posted
I don't know -- I almost agree with Chris that the government just gives the avenues for greivance, without actually giving out specifics of what sexual harrassment is -- because I've seen a lot of differences in company policies from place to place in their definition of harrassment.
For instance, where I now work, or policy simply says:
quote:NON-HARASSMENT The bank will not tolerate the harassment of one employee by another. The following employment practices are a part of our non-harassment policy:
1. It is our policy to maintain an environment free of intimidation, insult, and harassment based on race, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, ancestry, or disability. Any employee who violates this policy will be subject to discipline, including discharge.
2. We will not tolerate any employee or supervisor engaging in sexual harassment as outlined in the following policy:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as a basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.
Any person employed by the bank who engages in such unlawful conduct will be subject to discipline, including discharge.
3. It is the policy of [name] Bank that no employee shall be discriminated against because of his/her AIDS condition. [name] Bank will review each AIDS-related situation on an individual basis and be guided by its commitment to the protection of the individual's right to privacy and confidentiality, and by due regard for public health interests.
4. We will not tolerate any real or perceived threat to the personal safety of its employees or customers. Any employee bringing a weapon onto the workplace premises will be immediately terminated. Any employee who threatens or assaults another employee, manager, or customer will be subject to termination.
If an employee believes the actions or comments of another employee constitute unwelcome harassment; or if an employee feels threatened, is assaulted, or witnesses another employee, manager, or customer being threatened or assaulted, the employee should report the situation to any level manager, supervisor, Human Resource Officer, or any officer of the Bank. Threatening or suicidal phone calls should be immediately transferred to the Security Office or the Human Resources Officer.
In its efforts to prevent discrimination or harassment of any kind, the Bank will maintain a total open-door policy. All complaints will be promptly investigated as confidentially as a thorough investigation will allow. The complaining employee will then be advised of the result of the investigation.
While that may seem kinda broad -- I don't read it that way -- basically if the guys are all standing around here making off-color jokes or comments, but those aren't directed at ME, and it really isn't my business to be listening in, even if it is near me, I don't see how that would be sexual harrassment toward me.
Farmgirl
p.s.-- where I used to work, we had one guy that just used the word "bitch" just once - not even directed at anyone at work, and he was fired for sexual harrassment. So they had a very tight policy.
posted
My problem with this is the idea of someone deciding what constitutes acceptable behavior. I think this should be handled at a local level, a changing dynamic that flexes with the work force. Obviously personal harassment is out, but hostile environments would be defined by the offended. If there are no offended, there is no hostile environment.
As long as there are enforced avenues of recourse and attention is fully paid to all complaints, I don't think the government should be establishing an offical level of workplace conversation.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Finally got around to reading the article linked in the first post.
The way I've understood it, and I checked this with my Mom who with her 30+ years of HR and her being hired by the employment law firm to teach seminars on such things is probably the most qualified expert without a law degree you can find.
In her opinion, and that of the lawyers she works with, overhearing off-color jokes that make you uncomfortable does not constitute sexual harassment.
If a person complained about the jokes, and the jokes continued, with the tellers making sure she heard them or directed them to her, then it would be considered as someone intentionally creating a hostile environment.
If the people telling the jokes said, "Gee, I'm sorry, didn't know this bothered you - won't happen again." There is no harassment in that scenario.
What I did not find in the linked article, was where the typist complained that she was bothered by some of the things being said and done before she was fired. (and we have no way of knowing whether or not the firing was justified on the ground they stated - was she in fact not a fast enough typist?)
Also, if listening to such talk is part of her job, and she knew that going in, I find it hard to agree she was being harassed.
Here's a possible scenario, obviously we don't know if that happened here:
Woman goes to her boss and says "The talk in these creative meetings really disturbs me, I think they are engaging in behavior beyond the scope of the job and it makes me really uncomfortable." Boss says, okay, I'll talk to them about toning it down.
The writers not only don't tone it down, but ramp it up, and deliberately say things for no other reason than to upset the typist. Okay, that might be harassment.
But if she never said anything until after she was fired - her employers never had a chance to rectify the situation. Considering the scope of the job, she had to know she'd be exposed to some type of sexual banter, and comments of a sexual nature. (not that I dont think some of the stuff in the article was a bit excessive, certainly the writers sound like pigs to me) There is no way for the employer to read her mind and determine what is upsetting to her - she needs to tell them, "Okay, enough is enough - I think this is going too far." If she didn't do that, then I don't think this is a case of sexual harassment.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking about dkw's question, if the things she left out weren't because she wasn't fast enough to type them all but deliberately left out because she was uncomfortable with them.
I don't think it changes my position.
