group. FDIC has just over 5,000 employees, about 2,900 of which work in the bank examination group. Within that group, 35% are women.
"A male Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. supervisor in San Francisco invited employees to a strip club. A supervisor in Denver had sex with his employee, told other employees about it and pressed her to drink whiskey during work. Senior bank examiners texted female employees photos of their penises.
All of the men remained employed at the agency. "
“Many employees didn’t file complaints about their harassment, fearing retaliation or believing nothing would come of it. When people did complain, the FDIC in multiple instances investigated and substantiated complaints but moved the perpetrators to other offices instead of firing them, which for federal employees can be a difficult process.”
With a 36 year tenure within corporate America, I continue to be amazed that these types of male dominated sexual abusive cultures continue to exist. In my current company, everyone of these instances would have resulted in an immediate termination.
Federal civil service rules were established (or so I was taught in school) to prevent elected officials from the practice of firing non-elected employees for no reason and then rewarding their followers with those plum government jobs. A practice which also benefits the elected official by ensuring their policy changes are effected immediately, without resistance. During the late unpleasant presidency, I think most of us were grateful for those rules and protections, which may have prevented things from being a lot worse.
Private companies are vulnerable to huge damages from sexual harassment lawsuits, which I believe is the main reason they are so quick to fire offenders. Are federal agencies similarly liable? I don’t know, but I’m guessing not. In any case, it wouldn’t be shareholders’ money that was paid out, lawsuit rewards would just be taken from the bottomless well of federal money. The combination of these two situations (civil service rules to keep employees from getting fired, and any protections from these kinds of lawsuits) appear to enable the kind of toxic work environment described in the article.
I think you are correct that most government agencies (state and federal) are legally immune from liability associated with sexual assault/harrassment which also extends to their agents (ie employees). While the government can be held liable for wrongful termination or workplace discrimination.
It’s difficult to know what and how much to change to get the desired results. I don’t think we want to reduce the protection of federal civil servants from political retaliation, which is a motive that can be disguised as something else. Also, I don’t see a point in making federal agencies liable to civil suits for sexual harassment if there is no punishment for either the employee or the enabling boss(es).
If we were to make sexual harassment a firing offense for federal employees, there would have to be carefully-crafted protections so that it isn’t used inappropriately. And if those protections are crafted carefully enough, then perhaps more severe penalties than firing could be on the table, such as loss of pensions and other benefits. Penalties also need to be in place for managers and higher bosses who fail to pursue investigations into sexual harassment in their departments, and of course who do it themselves.
I see that the FDIC in particular is a federal government corporation that operates on fees that they charge banks for the insurance, rather than being supported by taxes. It is governed by a board of five directors, three appointed by a president and approved by the senate, and two ex officio members (holders of other, related appointments). In the 18 years since 2005, one Martin J. Gruenberg has served as actual or acting chair of this board for about 9 years, and is the current chair. Someone from 60 Minutes ought to interview him, and see if he has any ideas how to curb this situation.
And do note, you are citing the now super conservative WSJ, whose customers would delight in seeing the FDIC stipped of it’s powers.
I cant read the link- sub only- but how long ago, and how often, and how were those things cited in the WSJ? It is no longer reliable. Was the strip club incident 2 years or 20 years ago?
Here is a cite-
A report said that in a survey the IG conducted last year, 8 percent of respondents reported having experienced such harassment, consistent with the findings of an earlier broader study by the MSPB which found 9 percent (in that study, the government-wide figure was 14 percent).
“Although 191 FDIC respondents to the OIG survey reportedly experienced sexual harassment, the FDIC only received 12 reported sexual harassment allegations, including both formal EEO complaints and misconduct allegations from January 2015 to April 2019. This suggests there may have been an underreporting of sexual harassment allegations,” the IG report said.
Every Org, Agency and large company has sexual harassment complaints in their past. I have no doubt the FDIC has their share. Having worked with a few of their Regulators, they were not “party animals”.
This seems just a hit piece from the biased WSJ.
I am not saying that sexual harassment and toxic work places are not a serious problem- they are. But taking a handful of uncited incidents and blowing them up does not lead to a search for the truth and helping improve the workplace.
You are WOEFULLY behind the times. It was well-known 20+ years ago that if you wanted to read a liberal national newspaper, you chose the New York Times, and if you wanted to read a conservative national newspaper, you chose the Wall Street Journal.
