#metoo is wrong

    By Flavius on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 6:23am |

     

    Due process is more important than  helping  women obtain redress for harms they've suffered. Or believe they've suffered.

    If NPR, or Google, or GE  is told an  employee thinks she's been harassed. ; or denied promotion ;or whatever, it  should  not   try to fix the problem .

    Been there done that. Called "lynching".

    Instead It should  help her  to use the legal system. If there's no way to do that  it should do nothing about past events. That's called  "ex post facto ".

    And about future claims ?  It should  make clear what it will do. If anything. Publish its policy.

    And  that  should  be ?   Designate an independent arbitrator, by whom it will be guided,  and assist the accuser - and the person accused- to make their cases.

    And implement the decision of that arb.Unless it decides not to.

     

      

     

    Comments

    With all due respect, Flav, you are so wrong.

    A) The primary purpose of the #MeToo movement is not "helping women obtain redress for harms they've suffered." It is exposing and prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

    B) Sexual harassment is not illegal, so employees cannot use the "legal system" to address it.

    C) Companies have the authority and the responsibility to terminate employees for cause. There are numerous infractions that can get you fired from most jobs--tardiness, inappropriate clothing, bad attitude, poor customer service, falling asleep on the job, and so on. When someone gets fired for such things, we don't ordinarily decry "lynching" or demand an "independent arbitrator."

    D) Most corporations already have extensive, well-documented sexual harassment policies (as well as appeals processes for employees who feel they have been unfairly disciplined). These policies are not always enforced, however. 

    E) Though the victims are predominantly women, let's not forget that men (and transgender men and women) may also be sexually harassed.

    F) Re: "Lynching." Comparing the termination of an employee accused of sexual harassment to the brutal murder of innocent black people by racist mobs is strained...to put it mildly. 


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 10:38am

    The use of “lynching” is interesting. Clarence Thomas used the term to escape responsibility for his actions.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 10:54am

    Well, I think he was black (or still is) if I recall correct, so that bought him a bit of reprieve. Perhaps after 30 years we can stop overloading the term "lynching" and leave it primarily for its scurrilous practice (at least in the US) primarily from 1865-1920.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 11:03am

    The response to the term is to focus on the term rather than the topic under discussions. It serves as a distraction. It helped guarantee Thomas a seat on the Supreme Court.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 11:08am

    Yes, he used it as shock therapy and a get-out-of-jail-free card. I get it.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 11:14am

    I was wrong. "Lynching "should only be used by Blacks just as Holocaust should only be used by Jews. Sorry.

    The similarity is that a lynch mob like a corporate  HR is a collection of people with no necessary skills to bear trying to substitute activity for  thought.

    Being fired ranks as a punishment  up there with non trivial time in jail. Ask me about it. ( Being fired, not jail.)

    Corporations'  right  to terminate for corporate needs is intrinsic to capitalism. Not so their right to decide whether non-physical-assault-harassment merits termination.

    If the payroll is $100K/week and revenues , $90K you don't need McKinsey. Mike Manager has been trained at Wharton or the school of hard knocks to  do what needs to be  done.

    But if Sally suddenly learns that Jim isn't just a charming lunch mate but wants Something More MM is clueless.

    And even if MM or HR could handle it should they?

    The Corp's need to cut  $10K/week from payroll as of this Friday  totally  conflicts with Sally -and Jim's- personal needs. And even if he wasn't busy with the payroll records, maybe  MM might not be the worst possible adjudicator of the Sally and Jim impasse but he's got him worried.

    .BTW NPR's solution :hire a white shoe law firm was wrong. Who do you think they are going to want to be pleased by their decision? Lawyers need clients today and more tomorrow. 

    By rights these  he said/she said puzzles should  be judged by judges . But at a time when we can't stop this week's mass murderer from committing this week's mass murder, that  ain't gonna happen. So hire an arbitrator. And offer Sally and Jim an incentive to settle it for themselves Maybe get married.

     

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 1:14pm

    I don't think you understand what sexual harassment is, or you wouldn't make light of it by writing, "Maybe they get married." Sexual harassment isn't Jim making a pass at Sally over lunch. No one gets fired for that. Sexual harassment is coercive and repeated. There are often multiple victims, and those who refuse the sexual advances are often threatened or punished by the harasser. It doesn't fall to Mike Manager to make these decisions. Mike notifies HR, which has specific policies and people trained to handle sexual harassment. HR investigates as they would investigate any serious infraction and recommends a response. I fail to see why you think this process is fine for other infractions but not sexual harassment.