She wasn't hired to make a determination on her own what to include in the notes and what not to. She was hired to type down everything she heard. If she didn't do that, either through a deliberate choice, or through incompetence, she still can be fired for cause.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess my take on this is a bit different since the bank's policy is that we are each responsible for watching our language and subject matter all the time. Even if no one complains. I have a problem with the idea that X is ok at work as long as no one yells. Either it's appropriate or it's not.
As for the law, the discrimination laws are there to allow minorities and women an equal footing in the business world. How many women would be comfortable working for men who routinely debase their coworkers, even if it is "creative"? Why should only men be allowed to write sitcoms? If you allow men to engage in behavior that alienates female coworkers, that is essentially what you're saying. This is how we work, and if you can't handle it, get out.
Would this conversation be going differnt if they were telling black jokes? As long as no one complains should they be allowed to discuss differing anatomy, deride their intellect, and draw pictures of hangings or blacks in whiteface, provided they're writing black jokes for the show?
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if no one complains. I have a problem with the idea that X is ok at work as long as no one yells. Either it's appropriate or it's not.
That's an impossible standard. There is no way to know if a person is offended unless they tell you.
All the responsibility can't fall on the employer - they can't uphold a standard that they aren't aware of. Yes, some things are obvious - you as an employer shouldn't have posters of naked women in degrading poses in the copy room - but you cannot expect them to know what bothers someone in a creative meeting for a show about sex unless that person tells them.
Oh, and no - the conversation wouldn't be any different if we were talking about say, the Chappelle Show's creative team. I'm sure their creative sessions are full of racially charged comments. If someone were hired to transcribe them, and didn't do so well enough and was fired and then claimed they were harassed - I'd be reacting the exact same way. I'd want to know if they voiced their complaints before the firing or not, and what the reaction of the employers' was at that time.
[ December 23, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To compare, we'd need to hear transcripts of the writing sessions for women-written sitcoms, espeially those with relationship/sex jokes. I'll bet the staff at Desperate Housewives gets pretty ribald.
Having worked in more than a few woman-dominated offices, I can attest that women can create just as hostile and sexist an environment if they care to. The difference is, of course, that I felt perfectly free to complain if I ever felt offended. I didn't, even though men were decidedly and explicitly insulted in many of the exchanges.
Edited to add: I'm going to sit back and just read Belle's comments. She makes more sense than I do.
[ December 23, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
rotfl, I just had a luncheon with a couple of guys from work that was rather bawdy. But we were all having fun. I'm the one who was having to bite my tounge so as to not embarrass them!
posted
AJ, some guys from work were in my office once and we were talking about kids and somehow it got turned around into how they were made and since I was pregnant with the twins at the time there was talk about whether or not anything different or special went into the making of twice the babies. :blush:
I told them they were sexually harassing me and to prove my point I called my mom on speaker phone while they were still there.
I told her what was said and told her to tell them that in her expert opinion, they were harassing me and had to stop. She said no, because for it to be harassment I had to be offended and she knew me too well.
posted
rotfl, we actually got into discussing polycystic ovaries... they'd never heard of it before... It came up cause I was asked, what my parents would do if I got pregnant. I said that the odds of that happening for me were even *lower* than the norm... and they were like *huh*? So I explained far more than they ever wanted to know...
posted
LOL, AJ that's great advice for any woman who wants to clear a room of guys quick. Start discussing female stuff that really gets them with the ick factor.
I would suggest describing dermoid ovarian cysts (bout halfway down the page, in the paragraph with the heading "Prepare yourself! These are disgusting!"
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's different, though, when you are in a position of comfort amongst friends, where the teasing is to make you laugh, as opposed to where it is malicious. Laugh along with the first situation, and things stay comfortable -- after all, they were just poking fun.
But laugh along with the second, and it's just likely to get meaner and more vile. In that case, they don't want you to laugh -- they want you to feel excluded or intimidated.
Unlike a poster from above, I don't think we know enough details to make firm claims about what did or did not happen in this particular case. We can speculate, and we can agree that if she never made known her objections before being fired, that her case is made much weaker. Pretty tenuous. But I'd hesitate to make claims of fact until more details were clarified and corroborated, and that's exactly what a court of law is set up to do.
Mind you, I can give back as good as I get these days, and I have a pretty ribald sense of humor. But there have been times in my life where the context was very different -- where I really needed a particular job, or letter of recommendation, or what have you, and I put up with and played along with direct meanness or degradation in the hopes that it would blow over.
*shrug
Sometimes it did, but a lot of times it didn't. Sometimes taking it on the chin just means they'll punch harder, if it's crying and not laughter that they want to see.
But just because I am in a relative position of power now and pretty much only surrounded by people who wish me well doesn't mean that, in other circumstances, what works for me now would always work to defuse or get through a situation.
[ December 23, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I'm officially offended. Can you stop with the icky stuff or do I need to see a litigator?
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I'm among friends. I was just being silly. What would my official duties as a Wench Boy Toy include? Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
