6 ms·

Why does nobody seem to be bothered with the apologize and continue as usual outcome? Shouldn't there have been serious implications for the sexual offender?

by eklavya 11y ago

mollmerx 11y ago
This. I find it surprising that the offender wasn't terminated and incomprehensible that the victim was required to continue reporting to him.
room271 11y ago
Yes, for the things she describes her manager should have been fired, not kept on after some kind of apology.
Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
I have to write this comment pretty carefully to avoid vindicating the offender or blaming the victim. It seems to me like the victim wasn't making it clear that she was uncomfortable (this is not her fault), and perhaps the offender was picking up on signals that weren't there. The situation needed to be fixed, but the behaviour mentioned in the article could have been more flirtatious than forced. A zero tolerance policy is just a way of removing the humanity from the situation. Maybe the events weren't so severe to demand that he lose his job, has charges pressed, etc. I don't think we should be calling for his head. I am surprised that she continued to work under his management, though.
- panic 11y ago
  It doesn't matter if it was "more flirtatious than forced". A manager should not flirt with their reports. Managers are supposed to be responsible for the growth of their employees; making an employee so uncomfortable with you that they run away from you on sight is a spectacular failure to do your job.
  - edraferi 11y ago
    Correct. It's harder to enforce judgements on this kind of thing though, because ambiguity exists about the intention. It's much easier to punish clear "do me a favor for the promotion/bonus" situations. I agree a blanket "no romance with direct reports" rule is best. I'm just astonished she didn't get an immediate transfer to another group. I would be livid if this was happening and HR didn't remove the power dynamic immediately.
    - tomp 11y ago
      > I agree a blanket "no romance with direct reports" rule is best. So what would you do if a manager and his/her report fall in love (mutually)? Fire the manager? If not, then your "rule" can't be applied indiscriminately.
- nikcub 11y ago
  > It seems to me like the victim wasn't making it clear that she was uncomfortable The default position should be to assume that everybody is uncomfortable with everything unless otherwise stated. It's like a good firewall policy - default block all and then explicitly allow.
  - forgottenpass 11y ago
    That's a good way to wind up unhappy and alone at work. Chances are that anyone using that strategy and isn't miserable has a fair number of unspoken assumptions about acceptable behavior, and don't actually use that strategy but are slightly more guarded that normal so they think they do.
    - nikcub 11y ago
      That not wanting to be sexually harassed would make someone unhappy and miserable in a workplace is exactly the problem.
      - ethbro 11y ago
        You missed forgottenpass's more nuanced point. "Not wanting to be sexually harassed would make someone unhappy and miserable in a workplace" was not the assertion. The assertion was "going to such extremes as to guarantee that no claims of sexual harassment could at any time be made against you would make you unhappy and miserable in a workplace".
  - ethbro 11y ago
    If I assumed everyone at work was uncomfortable with everything I might say, then I would be the most boring coworker ever. This isn't an absolute kind of issue. If instead you meant "assume that everybody is uncomfortable with everything [approaching any kind of sexual tone]", then that's more realistic but simultaneously introduces a lot more gray area.
  - dawnbreez 11y ago
    This fails for the same reason "stranger danger" fails; in order to get anything done, you must connect on a certain level. To use your analgoy, you could run a server entirely via port 22. But it can't host a webpage, run game servers, or do much of anything else if it only accepts SSH via 22. The process of socializing is kind of like vetting another server to see if you can trust them enough to use FTP or whatever. Sometimes, yeah, they screw with you; but not always. And the benefits once you do find someone trustworthy are greater than the chance of a bad actor. Now, whether or not one should trust coworkers, and how much, is a personal question. You gotta decide that on your own.
- hluska 11y ago
  Okay, let me make this clear. Under absolutely no circumstances is it even remotely appropriate for a manager to flirt with any direct reports. It is always 100% wrong and there is never any room for this type of bullshit.
  - tomp 11y ago
    So what would you do if a manager and his/her report fall in love and get married? Fire the manager? If not, then it's hard to say "it is always 100% wrong".
    - hluska 11y ago
      Decisions like that cannot happen in a vacuum so I would have to collect more information. For example, did the manager disclose the relationship to his/her direct manager before the wedding? If so, were there any controls put in place to make sure that the report was treated fairly? And then, what about the rest of the team? How do they feel about the relationship? Does it hurt their ability to do their jobs? Do they feel they are treated fairly? The way that you have worded that scenario makes me think that nobody in the organization knew about the relationship before the wedding. In that case, I would likely want to fire the manager, though I can see how that could open up a metric shit ton of litigation, so I may not get my wish. If I couldn't outright terminate the manager, at minimum, I would make sure that he/she was no longer his/her spouse's direct manager. That might mean a transfer to another department, or it might even mean a demotion. Perhaps most damaging, I would never particularly trust the manager or his/her judgment again. Continuing to supervise someone who you are in love with is just an incredible conflict of interest. Keeping it a secret and not giving me the chance to make sure that there are controls in place just makes it all the worse. Just a few notes to my answer: 1.) I am Canadian and Canadian courts have ruled that managers have an implied duty to make sure that the workplace is not poisoned by sexual harassment. Further, they have ruled that managers also have an implied duty to protect the company itself from any sort of harassment claim. 2.) I am a huge fan of written policy forbidding romantic relationships between a manager and his/her direct reports.
      - 11y ago
- eklavya 11y ago
  The aftermath of the events left her pretty shaken, I don't think any of it was mild (sit on my lap, WTF!!). I have seen people allowed to change teams/managers for much much lesser degrees of uncomfortable. At least in the companies I have worked in, it would pretty much guarantee that the manager was made to leave.
- gotchange 11y ago
  > perhaps the offender was picking up on signals that weren't there. Who would ask his love interest to sit on his lap at work? Do you really think that this is appropriate for even lovers in the workplace? Even if there was something going there between them, it's unprofessional to flirt and fool around while working. Call me old school or what but we have weekends and off-work hours for these types of activities and everyone should make use of them accordingly.
DannoHung 11y ago
It was super fucking gross. That said, I get the impression that she didn't immediately think to record evidence of his transgressions. In that case, HR usually will have to split the baby because they are ultimately there to protect the company. If it was the first time this guy has done something wrong, which is kind of unbelievable, then it's not a horrible result. Maybe he really is just that socially backwards that he needed an HR intervention to learn what everyone fucking should know. But the cynic in most of us is saying that this is a pattern of behavior that was probably repeated in a more covert manner.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 11y ago
Absolutely, though I don't think the term 'sexual offender' is appropriate, that is iirc reserved for people that have been convicted of a sexual offense.

