|
We understand that this topic evokes strong feelings. In the interest of maintaining a necessary and productive discussion, we will be taking a strong stance against posters that clearly do not contribute to this aim. Dishonest and bad faith arguments, victim blaming, and attacks on other users, will be strictly moderated. A post which only serves to muddy the waters and dishonestly portray the nature of assault and harassment (and corresponding accusations) is also unwelcome. |
On July 10 2020 12:27 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2020 09:58 tskarzyn wrote:On July 10 2020 07:56 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, employers should be forced to keep employing a person credibly accused of improper behavior after he becomes a clear liability, some dude pretending to be a worldly labor lawyer said it so it must be true. It's ridiculous to talk about liability for this or liability for that when employers have mostly carte blanche authority to fire anyone for any reason so long as it dodges civil rights laws. Didn't say I was a lawyer, I just live in a world we call reality. Of course we don't want people to send unsolicited DP's or inappropriate texts, but if that became grounds for termination everywhere it would be absolute chaos. The excesses of MeToo are already harming women's upward mobility in the workplace, attractive women especially, because of the liability they carry. Any studies to back this up? I'm curious how they go about quantifying attractiveness.
No idea on the attractiveness, but it's definitely the case that some surveys suggest #metoo has had an unintended negative effect on women in the workplace
https://leanin.org/sexual-harassment-backlash-survey-results
edit:
On July 10 2020 13:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2020 09:58 tskarzyn wrote:On July 10 2020 07:56 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, employers should be forced to keep employing a person credibly accused of improper behavior after he becomes a clear liability, some dude pretending to be a worldly labor lawyer said it so it must be true. It's ridiculous to talk about liability for this or liability for that when employers have mostly carte blanche authority to fire anyone for any reason so long as it dodges civil rights laws. Didn't say I was a lawyer, I just live in a world we call reality. Of course we don't want people to send unsolicited DP's or inappropriate texts, but if that became grounds for termination everywhere it would be a step in the right direction to eliminating sexism FTFY. Seriously, this can't be considered acceptable behavior. Misogyny is not okay, whether one person or one million people do this completely inappropriate thing. Sure, the reality may be that a ton of men are complete scum bags, but the response to that can't be to just shrug.
In case it wasn't clear, this is my perspective as well. Just sharing information.
|
On July 10 2020 09:58 tskarzyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2020 07:56 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, employers should be forced to keep employing a person credibly accused of improper behavior after he becomes a clear liability, some dude pretending to be a worldly labor lawyer said it so it must be true. It's ridiculous to talk about liability for this or liability for that when employers have mostly carte blanche authority to fire anyone for any reason so long as it dodges civil rights laws. Didn't say I was a lawyer, I just live in a world we call reality. Of course we don't want people to send unsolicited DP's or inappropriate texts, but if that became grounds for termination everywhere it would be a step in the right direction to eliminating sexism
FTFY.
Seriously, this can't be considered acceptable behavior. Misogyny is not okay, whether one person or one million people do this completely inappropriate thing.
Sure, the reality may be that a ton of men are complete scum bags, but the response to that can't be to just shrug.
|
What about the partial scumbags? Well we can agree that sending dick pics is unacceptable. The punishment should fall somewhere from slight embarrassment/shame to death by hanging. The only question left is to make it more exact.
|
On July 10 2020 09:58 tskarzyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2020 07:56 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, employers should be forced to keep employing a person credibly accused of improper behavior after he becomes a clear liability, some dude pretending to be a worldly labor lawyer said it so it must be true. It's ridiculous to talk about liability for this or liability for that when employers have mostly carte blanche authority to fire anyone for any reason so long as it dodges civil rights laws. Didn't say I was a lawyer, I just live in a world we call reality. Of course we don't want people to send unsolicited DP's or inappropriate texts, but if that became grounds for termination everywhere it would be absolute chaos. The excesses of MeToo are already harming women's upward mobility in the workplace, attractive women especially, because of the liability they carry.
O_O Just what in the world are you saying.
Men are such scumbags to women that when we start doing something about it the absolute depth of the heap of shit men do is so extraordinary that the best thing to do is just pretend it doesn't exist? When shit is everywhere its too much work to clean it up, so lets live in shit?
Makes me think of the times when police crack down on crimes, drugs and so on and all the headlines and problems the police efforts stir up a media shitstorm because all of a sudden the problems are visible to everyday citizens. Are you one of those, the people that think crime and violence should go unchecked because police fighting crime and gangs makes things worse before they get better? Are you a politician or something
|
On July 10 2020 14:35 IgnE wrote:
What about the partial scumbags? Well we can agree that sending dick pics is unacceptable. The punishment should fall somewhere from slight embarrassment/shame to death by hanging. The only question left is to make it more exact.
