Workplace harassment laws: Gone too far??

[mellowinman]

Right. That must be it. Just wait until some girl takes something you said the wrong way. You'll change your tune then.

But you're deluding yourself if you think that every guy reported by a girl deserves it in one way or another.

I'm forty nine. I don't have these types of conversations with girls. I have them with women.

And you can wait all you want. I have a good enough reputation and self-confidence that I don't have to fear what some nut might say. I am not in the habit of deluding myself.

I am also not in the habit of having these types of conversations on this board, and it has become obvious once again why.

I think I will move on.

 

[Root 5]

In Ohio you can, in loose terms, be fired for no reason, sexual harassment the least of them. If an employer wants you gone, they will use any excuse. If a coworker doesn't like you, they will report you for anything, and then if the boss wants you out of there they'll fire you.

This is very, very accurate. In Ontario you can likewise be fired for no reason whatsoever! You can be the best employee a company will ever have and the employer has the right to still terminate you! In this case, the employer would have to pay you severance in lieu of adequate notice, which in Ontario is one weeks pay per year of service.

If a harassment complaint becomes too much of an issue for an employer, valid or not - they may send you packing. It's almost always, if not always better to side with an accuser. If it gets ugly, it's better to have it ugly with the accused and not the accuser.

 

[Root 5]

I have consistently violated the rules for years, and never been called on it.

That's because I'm not a CREEP.

Women have been consistently harassed in the workplace going back as far as you care to go back, and there is no reason they should have to put up with it. I tell women I like their hair; their shoes; their outfit; even comment on their BODIES, (because they've been working out and lost weight,) and talk about highly personal things with them.

Of course, I make sure they are women who KNOW AND TRUST ME, and that they are COMFORTABLE HAVING SUCH CONVERSATIONS WITH ME FIRST, which is what we should have been doing all along.

No one is trying to take away your fun, unless your fun is inappropriate.

Yes, there are examples, such as nortonrider's above, where people "take this PC crap too far," but these are isolated incidents, compared to "pre-PC," when people could be ridiculed for their gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, or other such characteristic, and it wasn't conducive to healthy workplace environment.

It's always the guy who has NO CHANCE of being the minority who just dismisses it all as "PC crap."

Show other people respect, and you can pretty much feel free to be yourself.

I haven't had any issues.

But then again, I'm NICE.

Oh boy....One day you may learn a very different reality. I hope not for your sake. But...

 

[Root 5]

Hey, you're the one who said North America.

And in many place throughout NA what I said is accurate and applies.

But not in Illinois it'd seem.

 

[DwaynieAD]

If the person making hte accusation says you are harassing them then you are harassing them. welcome to MURICA

 

[scorpionldr]

Today in North America, you can be fired, or at least disciplined for harassment, because you said to a lady, 'I like your new highlights!' [ Her hair.]

In fact, you can get fired/disciplined for less than that!

A woman could walk into the cafeteria at lunch, randomly pick out a man, be alone with him for 45-seconds (maybe not at all), make a complaint, and he'll quite likely be disciplined for it!

The days of needing proof are gone.

The workplace is getting really, really ridiculous.

Wotcha think?

I could chime in and talk about all the ways that things are different, but I think I'll sing a different tune:

Congratulations, you got up and took a look around your work place. Life has been lonely in the cube. So now that you see the harsh world around you, return to the paper; it's calling. For the breast of the company is far more enticing than chasing after a breast to coddle. At least one of these activities you are paid for.

"Relationships"? There are no relationships; you all have your own behinds to cover. If someone ****s up, that person gets fired, not the whole group. So stop trying to feign comradery that really isn't there.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

I'm forty nine. I don't have these types of conversations with girls. I have them with women.

And you can wait all you want. I have a good enough reputation and self-confidence that I don't have to fear what some nut might say. I am not in the habit of deluding myself.

I am also not in the habit of having these types of conversations on this board, and it has become obvious once again why.

I think I will move on.

If you feel you can get away with it, more power to you. But I'm with the others here who say that you may be a bit overconfident here and are playing with fire. Most times someone gets behind the wheel and doesn't put their seatbelt on, they're not going to be in an accident. That doesn't mean that they'll never be in an accident without their seatbelt.

