4 ms·

And the thing about questioning, I understand innocent until proven guilty, but putting the onus of everything on the victim is pretty unfair ..

tomp 10y ago
I agree with you. I definitely wouldn't trust an employee's accusations without a proper investigation, but contacting the alleged abusers and reminding them to behave professionally doesn't seem to be a problem. Especially since (in general) they might be unaware of the effect their behaviour has on you!
AlexB138 10y ago
No, actually, it's not. You're accusing someone of something very serious that puts their livelihood at stake. You need to have proof in that situation. It's a very intense and emotional experience, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to automatically assume the alleged victim is being honest.
- smsowmya 10y ago
  And that's what makes victims think 100 times before making a formal allegation .. and why most don't report it.
  - AlexB138 10y ago
    What does? The necessity that you should actually show something is occurring before a company destroys someone's reputation and livelihood? Reality is that people lie. Do you genuinely believe that an accusation should be taken as 100% truth simply on one person's word? Do you not see how easily that become a weapon? Even reprimanding a person, when there's no proof they've done anything wrong, establishes a bias against them. That's a great way to alienate an employee who may have done nothing wrong, not to mention opening the thread of legal repercussion.
    - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
      Why can't a formal investigation happen anyways in an anonymous fashion? It takes the concerns seriously and also doesn't automatically assume I'll intent on either side. I don't see the point in dismissing op and assuming someone accused of harassment is the first person that needs protection and support over people who are concerned they are being harassed to the point they make complaints about it...
      - AlexB138 10y ago
        An anonymous formal investigation absolutely should happen. The OP seems to arguing that you shouldn't even question someone who claims they are being harassed, and that is what I take exception with. Both people in the situation should be treated as innocent until there is proof otherwise.
        smsowmya 10y ago
        There is a difference between questioning someone and proceeding with the investigation to ascertain proof and actions if necessary. One assumes there are concerns that need to be looked into, the other one implies the accuser is lying ... the former is good faith and the latter is dissuading someone from proceeding.
      - smsowmya 10y ago
        it should happen, but the company can either encourage it or discourage it .. and that stance is important ..
  - Helmet 10y ago
    Yes, but consider the opposite scenario, where the onus is placed on the accused. Virtually every situation would be a nightmare to deal with; careers would be ruined on false allegations, and eventually accusers would lose credibility. I understand where you are coming from, and I do empathize with your situation and believe that Apple should have done more, but I'm firmly in the camp that the onus of proof should be on the accuser while also firmly believing that the accusers claims should be taken very seriously.
    - smsowmya 10y ago
      to be honest, women's careers are ruined far more than men. how many men do you know who have been ostracized ? trump is president for crying out loud.. and ailes is happily working for him..
    - smsowmya 10y ago
      anyway, i only said the company needs to encourage investigations and reporting, not discourage them. this has nothing to do with people at all - it is the company's attitude that i am talking about.
- csydas 10y ago
  I disagree slightly - having been in management and having dealt with multiple harassment issues, the responsibility of the target of harassment is to report it, and it is the management's responsibility to investigate even handedly. As outside observers, we need to try to restrain ourselves and refrain from brash judgements. Harassment situations like these can be difficult to talk about publicly for a number of reasons; respecting the privacy of all parties involved, readers' natural tendencies to issue a judgement, and so on. My take has always been that anonymized public stories like these are mostly as awareness raising not specific accusations - the emphasis is on the difficulty of the experience, not really trying to bring a specific person to justice (usually, of course there are exceptions). I do think that, if the reader is receptive, such stories are useful for helping to understand what this sort of thing looks like and what someone who is targeted by harassment is going through and perhaps provide suggestions to those who can help on how to help. But as for placing guilt itself, I'd suggest that's not the business of stories like this or the business of those reading it. Even when you are in a position where it is your responsibility to address an issue of harassment, getting the story in a fair way is very difficult, and it's really unpleasant for everyone involved. Those who are responsible for others of course need to get over the discomfort of such discussions and work to resolve the issues, whether it's by correcting behavior or helping to explain misunderstandings, which can still be hurtful even if they are not meant to be. It is unfortunate though understandable why many businesses take a handsoff position out of fear of legal reprecussions, since such actions just make the entire thing worse. Pretending it's not happening doesn't help anyone, whether it's based on a misunderstanding or not. edit: changed onus to "responsibility of" since I cross posted mentally from a different discussion
- dang 10y ago
  In this context, "No, actually, it's not" is not a particularly civil way to make this point. The valid countervailing concern you're raising would not be hard to express in a good-faith way. I think we can all agree that there are multiple concerns and it's not obvious how to balance them. The fact that you led with "No actually" instead, and ended by imputing a strawman ("everyone needs to automatically assume") gives your comment an absence-of-good-faith quality that we should all be striving to avoid on HN—particularly when the topic is divisive.
  - AlexB138 10y ago
    I'm sorry if I've violated some set of community standards. I personally find this article rather distasteful and lacking in details. The cultural signaling strewn throughout it come off as an attempts to raise an angry internet mob against a company based on what is very clearly a bias representation of the situation. This sort of manipulation and axe-grinding is not something I see as being in particularly good faith, so my distaste for it colored my comments. I tried to make sure I wasn't attacking anyone, but rather the ideas presented. I'll keep your guidance in mind if I find myself making such comments again.
- smsowmya 10y ago
  what about the livelihood of the victim ? is that not at stake because of someone else's misbehavior ?
eternalban 10y ago
Curious as to your thoughts on official corporate surveillance on employees in context of this sort of she said/he said situations.
- smsowmya 10y ago
  If things happen in places that have cameras, maybe it is helpful. But otherwise ? These things just happen - they cannot really be anticipated.

