|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Apr 20, 2017 21:55:44 GMT
First, let me note that I don't believe that sexual harassment should be illegal. I'd define it as persistent sexual advances, especially when they involve touching the other person in some way--groping or whatever--when the persistent sexual advances are unwanted and make the receiving party uncomfortable. It can also simply be manipulative or coercive or penalizing behavior oriented towards those sexual advances, especially when we're talking about something like relationships between supervisors and supervised in an employment situation. As to whether I think they should be grounds for dismissal employment-wise, say, I think it should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and that this consideration shouldn't only go for sexual harassment, but any sort of harassing, persistently agitating, etc. behavior from fellow employees. What? |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 20, 2017 22:15:21 GMT
Isn't there another planet I can move to?
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 20, 2017 22:45:21 GMT
Here's the thing, the word "fraternization" is defined differently among different organizations. The military also has a no fraternization policy in every branch, yet military members are still allowed to date and even marry because fraternization is specific to officer/enlisted relationships. Secondly, it is a company's prerogative to limit fraternization if it is in the best interests of the company to do so. Nobody forces anyone to work for a specific company and if you don't like their rules, you don't seek employment there and go someplace else with a different policy. That is an entirely separate argument from "sexual harassment" though. Sexual harassment involves the potential for legal action against the company, which is why nearly every company will have such a policy in place as part of your working contract. It's to protect the company from legal action. Rules about fraternization may have more to do with productivity, or public image, or the ethical standards of the employer. *sigh* it was just a word I used to denote no flirting, dating, etc. among employees. "Secondly, it is a company's prerogative to limit fraternization if it is in the best interests of the company to do so. " No one was saying that it's not the company's prerogative. What I was saying that in my view it's ridiculous that we've let culture develop so that any company does that. It's also ridiculous in my view that we have sexual harassment laws. *sigh* -- I know what you meant, and I understand what you are saying...I just don't understand WHY you think that is "ridiculous"? Capitalist society has developed in such a way as to allow companies to maximize profits. So I guess what I'm asking is why would a company NOT do that if the company thought it would serve their interests? Because the inverse of that would be a society that developed so that company's are forbidden from doing what's in the company's best interest. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 20, 2017 22:50:00 GMT
*sigh* it was just a word I used to denote no flirting, dating, etc. among employees. "Secondly, it is a company's prerogative to limit fraternization if it is in the best interests of the company to do so. " No one was saying that it's not the company's prerogative. What I was saying that in my view it's ridiculous that we've let culture develop so that any company does that. It's also ridiculous in my view that we have sexual harassment laws. *sigh* -- I know what you meant, and I understand what you are saying...I just don't understand WHY you think that is "ridiculous"? Capitalist society has developed in such a way as to allow companies to maximize profits. So I guess what I'm asking is why would a company NOT do that if the company thought it would serve their interests? Because the inverse of that would be a society that developed so that company's are forbidden from doing what's in the company's best interest. It's not that it's ridiculous that a company is acting to maximize profits. It's ridiculous that we've developed into a culture where this is part of maximizing profits. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 20, 2017 22:59:01 GMT
*sigh* -- I know what you meant, and I understand what you are saying...I just don't understand WHY you think that is "ridiculous"? Capitalist society has developed in such a way as to allow companies to maximize profits. So I guess what I'm asking is why would a company NOT do that if the company thought it would serve their interests? Because the inverse of that would be a society that developed so that company's are forbidden from doing what's in the company's best interest. It's not that it's ridiculous that a company is acting to maximize profits. It's ridiculous that we've developed into a culture where this is part of maximizing profits. If by that you mean that its ridiculous that so many people disregard professional etiquette by getting sexually/romantically involved with people they work with, to the point that it interferes with the company's public image or production, and therefore companies have to enact seemingly extreme policies...then I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 20, 2017 23:15:48 GMT
It's not that it's ridiculous that a company is acting to maximize profits. It's ridiculous that we've developed into a culture where this is part of maximizing profits. If by that you mean that its ridiculous that so many people disregard professional etiquette by getting sexually/romantically involved with people they work with, to the point that it interferes with the company's public image or production, and therefore companies have to enact seemingly extreme policies...then I agree. Nope just the opposite. I think it's ridiculous that "professional etiquette" would suggest employees not getting romantically involved, etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2017 23:16:42 GMT
Unwanted sexual advances and inappropriate comments, yada yada yada, especially if it involves groping. Although there is a climate of hysteria surrounding sexual harassment to the extent that you can now be charged with sexual harassment for as much as blinking the wrong way.