I have good rapport with women as well, but I wouldn't comment on a woman's body at work, even if I knew her really well.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Even more unlikely under a CBA. But let's take the at will employee as an example. The company that is employing him at will will quickly do a cost benefit assessment and try to determine if the time and expense of finding another contractor to replace him, then training that replacement on their policies and/or system outweighs the time (one or two conversations) in determining what really happened and what was said. That's a no-brainer. If he only did/said what Root 5 said he did / said, this would have resulted in the company telling the contractor "be more aware of your surroundings....carry on". If they fired him, there was more to it than Root5 is telling us, probably more than Root 5 has been told.

Now, with a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) the tendency is to make it all but impossible to release an employee. It is in the union's best interests to keep as many employees on the rolls as possible (members = $dues) so at best the guy would have gotten some alone time at home.

If it was a 1099 contract employee, the resident company would have to bring the issue to the attention of the company that employs the person and they would have to deal with it, often by just assigning the person to another account.

If it happened the way Root 5 described, I doubt anybody got fired. If somebody got fired, there was a lot more to it than that.

Perhaps there was more to Root's story that I missed. What I was getting at that the man was fired for alleged sexual harrassment, and you commented that if that were so, a quick lawsuit would right the wrong. My point was that it wouldn't matter whether or not the sexual harrassment allegation was legitimate, because employment-at-will would take precedent. Under a CBA, the employer's interest would have still been in firing the employee, but the union could have grieved the termination. Sometimes, the length to which a union will take a grievance is unpredictable; arbitration can costs some big dollars, and most CBAs have both the employer and union bare those costs. The NLRB's interpretation of the NLRA with regard to a union's duty to fairly represent its bargaining unit members is pretty broad too.

But like I said, maybe I'm missing some info here or misinterpreted what was said. It happens in the crazy, chaotic world of TB.

 

[malthumb]

Perhaps there was more to Root's story that I missed. What I was getting at that the man was fired for alleged sexual harrassment, and you commented that if that were so, a quick lawsuit would right the wrong. My point was that it wouldn't matter whether or not the sexual harrassment allegation was legitimate, because employment-at-will would take precedent. Under a CBA, the employer's interest would have still been in firing the employee, but the union could have grieved the termination. Sometimes, the length to which a union will take a grievance is unpredictable; arbitration can costs some big dollars, and most CBAs have both the employer and union bare those costs. The NLRB's interpretation of the NLRA with regard to a union's duty to fairly represent its bargaining unit members is pretty broad too.

But like I said, maybe I'm missing some info here or misinterpreted what was said. It happens in the crazy, chaotic world of TB.

I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN there is more to the story than what Root 5 has posted. And, for the record, I am not accusing Root 5 of holding anything back. It may be all the information available to him. No rationally functioning organization would fire an employee based simply on the info provided in the OP. Just the cost to recruit, hire, and train a new employee would make that a dumb move. It would be so much easier to get the two into a conference room, detail what happened and have the appropriate apologies extended and move on.

If the guy was fired in that situation either

1. There were other things already in the air that they wanted to fire him over
2. There is a history of "misunderstandings" between the two. Maybe the guy had been warned to stay away from her and not to make any comments to / about her
3. It didn't go down the way that Root 5 was told it went down. We all know of people who have minimized their own liabilities in a contentious situation. Sugar coating it. Anybody who has teenagers (I have two) knows what this looks like.

In most cases I've seen (both in my company and in other companies) the law is less an issue than the company's choice of how to enforce the law. I've seen a number of people successfully challenge disciplinary measures taken over the perception of harassment. Only one was a firing and ALL OF THEM related to conduct far more questionable than the situation described in the OP.

 

[MatticusMania]

We had a harassment pow-wow at my employer. Harassment can be "Anything!"

Not only that, but it can be reported by anyone.

If I say to Suzy, your hair looks nice that way, and she takes it as a compliment without consequence thats all well and good.
HOWEVER, if Martha overhears that compliment, and perceives harassment (unfounded or not) a complaint can be made to HR.

That doesnt strike me as right. Its a good thing I stay to myself at work.

I know some girls who have much more perverted thoughts about random members of the [DEL]opposite[/DEL] same sex that they see on the street than most guys I'm friends with.

I tend to make these types my girlfriends.