    Ftr, US companies have the right to fire anyone at any time for any reason unless restricted by employee contract--which non-executive, non-union workers lack. I'm all for adding more worker protections across the board, but that doesn't have much to do with sexual harassment except to say that the protections should apply in all cases.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 4:09pm

    You're right again about "Maybe they should get married" . 

    When  the penalty  is being fired for cause an  employee should  have the right  to competent assistance   defending him or herself in   a formal process before an unbiased authority. Mostly that's unrealistic.

    Lay offs happen , carry  little stigma. athough your prospective employers  realize that not everybody hit the bricks..So you carry a question mark .But not more.

    Being fired is completely  different . You wave  an  invisible but fully  understood sign saying "Don't hire me".It can mean a deep ,never recovered , cut in pay. . Far too drastic a penalty to require  Joe Lunchpail to defend  himself against . Whether  in front of an  HR executive or an operating guy.

    Whether the crime is harassment  or some culpable damage ( my friend ,Mike,  was so  desperate to get off a soul destroying   repetitive  drill  press job  that he fed it the wrong way risking  his life and thousands of dollars of equipment .Btw he was a shop steward) the employee whose future compensation bracket is at stake for many years is entitled to a " public defender" type to assist her. And isn't going to get it.

    When the charge is sexual harassment he can't be considered guilty  until proven innocent.  But he will be . #metoo is playing hard ball. Good for them  But all the more reason the putative defendents  can't be issued a whiffle bat. Or forget the tiresome analogies.Sexual harrassment defendents  are entitiled to due process. Even though Trump said so.

     

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 6:11pm

    Flavius, since your paragon of gender equality and justice was elected President after 19 women accused him of physical assault/aggression and after the video surfaced of him bragging about doing the same, we can assume Jill Lunchpail remains far more at risk than Joe, from the mindset of countless supervisory males just like Trump.....or you.


    by NCD on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 8:13pm

    Sure women are more at risk. Although the only time I was personally involved was in a case of male vs male harassment on an army  troop ship.  The guy who had been harassed wanted help  in getting his bed  out of the stateroom so I and another officer went in and did that while the harasser- a more senior officer - watched impassively.


    by Flavius on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 10:01pm

    " Mike notifies HR, which has specific policies and people trained to handle sexual harassment. HR investigates as they would investigate any serious infraction and recommends a response. HR buries it." - Fixed that for you, at least for a number of cases. Gotta keep those Silicon Valley lads energetic...


    by PeraclesPlease on Thu, 02/22/2018 - 8:07am

    Yeah, I was describing the way it's supposed to work. In the case of a working stiff like "Jim," it probably would work as designed. The folks who get away with serial harassment are "too big to fail" executives and celebrities with enough power and money to silence their victims. These are the chief targets of #MeToo. Yet when these harassers finally get their due (long overdue), some people imagine mobs of angry feminists unfairly destroying the lives of the poor, innocent Jims of the world.


    by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 02/22/2018 - 10:51am

    Wow! Really?

    Do you know anyone who says they faced sexual harassment at work? Even when you can the guy, you can’t repair the damage.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 4:25pm

    This will all be sorted out by Tavis Smiley, Flav.

    I'm being sarcastic, but maybe not, maybe he can redeem himself this way: let's get this back to the courts. devil


    by artappraiser on Wed, 02/21/2018 - 2:17pm

    Harassment is a crime.  A lot of  consequences start  to flow from  agreeing that.. The  punishment  should fit it , for example. 

    Which won't be true if that is  decided by every corporation's HR department.Or CEO.  Or by the victim.

    We also know a lot of other stuff . That if you ignore it, you'll have more of it., that the consequences of conviction need  to  be predictable.  And  not  delayed too long

    And that the accused should be allowed to defend himself. And BTW sometimes  accusations are  false c.f. 1680 Salem.  

    So we could START BY  rationally discussing harassment  and maybe have less of it. That is , if we start by deciding it really is a crime. 

    Despite my provocative title that doesn't mean  #metoo  was wrong.It put the turkey on

    the  table . That was their job. Ours is to proceed rationally 

     

    edited to insert words in CAPS

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Fri, 02/23/2018 - 8:51am

    Latest Comments