Why does nobody seem to be bothered with the apologize and continue as usual outcome? Shouldn't there have been serious implications for the sexual offender?

by eklavya 11y ago

Why does nobody seem to be bothered with the apologize and continue as usual outcome? Shouldn't there have been serious implications for the sexual offender?

mollmerx 11y ago

This. I find it surprising that the offender wasn't terminated and incomprehensible that the victim was required to continue reporting to him.

room271 11y ago

Yes, for the things she describes her manager should have been fired, not kept on after some kind of apology.

Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago

I have to write this comment pretty carefully to avoid vindicating the offender or blaming the victim. It seems to me like the victim wasn't making it clear that she was uncomfortable (this is not her fault), and perhaps the offender was picking up on signals that weren't there. The situation needed to be fixed, but the behaviour mentioned in the article could have been more flirtatious than forced. A zero tolerance policy is just a way of removing the humanity from the situation. Maybe the events weren't so severe to demand that he lose his job, has charges pressed, etc. I don't think we should be calling for his head. I am surprised that she continued to work under his management, though.

panic 11y ago
It doesn't matter if it was "more flirtatious than forced". A manager should not flirt with their reports. Managers are supposed to be responsible for the growth of their employees; making an employee so uncomfortable with you that they run away from you on sight is a spectacular failure to do your job.
- edraferi 11y ago
  Correct. It's harder to enforce judgements on this kind of thing though, because ambiguity exists about the intention. It's much easier to punish clear "do me a favor for the promotion/bonus" situations. I agree a blanket "no romance with direct reports" rule is best. I'm just astonished she didn't get an immediate transfer to another group. I would be livid if this was happening and HR didn't remove the power dynamic immediately.
  - tomp 11y ago
    > I agree a blanket "no romance with direct reports" rule is best. So what would you do if a manager and his/her report fall in love (mutually)? Fire the manager? If not, then your "rule" can't be applied indiscriminately.
nikcub 11y ago
> It seems to me like the victim wasn't making it clear that she was uncomfortable The default position should be to assume that everybody is uncomfortable with everything unless otherwise stated. It's like a good firewall policy - default block all and then explicitly allow.
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  That's a good way to wind up unhappy and alone at work. Chances are that anyone using that strategy and isn't miserable has a fair number of unspoken assumptions about acceptable behavior, and don't actually use that strategy but are slightly more guarded that normal so they think they do.
  - nikcub 11y ago
    That not wanting to be sexually harassed would make someone unhappy and miserable in a workplace is exactly the problem.
    - ethbro 11y ago
      You missed forgottenpass's more nuanced point. "Not wanting to be sexually harassed would make someone unhappy and miserable in a workplace" was not the assertion. The assertion was "going to such extremes as to guarantee that no claims of sexual harassment could at any time be made against you would make you unhappy and miserable in a workplace".
- ethbro 11y ago
  If I assumed everyone at work was uncomfortable with everything I might say, then I would be the most boring coworker ever. This isn't an absolute kind of issue. If instead you meant "assume that everybody is uncomfortable with everything [approaching any kind of sexual tone]", then that's more realistic but simultaneously introduces a lot more gray area.
- dawnbreez 11y ago