If the person making the accusation says you are harassing them then you are harassing them. welcome to MURICA

Likewise, if the person making the accusation says you are harassing some else then you are harassing some else. 'Merica!

 

[LiquidMidnight]

I am ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN there is more to the story than what Root 5 has posted. And, for the record, I am not accusing Root 5 of holding anything back. It may be all the information available to him. No rationally functioning organization would fire an employee based simply on the info provided in the OP. Just the cost to recruit, hire, and train a new employee would make that a dumb move. It would be so much easier to get the two into a conference room, detail what happened and have the appropriate apologies extended and move on.

If the guy was fired in that situation either

1. There were other things already in the air that they wanted to fire him over
2. There is a history of "misunderstandings" between the two. Maybe the guy had been warned to stay away from her and not to make any comments to / about her
3. It didn't go down the way that Root 5 was told it went down. We all know of people who have minimized their own liabilities in a contentious situation. Sugar coating it. Anybody who has teenagers (I have two) knows what this looks like.

You could very well be correct. With that said, I've learned throughout the years that organizations can make some really irrational decisions, regardless of what the axioms of many-a-micro economic theory states.

 

[Strat-Mangler]

I'm forty nine. I don't have these types of conversations with girls. I have them with women.

And you can wait all you want. I have a good enough reputation and self-confidence that I don't have to fear what some nut might say. I am not in the habit of deluding myself.

I am also not in the habit of having these types of conversations on this board, and it has become obvious once again why.

I think I will move on.

Boy, what a nitpicker you are. Girls, women... whatever. The opposite sex is what I meant.

There are nuts everywhere and being reported has nothing to do with self-confidence which plenty of other men have. Just looks to me like you wanted to toot your own horn, got called on it, and now you just want to bail instead of acknowledging that what you spewed out made no sense whatsoever.

Yeah, I think you should move on. It's clear you have this misconception that you're somehow better than other people which is both hilarious and untrue.

 

[Root 5]

No rationally functioning organization would fire an employee based simply on the info provided in the OP.

But they WILL discipline them for it. And if more complaints happen = goodbye job - sooner or later.

It would be so much easier to get the two into a conference room, detail what happened and have the appropriate apologies extended and move on.

That'd never happen! When a harassment complaint is lodged, the accused is not allowed to know the who, what, where, when or whys of the accusation!

I've seen a number of people successfully challenge disciplinary measures taken over the perception of harassment.

Were these accused people allowed to know the specific allegations at their workplace??

 

[DwaynieAD]

Likewise, if the person making the accusation says you are harassing some else then you are harassing some else. 'Merica!

I like that you corrected my spelling for me.

 

[MatticusMania]

I like that you corrected my spelling for me.

Without calling attention to it, even!
It was mostly because I was copying and pasting part of your statement.

 

[malthumb]

But they WILL discipline them for it. And if more complaints happen = goodbye job - sooner or later.

Absolutely correct! Part of the reason I said there had to be more going in the situation in your OP. This could have been the 2nd time....or the 17th time. Once a pattern is established, the company has to take action or face legal action from subsequent complainants.

That'd never happen! When a harassment complaint is lodged, the accused is not allowed to know the who, what, where, when or whys of the accusation!

Not only have I seen it happen, I've made it happen. It depends on the status of the complaint. In this case a complaint was made by someone against one of my employees. I asked her if there was any possibility she could have mistaken his intention. She said that was not possible and that the names he was calling her were offensive. I told her I would get his side of the story and get back with her. His side of the story was that he said what she complained he said, but that it was something that was said to another person about someone in his personal life (mortgage broker). Since he had been talking to the complainant minutes before she overheard what he said, she ASSUMED he was talking about her. I called the third person and asked about the conversation he had with my employee. He confirmed that he was ranting about his mortgage broker.

I went back to the complainant and told her what his explanation was. She stated that even though it wasn't directed towards her, she found the language to be highly offensive and that he should not be let off the hook for that. I asked her what she would like to see as a resolution and told her she could contact HR if she really felt offended. She said an apology and an acknowledgement that he was out of line would suffice. The three of us met in my office, he explained the conversation he'd had with his mortgage broker just before he met with the complainant and that when he was talking to his friend right after, his anger was directed towards the mortgage broker. The complainant explained that the language he used would be offensive to any woman (I agree) and the fact that it wasn't directed toward her was of (her words) "marginal value". He apologized and promised to try to keep it under control. They shook hands and have been civil ever since.