As Terrapin Station already mentioned, I don't believe that it should be illegal, although companies should retain the right to deal with that behaviour as they see fit. I think that people should learn to deal with being made to feel 'uncomfortable'.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 20, 2017 23:53:13 GMT
If by that you mean that its ridiculous that so many people disregard professional etiquette by getting sexually/romantically involved with people they work with, to the point that it interferes with the company's public image or production, and therefore companies have to enact seemingly extreme policies...then I agree. Nope just the opposite. I think it's ridiculous that "professional etiquette" would suggest employees not getting romantically involved, etc. Then I don't agree. That's precisely why the military has very strict rules for who can/can't become romantically involved. But then, assuming you are a civilian, I can see how you might find that "ridiculous". For people who have a tendency to put their own interests first above everything else, then anything else that might put such interests second is likely to be considered ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 0:39:44 GMT
Nope just the opposite. I think it's ridiculous that "professional etiquette" would suggest employees not getting romantically involved, etc. Then I don't agree. That's precisely why the military has very strict rules for who can/can't become romantically involved. But then, assuming you are a civilian, I can see how you might find that "ridiculous". For people who have a tendency to put their own interests first above everything else, then anything else that might put such interests second is likely to be considered ridiculous. I wouldn't say that a culture where people can interact romantically, lovingly, etc. regardless of the social context, without any social pressure to avoid that, is a culture where people are putting their own interests above everything else. It would be a much healthier culture overall. |
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 21, 2017 9:17:47 GMT
Sexual harassment is when an ugly coworker tries to get laid.
#somebodyfunnierthanme
|
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Apr 21, 2017 10:35:37 GMT
What say you.
Just asking for a personal opinion.
When a women wears revealing clothing with the intention of titilating her male co-workers. Asking a woman on a date is not harassment and is not sexual. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 21, 2017 10:55:22 GMT
What say you.
Just asking for a personal opinion.
When a women wears revealing clothing with the intention of titilating her male co-workers. Asking a woman on a date is not harassment and is not sexual. Is the woman saying she's wearing sexy clothing to titillate the male co-workers in order to get them to ask her on a date so she can reject them? How many times are they allowed to asked her? |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 21, 2017 12:30:19 GMT
I have a problem with the idea that there are inappropriate contexts, though. But yeah, I'd say it has to be persistent, and it really needs to be pretty overt sexually-oriented advances, if not outright groping, etc. (And note again that I don't believe that should be illegal. I think it's adequate that assault is illegal, and I think that assault should have to involve violence that has lasting physical effects.) I'm sorry, but nobody is touching me at work. It does not have to rise to the level of hurting me.
But as for advances I do agree it has to be persistent or at least repeated. If someone accepts a not interested message and there's no issue with getting the job at hand done in the future I'd say move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 12:35:32 GMT
I have a problem with the idea that there are inappropriate contexts, though. But yeah, I'd say it has to be persistent, and it really needs to be pretty overt sexually-oriented advances, if not outright groping, etc. (And note again that I don't believe that should be illegal. I think it's adequate that assault is illegal, and I think that assault should have to involve violence that has lasting physical effects.) I'm sorry, but nobody is touching me at work. It does not have to rise to the level of hurting me.
But as for advances I do agree it has to be persistent or at least repeated. If someone accepts a not interested message and there's no issue with getting the job at hand done in the future I'd say move on.