The punishment should depend on the individuals involved.
The employer has to decide some things, like whether the negative publicity this stuff brings them is worth it, or whether they want to help said offender or just get rid. It depends on both the employer and the specifics of the case.
So instead of deciding a punishment, making employers (if they don't already in the US) produce a comprehensive set of policies and procedures of how they deal with metoo related claims couldn't hurt. That way it isn't down to a bunch of people on a forum or twitter kicking up a stink, which hurts the companies and individuals involved way more than if they had just dealt with it internally.
|
On July 10 2020 14:35 IgnE wrote:
What about the partial scumbags? Well we can agree that sending dick pics is unacceptable. The punishment should fall somewhere from slight embarrassment/shame to death by hanging. The only question left is to make it more exact.
That doesn't seem to be the case; when something is unacceptable, you don't allow it. Unfortunately, a good number of companies, Americans, and TL posters seem to find dick pics to be not-a-big-deal-because-boys-will-be-boys. They may or may not also be sending their own dick pics to people, but they certainly find it acceptable.
I also don't think that people are calling for execution as a punishment, but there are plenty of people seriously understating the effects that sexual harassment has on victims and in the workplace.
|
Northern Ireland24543 Posts
On July 10 2020 09:58 tskarzyn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2020 07:56 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, employers should be forced to keep employing a person credibly accused of improper behavior after he becomes a clear liability, some dude pretending to be a worldly labor lawyer said it so it must be true. It's ridiculous to talk about liability for this or liability for that when employers have mostly carte blanche authority to fire anyone for any reason so long as it dodges civil rights laws. Didn't say I was a lawyer, I just live in a world we call reality. Of course we don't want people to send unsolicited DP's or inappropriate texts, but if that became grounds for termination everywhere it would be absolute chaos. The excesses of MeToo are already harming women's upward mobility in the workplace, attractive women especially, because of the liability they carry.
Just don’t send unsolicited dick pics? Is that so hard? Pun sorta intended.
It’s a rather bleak reality you seem to exist in in which attempting to address a problem is bad because the general perpetrators of said problem will be reluctant to hire the general victims of said problem.
Of course, there will be teething problems in trying to address deep-rooted societal problems and it’s important to identify them correctly and draw appropriate lines.
There does seem to be a common misconception on where people are trying to draw those lines, which is not an attempt to eliminate flirting, jokes or fun from the world.
|
Admittedly I don't talk much to people IRL but reading some of these stories and stuff I just can't understand how it even comes to these terrible situations. Why are people so shitty.  Just be a normal decent human being with basic logic, why is it so hard god damn it.
|
On July 10 2020 07:56 farvacola wrote:
Yeah, employers should be forced to keep employing a person credibly accused of improper behavior after he becomes a clear liability, some dude pretending to be a worldly labor lawyer said it so it must be true. It's ridiculous to talk about liability for this or liability for that when employers have mostly carte blanche authority to fire anyone for any reason so long as it dodges civil rights laws.
Creating liability for your enterprise and possibly yourself personally by keeping a scumbag employee on the payroll is really a good business strategy.
|
In regards to Pursuit's argument.
you should not have to accept being sexually harassed to get a promotion. You're basically saying companies can't fix the culture so you can't do anything about it. If a company tries hard enough they can fix the culture and accepting it as just how it is is basically saying f u to all the disadvantaged groups because they weren't there when the culture was established.
You're basically arguing for the equivalent of a neighborhood not letting black people move in because their worried about an increase in racial incidents by the people who already live there.
There's plenty of examples of companies and sports teams and colleges putting in serious effort to fundamentally change the culture of their organization.
|
You might want to quote who you are talking to, because that isn't clear (at least not to me)
|
I get it. You don't like DPs. You don't like it when guys say disgusting things to ladies. I don't either. What do you want to do about it in the case of employees who act poorly with people outside their company?
Should companies monitor their employees' private texts and phone calls? Should companies set up HR Twitter accounts so outsiders can share offensive acts their employees committed? (No proof required, Tweets from 2+ accusers is enough for termination.) Maybe employers should interview employees' ex GFS to make sure certain standards of decency were met? Maybe we should just make sending DPs or sexually charged communications without written consent illegal?
I don't think folks appreciate how big of a leap it is to go from policing how employees treat their co-workers to policing what they do in their private lives.
|
Northern Ireland24543 Posts
On July 11 2020 08:51 tskarzyn wrote:
I get it. You don't like DPs. You don't like it when guys say disgusting things to ladies. I don't either. What do you want to do about it in the case of employees who act poorly with people outside their company?