Were these accused people allowed to know the specific allegations at their workplace??

As detailed in the situation above. To be totally correct, she had not yet asked for HR to be involved. If she had, I would have not said another word, but would have called HR. it's like on Law & Order when the perp lawyers up. . Actually, though, I'm certain the accused always gets informed of the exact nature of the complaint. They just may not always have the opportunity to have face-to-face contact once the complaint reaches a certain point.

 

[slobake]

Just for another perspective on this and from a woman's eye view.....

I see situations where people are now apprehensive about interacting with people of the opposite sex in a work environment because they just don't know how other people will react and they want to avoid trouble. That's all well and good, but getting the job done in most workplaces means you have to build some kind of work relationship with your coworkers regardless of their gender. IME, being able to be personable in this process helps, and that means you have to get to know people in a little bit more personal way. Understand that "more personal" doesn't mean "intrusive," but it does mean to treat your coworkers like real people and not machines.

I've gone to a lot of work over the past few months to lose weight, and I hadn't seen a coworker from another office during that time. The surprise on his face was evident that I'd changed, but it took him three days and a happy hour to finally say, "I'd really like to pay you a compliment, but I'm unsure if it will offend you, so I don't know what to do." I don't think the workplace should be that scary.

IMHO - as long as the fun and joking doesn't result in anyone taking credit for anyone else's work, someone using a position of authority to exert undue influence for personal gain, pushing for things that make the workplace uncomfortable or hostile for any party, or anything non-consensual, illegal or immoral, then we're all grownups and we just need to behave in a manner that is appropriate for our age and surroundings. That said, these kinds of laws wouldn't exist if everyone out there was capable of following those guidelines. Carry on.

Well said, glad to hear another perspecive. I have seen harrasment in the workplace before we gave it much thought. I used to work in a field that was mostly men and gradually women came in to the field. Some of the men didn't like it and acted like morons. I can't imagine how it made the women feel.A friend was the first women in the painters union in San Francisco, it was rough for her. One guy sprayed her in the face with an airless and pretended like it was an accident. Another time she was forced to go up a 15' ladder that was on a floor covered with fabric dust, of course the ladder fell and she suffered knee damage. These days that would be a law suite for sure. I think anti-harrasment laws are necessary. I have never seen a women accuse someone unjustly but I imagine it does happen. There are as many messed up women as there are messed up men.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

This PC crap is just ridiculous anymore.

Remember the guy who sued Hooters (and won) because they didn't hire him to be a Hooters Girl.

Oops forgot to address this here...the Hooter's case, while amusing, is a result of the company's counsel making a huge bungle. When asked what the company's primary product was, they said chicken wings. Therefore, since selling flirty waitresses was not their primary product or service, they could not claim that employee sex was a bonafide occupational qualification.

While the idea of a male Hooter's server is amusing, Hooter's has to adhere to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act just like everyone else, unless they can provide a compelling argument for a BFOQ, which they obviously didn't. It's not "PC crap"; it's following one of the foundational pieces of civil rights policy ever passed in the U.S.

 

[Unprofessional]

About 6 years ago, a very talented coworker of mine was severely reprimanded and punished but not terminated. He made a compliment to a female coworker that, IMO, was very tame. The female object of the compliment didn't think anything of it. The compliment was overheard by another female who was not involved in the conversation at all. This second female bypassed management and went marching straight into HR.
Since then, I've been very careful about what I say around my coworkers male or female. I generally have only the bare minimum to say around female coworkers and I make sure that it is light and fluffy.
Kind of sad, really.

 

[DwaynieAD]

About 6 years ago, a very talented coworker of mine was severely reprimanded and punished but not terminated. He made a compliment to a female coworker that, IMO, was very tame. The female object of the compliment didn't think anything of it. The compliment was overheard by another female who was not involved in the conversation at all. This second female bypassed management and went marching straight into HR.
Since then, I've been very careful about what I say around my coworkers male or female. I generally have only the bare minimum to say around female coworkers and I make sure that it is light and fluffy.
Kind of sad, really.

Stare straight ahead and don't interact with anyone.