It's certainly understandable that you don't want anyone "touching you" at work (in quotation marks because presumably we're not talking about something like a phobia about even non-sexual bumping into you or something). Should that be sufficient to make it illegal, so that the person who touched you might have to do prison time, though? Most folks wouldn't want someone blasting an airhorn at the desk next to them at work, either. Should that be illegal? A lot of people wouldn't want to sit at a desk at work next to someone with a chronic flatulence problem, either. There are a lot of things that might cause us to reevaluate whether a job is worthwhile. (For me, for example, one of those things would be a work environment where we have to listen to the same commercial radio station daily.) The question is whether those things should be illegal just because they're not things we'd personally tolerate in a work environment. |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 21, 2017 12:40:12 GMT
I'm sorry, but nobody is touching me at work. It does not have to rise to the level of hurting me.
But as for advances I do agree it has to be persistent or at least repeated. If someone accepts a not interested message and there's no issue with getting the job at hand done in the future I'd say move on.
It's certainly understandable that you don't want anyone "touching you" at work (in quotation marks because presumably we're not talking about something like a phobia about even non-sexual bumping into you or something). Should that be sufficient to make it illegal, so that the person who touched you might have to do prison time, though? Most folks wouldn't want someone blasting an airhorn at the desk next to them at work, either. Should that be illegal? A lot of people wouldn't want to sit at a desk at work next to someone with a chronic flatulence problem, either. There are a lot of things that might cause us to reevaluate whether a job is worthwhile. (For me, for example, one of those things would be a work environment where we have to listen to the same commercial radio station daily.) The question is whether those things should be illegal just because they're not things we'd personally tolerate in a work environment. Right I was thinking mainly of sexual touching. But I wasn't necessarily thinking prison time or illegal. I mean there are plenty of things that aren't going to get you jail time that can get a reprimand at work though especially if they are something someone continues to do. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 21, 2017 12:51:48 GMT
It can be more than touching. For example having a porn screensaver is a form of sexual harassment.
However, touching is not considered in and of itself inappropriate. Hugging people is not considered offensive until the person makes it so which is different than lewd talk or aggressive sexual behaviour which is wrong whether the person complains about it or not.
This is a part that some of those Fox News pervs don't necessarily get. Someone not going to HR for quid pro quo stuff does not mean they still haven't broken the law regarding it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Apr 21, 2017 12:54:50 GMT
Unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks.
|
|
|
|
Post by kls on Apr 21, 2017 12:59:05 GMT
Unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks. Thing is how does one know if a sexual advance is wanted or unwanted if it's something as simple as say asking a coworker if she wants to go to dinner or have a drink after work? If someone asked me that I'd just tell him as politely as I can "No thank you." and if that was the end of it no worries. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 21, 2017 13:01:25 GMT
Unwanted sexual advances or obscene remarks. Thing is how does one know if a sexual advance is wanted or unwanted if it's something as simple as say asking a coworker if she wants to go to dinner or have a drink after work? If someone asked me that I'd just tell him as politely as I can "No thank you." and if that was the end of it no worries. This is not illegal and the only thing you would be concerned about is breaking HR policy. The problem would be if treatement of the person changes (Or they perceive it to change) after the rejection. It can be a slippery slope but the initial ask is not a legal issue. This is why it's not a terribly bright idea to date co-workers regardless of the law. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 21, 2017 13:10:49 GMT
It's certainly understandable that you don't want anyone "touching you" at work (in quotation marks because presumably we're not talking about something like a phobia about even non-sexual bumping into you or something). Should that be sufficient to make it illegal, so that the person who touched you might have to do prison time, though? Most folks wouldn't want someone blasting an airhorn at the desk next to them at work, either. Should that be illegal? A lot of people wouldn't want to sit at a desk at work next to someone with a chronic flatulence problem, either. There are a lot of things that might cause us to reevaluate whether a job is worthwhile. (For me, for example, one of those things would be a work environment where we have to listen to the same commercial radio station daily.) The question is whether those things should be illegal just because they're not things we'd personally tolerate in a work environment. Right I was thinking mainly of sexual touching. But I wasn't necessarily thinking prison time or illegal. I mean there are plenty of things that aren't going to get you jail time that can get a reprimand at work though especially if they are something someone continues to do. Yeah, I don't have any problem with that. Even just talking to someone too much at work--whether it's sexual/relationship oriented or not--can be a problem, especially if the person doesn't want to be interrupted that much and it's getting in the way of people getting work done. Friendly environments are good, in my opinion, but folks need to be able to get work done. |
|