Should companies monitor their employees' private texts and phone calls? Should companies set up HR Twitter accounts so outsiders can share offensive acts their employees committed? (No proof required, Tweets from 2+ accusers is enough for termination.) Maybe employers should interview employees' ex GFS to make sure certain standards of decency were met? Maybe we should just make sending DPs or sexually charged communications without written consent illegal?
I don't think folks appreciate how big of a leap it is to go from policing how employees treat their co-workers to policing what they do in their private lives.
Who is saying they should do that? Nobody here? Is this another strawman?
Rapid’s job here is as a personality, as a likeable face of the content he comments on. If people think he’s a dick then why are you employing him?
If Rapid is an accountant or something and has left co-workers alone his private business is his. His job in this instance is predicated on being likeable as a personality though.
A co-worker of mine recently got fired for approximately 8 extremely racist Facebook tweets. At work our chief conversational topic is bitching about the company and yet everyone thought this was totally fair.
There’s always another potential employee who doesn’t spew racist bile, so why not employ them?
|
Northern Ireland24543 Posts
‘Maybe we should just make sending DPs or sexually charged communications without written consent illegal?’
Swapping written for verbal also here but they already are in many places?
|
On July 11 2020 09:02 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2020 08:51 tskarzyn wrote:
I get it. You don't like DPs. You don't like it when guys say disgusting things to ladies. I don't either. What do you want to do about it in the case of employees who act poorly with people outside their company?
Should companies monitor their employees' private texts and phone calls? Should companies set up HR Twitter accounts so outsiders can share offensive acts their employees committed? (No proof required, Tweets from 2+ accusers is enough for termination.) Maybe employers should interview employees' ex GFS to make sure certain standards of decency were met? Maybe we should just make sending DPs or sexually charged communications without written consent illegal?
I don't think folks appreciate how big of a leap it is to go from policing how employees treat their co-workers to policing what they do in their private lives.
Who is saying they should do that? Nobody here? Is this another strawman? Rapid’s job here is as a personality, as a likeable face of the content he comments on. If people think he’s a dick then why are you employing him? If Rapid is an accountant or something and has left co-workers alone his private business is his. His job in this instance is predicated on being likeable as a personality though. A co-worker of mine recently got fired for approximately 8 extremely racist Facebook tweets. At work our chief conversational topic is bitching about the company and yet everyone thought this was totally fair. There’s always another potential employee who doesn’t spew racist bile, so why not employ them?
I appreciate that people should be held accountable for their actions and their behavior outside of work impacts the company's brand. Take this to its logical conclusion, though. I think you end up with the China model. Monitor everything and assign social credit scores to determine who employers hire or banks lend money to.
|
On July 11 2020 09:04 Wombat_NI wrote:
‘Maybe we should just make sending DPs or sexually charged communications without written consent illegal?’
Swapping written for verbal also here but they already are in many places?
Wouldn't be surprised if this was the case in the UK or EU. They don't protect speech and have arrested people for making offensive jokes on social media.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On July 11 2020 09:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2020 09:36 tskarzyn wrote:On July 11 2020 09:27 JimmiC wrote:On July 11 2020 09:24 tskarzyn wrote:On July 11 2020 09:04 Wombat_NI wrote:
‘Maybe we should just make sending DPs or sexually charged communications without written consent illegal?’
Swapping written for verbal also here but they already are in many places? Wouldn't be surprised if this was the case in the UK or EU. They don't protect speech and have arrested people for making offensive jokes on social media. Site please, this sounds made up. Now if you are talking about making threats maybe. Otherwise it is only authoritarian countries that do this. Also the point of free speech was not so everyone could be an asshole, it was so that people could voice displeasure with government, churches and other forms of power. Look into UK and EU hate speech enforcement if you don't believe me. Do you want to live in a society where being an asshole is a crime? Do you know why the US implemented limits on free speech? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/arrests-for-offensive-facebook-and-twitter-posts-soar-in-london-a7064246.html?amp Where people make hate threats about Syrian refugees and jokes about blowing up an airport. Sounds like your definition of being an asshole and mine are very different. Free speech means you are free to make it, not that there is no responsibility to what you say. Like you are free to drive your car but not free to do so drunk or at excessive speeds.
Buzz words like racism and hate speech are meaningless, so here is some dark humor that led to an arrest:
"So a bin lorry has apparently driven in 100 people in Glasgow eh, probably the most trash it’s picked up in one day."
Also, you want to arrest people for being critical of immigration? Where do you draw the line. Lots of mini dictators in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