  This fails for the same reason "stranger danger" fails; in order to get anything done, you must connect on a certain level. To use your analgoy, you could run a server entirely via port 22. But it can't host a webpage, run game servers, or do much of anything else if it only accepts SSH via 22. The process of socializing is kind of like vetting another server to see if you can trust them enough to use FTP or whatever. Sometimes, yeah, they screw with you; but not always. And the benefits once you do find someone trustworthy are greater than the chance of a bad actor. Now, whether or not one should trust coworkers, and how much, is a personal question. You gotta decide that on your own.
hluska 11y ago
Okay, let me make this clear. Under absolutely no circumstances is it even remotely appropriate for a manager to flirt with any direct reports. It is always 100% wrong and there is never any room for this type of bullshit.
- tomp 11y ago
  So what would you do if a manager and his/her report fall in love and get married? Fire the manager? If not, then it's hard to say "it is always 100% wrong".
  - hluska 11y ago
    Decisions like that cannot happen in a vacuum so I would have to collect more information. For example, did the manager disclose the relationship to his/her direct manager before the wedding? If so, were there any controls put in place to make sure that the report was treated fairly? And then, what about the rest of the team? How do they feel about the relationship? Does it hurt their ability to do their jobs? Do they feel they are treated fairly? The way that you have worded that scenario makes me think that nobody in the organization knew about the relationship before the wedding. In that case, I would likely want to fire the manager, though I can see how that could open up a metric shit ton of litigation, so I may not get my wish. If I couldn't outright terminate the manager, at minimum, I would make sure that he/she was no longer his/her spouse's direct manager. That might mean a transfer to another department, or it might even mean a demotion. Perhaps most damaging, I would never particularly trust the manager or his/her judgment again. Continuing to supervise someone who you are in love with is just an incredible conflict of interest. Keeping it a secret and not giving me the chance to make sure that there are controls in place just makes it all the worse. Just a few notes to my answer: 1.) I am Canadian and Canadian courts have ruled that managers have an implied duty to make sure that the workplace is not poisoned by sexual harassment. Further, they have ruled that managers also have an implied duty to protect the company itself from any sort of harassment claim. 2.) I am a huge fan of written policy forbidding romantic relationships between a manager and his/her direct reports.
    - 11y ago
eklavya 11y ago
The aftermath of the events left her pretty shaken, I don't think any of it was mild (sit on my lap, WTF!!). I have seen people allowed to change teams/managers for much much lesser degrees of uncomfortable. At least in the companies I have worked in, it would pretty much guarantee that the manager was made to leave.
gotchange 11y ago
> perhaps the offender was picking up on signals that weren't there. Who would ask his love interest to sit on his lap at work? Do you really think that this is appropriate for even lovers in the workplace? Even if there was something going there between them, it's unprofessional to flirt and fool around while working. Call me old school or what but we have weekends and off-work hours for these types of activities and everyone should make use of them accordingly.

DannoHung 11y ago

It was super fucking gross. That said, I get the impression that she didn't immediately think to record evidence of his transgressions. In that case, HR usually will have to split the baby because they are ultimately there to protect the company. If it was the first time this guy has done something wrong, which is kind of unbelievable, then it's not a horrible result. Maybe he really is just that socially backwards that he needed an HR intervention to learn what everyone fucking should know. But the cynic in most of us is saying that this is a pattern of behavior that was probably repeated in a more covert manner.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 11y ago

Absolutely, though I don't think the term 'sexual offender' is appropriate, that is iirc reserved for people that have been convicted of a sexual offense.