High-Profile Sexual Abuse Epidemic

[Coach]

Thanks again.

I guess my thought would be, do you feel it’s within your duties (or should be) to support them in their pursuit of evidence? Or is it/should it be entirely up to them to try and record a conversation. Like mentioned, if someone comes and tells you they think someone is stealing, all of a sudden eyes are on them. Why is it not the same here? I guess it comes down to, does the HR/the company really think there’s a high enough possibility that there are frequently false accusations to the point that when someone has a claim but no evidence that there’s no support in actually seeking out evidence? Especially when there are resources jumping to try and catch Joe Blo stealing a ream of paper?

[Matata]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Titan and Ernie already touched on it, but that bold part is way off base.

We are having this discussion on a board with a pretty diverse membership, many of whom are women, some of whom have undoubtedly been through some form of harassment or worse. Making sure we are careful in how we discuss this is part of making sure women feel comfortable coming forward.

Saying this is a place where the chatter could never affect someone involved ignores the fact that this is a pretty wide spread problem that doesn't just affect Hollywood, famous people, or women who work for the NFL, and it means you are okay with this being a place that isn't welcoming or encouraging of women to speak up.

If we are picking and choosing where it's okay to build the kind of place where women are comfortable coming forward, then we are just paying lip service to the idea, or worse yet, just trying to do it when we think women are listening.

The Plaintiff's position is so far removed from my own reality that I want a much better understanding of the scenario, to accurately do that, I have to ask questions that are unflattering to the victim in order to understand things better.

I understand why it's morally compelling to want to keep the conversation within a strict narrative, but all you end up with is a bunch of people saying the same thing and patting each other on the backs, the conversation becomes about how wonderfully morally empathetic everyone is, which I find to be a very boring conversation with very little room for learning. I want details like what exactly was her rationality for how she went on after getting a second sex toy for christmas. I want to get a better understanding of where the line between victimhood and accountability lies. To root that out, one has to ask ugly questions.

If you want to protect women, wouldn't that best be accomplished by giving them a detailed understanding of how these situations play out so they can better understand how they can respond? By keeping the conversation limited to the plaintiff's victimhood, you tell women that the only role they can play is the victim, and not as an individual who can control their own fate.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I disagree with this, especially in Canada. Smaller employers can be a crap shoot, but most large employers will have a solid program in place now.

There are so many repercussions for employers that don't follow through on harassment. People are more willing than ever to go to the media now and have your company name dragged through the mud.

Human Rights Tribunals can levy very heavy penalties against employers and seek damages for employees. These are a complete crock, are so stacked in favor the employee it isn't even amusing. If you have even a shred of evidence and a few 'witnesses' come forward, you can hold your ex-employer over a barrel for damages.

We can disagree. It's allowed. Though I don't think we are very far apart on this matter to be honest.

I think your post does illustrate the issue. Large employers have things in place NOW. That hasn't historically been the case, nor is any program/process/procedure perfect that improvements can't be made to them. You don't just wipe away decades, no centuries, of harrassment and abuse in a handful of years or because a program is now in place. There's a reason why the #Metoo movement exists.

Large companies do indeed have better resources to create the programs and police them. That's great. Things are indeed changing, however, it should be clear from the #Metoo movement that large companies aren't close to the standard you'd like them to be at.

In addition your comment of small businesses can be a crapshoot says a lot. Yes they are. Unfortunately, ~70% of people in the US are employed by small businesses (95-99% of employing businesses are small businesses). So while large corporations might be doing things that doesn't actually apply to the bulk of the working population.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Which is why it's so nonsensical that a bunch of people have recently been trumpeting a finding of the tribunal in the Alberta Politics thread as if it's some damning indictment of the losing party. Those things aren't courts.

Ezra?

[GGG]

Nm

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Thanks again.

I guess my thought would be, do you feel it’s within your duties (or should be) to support them in their pursuit of evidence? Or is it/should it be entirely up to them to try and record a conversation.

So with this example, difficulty occurs when I now advise an employee to enter a situation where they feel unsafe. Not only could get me in a good deal of trouble, it possibly put this person's safety at risk.

The best course of action is to have that person not to have any more contact than necessary with that employee.

Like mentioned, if someone comes and tells you they think someone is stealing, all of a sudden eyes are on them. Why is it not the same here? I guess it comes down to, does the HR/the company really think there’s a high enough possibility that there are frequently false accusations to the point that when someone has a claim but no evidence that there’s no support in actually seeking out evidence? Especially when there are resources jumping to try and catch Joe Blo stealing a ream of paper?

I think I get what you are trying to ask.

I guess that is the crux of the issue. Once we are aware of a potential situation with harassment, it has to stop immediately. The goal isn't to "catch" someone in the act like it is theft, this has to do with the safety of a person. What we do from that point on, such as separating their shifts, speaking to the individuals involved, putting plans for minimizing interaction in place, is all with the goal of making sure it doesn't happen again and providing a safe work environment for the individuals involved.

Even if there is no evidence supporting the allegation, a meeting with HR about it will scare the crap out of the accused and generally puts an end to most situations.

Most situations aren't quite as black and white as that in my experience. The chances that two perfectly innocent employees are implicated in something like this with no evidence is pretty unlikely. Generally there is a pattern, retaliation because of a disciplinary action, previous history, etc.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

So with this example, difficulty occurs when I now advise an employee to enter a situation where they feel unsafe. Not only could get me in a good deal of trouble, it possibly put this person's safety at risk.

The best course of action is to have that person not to have any more contact than necessary with that employee.



I think I get what you are trying to ask.

I guess that is the crux of the issue. Once we are aware of a potential situation with harassment, it has to stop immediately. The goal isn't to "catch" someone in the act like it is theft, this has to do with the safety of a person. What we do from that point on, such as separating their shifts, speaking to the individuals involved, putting plans for minimizing interaction in place, is all with the goal of making sure it doesn't happen again and providing a safe work environment for the individuals involved.

Even if there is no evidence supporting the allegation, a meeting with HR about it will scare the crap out of the accused and generally puts an end to most situations.

Most situations aren't quite as black and white as that in my experience. The chances that two perfectly innocent employees are implicated in something like this with no evidence is pretty unlikely. Generally there is a pattern, retaliation because of a disciplinary action, previous history, etc.

Much like our justice system the goal shouldn't be punishment but rehabilitation. If someone is being harassed, presumably once you've had the conversation, if the behaviour stops and everyone gets along going forward isn't that the best possible outcome?

[bigtmac19]

Another good article for people who are having difficulty understanding what this kind of behavior has meant for women in the workplace and elsewhere since it has been going on, which is forever.

http://www.laineygossip.com/matt-dam...nterview/48686

"That’s the price that Louis CK’s victims had to pay. Which was to not sign with a certain manager, not apply for certain writing jobs on certain shows that were connected to Louis CK and his manager, and or not pursue comedy in a man’s world. THAT’s the price of payment that we should be talking about. Louis CK may not have raped anyone. He may have “just” pulled his dick out and jerked off in front of his colleagues, but in doing so, he violated their careers, he limited the choices they could make in their careers. That’s years of work and creative potential that is lost forever. But all Matt Damon – and frankly many others – can fixate on is differentiating between a dick pull and a sexual assault. And who does that benefit? It certainly doesn’t benefit women."

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Much like our justice system the goal shouldn't be punishment but rehabilitation. If someone is being harassed, presumably once you've had the conversation, if the behaviour stops and everyone gets along going forward isn't that the best possible outcome?

Yep. Obviously there are going to be some situations that are untenable and other arrangements have to be made, but a perfect outcome is that both parties are able to work together going forward without any further issues.

I will add that the vast majority of this stuff in my experience isn't done with malicious intent by one party. Lots of times it is a misunderstanding of intentions and someone crosses a line or someone thinks they did. I have dealt with people who I would consider to be overtly sleazy and bad people, but they are in the minority of cases.

[Coach]

Really appreciate the discussion thanks Caramon.

I suppose from your perspective you probably cringe quite a bit at the sudden jumping on accused people, given in your experience many situations are built on misunderstanding and ignorance vs malicious intent.

So when someone is accused, do you make them aware of the accusation, or just move to taking the steps you mentioned (separate shifts, etc) hoping to avoid further confrontation? Like, if it’s an issue of misunderstanding, obviously that’s not resolved unless you actually discuss it with both parties and they discuss it with each other potentially or it will just continue due to ignorance. It seems logical to me that the separating of work shifts and stuff wouldn’t happen unless there were multiple/frequent accusations. At that point wouldn’t it be something that should be investegated further with potential dismissals?

[Ashasx]

Not Hollywood but...

Report: John Buccigross, Matthew Berry named in harassment complaints against ESPN

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Not Hollywood but...

Report: John Buccigross, Matthew Berry named in harassment complaints against ESPN

ESPN sounds like a terrible place to work as a woman

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Not Hollywood but...

Report: John Buccigross, Matthew Berry named in harassment complaints against ESPN

the thread should be all walks of life anyway. not just Hollywood.

[PepsiFree]

Updated the title to reflect what’s going on, this is well beyond Hollywood

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Really appreciate the discussion thanks Caramon.

I suppose from your perspective you probably cringe quite a bit at the sudden jumping on accused people, given in your experience many situations are built on misunderstanding and ignorance vs malicious intent.

So when someone is accused, do you make them aware of the accusation, or just move to taking the steps you mentioned (separate shifts, etc) hoping to avoid further confrontation? Like, if it’s an issue of misunderstanding, obviously that’s not resolved unless you actually discuss it with both parties and they discuss it with each other potentially or it will just continue due to ignorance. It seems logical to me that the separating of work shifts and stuff wouldn’t happen unless there were multiple/frequent accusations. At that point wouldn’t it be something that should be investegated further with potential dismissals?

It has to be dealt with and the accused needs to be spoken with, unless it is such a ridiculous accusation. You almost never want to go down the ignorance path if it is a legitimate complaint.

If you are going to look towards eventual dismissal for an employee, the employer could be liable if they were shown to have essentially ignored a bunch of harassment complaints over a certain time frame and then terminated an employee, from both the accused and accusers. Issues need to be a addressed, discipline given and the person needs an opportunity to change their behavior (unless it is that severe).

I deal with many unionized staff, so there are some shift time/change rules I need to adhere to, which makes things more difficult. Occasionally we do temporary shift changes if the accusation is severe enough until we've had time to investigate (i.e. inappropriate touching).

It's a judgment call in some cases for permanent shift changes/moves - it will depend on how the accuser is affected and partly what they want to see as a resolution. I've had some people with severe accusations who wanted to try and work it out, others with less severe accusations who don't want to work with the person ever again. Each situation will call for a slightly different resolution. But yes, a single accusation could easily involve a permanent shift change or site move.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Updated the title to reflect what’s going on, this is well beyond Hollywood

Beyond "high-profile" too.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

It's a judgment call in some cases for permanent shift changes/moves - it will depend on how the accuser is affected and partly what they want to see as a resolution. I've had some people with severe accusations who wanted to try and work it out, others with less severe accusations who don't want to work with the person ever again. Each situation will call for a slightly different resolution. But yes, a single accusation could easily involve a permanent shift change or site move.

I think this is where I’m getting a little uneasy. So in the case of a relatively severe complaint, but an employee is wanting to/open to working it out, should I.t really matter? Why would the company want to keep that person on, even if the employee was okay with trying to work it out. That person sexually harassed a fellow employee, should it matter if the complaintant is open to working with them still?

[CaramonLS]

I think this is where I’m getting a little uneasy. So in the case of a relatively severe complaint, but an employee is wanting to/open to working it out, should I.t really matter? Why would the company want to keep that person on, even if the employee was okay with trying to work it out. That person sexually harassed a fellow employee, should it matter if the complaintant is open to working with them still?

If only it was that easy. Companies aren't given much of a choice.

It is pretty tough, especially in a unionized environment to fire someone who is of sound mind for cause for a single incident of harassment, even if it is significant. Police probably need to be involved or the person has to have some pretty significant authority or abused management powers. Now compound that further with someone who might have a drinking problem, drug problem, be suffering from a mental issue which any doctor will issue a diagnosis for and it becomes nigh impossible to terminate employment under these circumstances. We now have a "duty to accommodate".

If this is something that interests you, I'd encourage you to attend an employment law year in review or something similar, where they review some key arbitration cases. There are cases that will make your head explode and awards that will leave you speechless.

[V]

Ugh, you HR people and your duty to accommodate. I'm tired of having crappy people forced onto my team every time I try to post for a position.

[taco.vidal]

Originally Posted by V

Ugh, you HR people and your duty to accommodate. I'm tired of having crappy people forced onto my team every time I try to post for a position.

HR needs more diversity as well. Very few if any CIS males in most HR departments.