tomp 10y ago

I agree with you. I definitely wouldn't trust an employee's accusations without a proper investigation, but contacting the alleged abusers and reminding them to behave professionally doesn't seem to be a problem. Especially since (in general) they might be unaware of the effect their behaviour has on you!

AlexB138 10y ago

No, actually, it's not. You're accusing someone of something very serious that puts their livelihood at stake. You need to have proof in that situation. It's a very intense and emotional experience, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to automatically assume the alleged victim is being honest.

smsowmya 10y ago
And that's what makes victims think 100 times before making a formal allegation .. and why most don't report it.
- AlexB138 10y ago
  What does? The necessity that you should actually show something is occurring before a company destroys someone's reputation and livelihood? Reality is that people lie. Do you genuinely believe that an accusation should be taken as 100% truth simply on one person's word? Do you not see how easily that become a weapon? Even reprimanding a person, when there's no proof they've done anything wrong, establishes a bias against them. That's a great way to alienate an employee who may have done nothing wrong, not to mention opening the thread of legal repercussion.
  - SolaceQuantum 10y ago
    Why can't a formal investigation happen anyways in an anonymous fashion? It takes the concerns seriously and also doesn't automatically assume I'll intent on either side. I don't see the point in dismissing op and assuming someone accused of harassment is the first person that needs protection and support over people who are concerned they are being harassed to the point they make complaints about it...
    - AlexB138 10y ago
      An anonymous formal investigation absolutely should happen. The OP seems to arguing that you shouldn't even question someone who claims they are being harassed, and that is what I take exception with. Both people in the situation should be treated as innocent until there is proof otherwise.
      - smsowmya 10y ago
        There is a difference between questioning someone and proceeding with the investigation to ascertain proof and actions if necessary. One assumes there are concerns that need to be looked into, the other one implies the accuser is lying ... the former is good faith and the latter is dissuading someone from proceeding.
    - smsowmya 10y ago
      it should happen, but the company can either encourage it or discourage it .. and that stance is important ..
- Helmet 10y ago
  Yes, but consider the opposite scenario, where the onus is placed on the accused. Virtually every situation would be a nightmare to deal with; careers would be ruined on false allegations, and eventually accusers would lose credibility. I understand where you are coming from, and I do empathize with your situation and believe that Apple should have done more, but I'm firmly in the camp that the onus of proof should be on the accuser while also firmly believing that the accusers claims should be taken very seriously.
  - smsowmya 10y ago
    to be honest, women's careers are ruined far more than men. how many men do you know who have been ostracized ? trump is president for crying out loud.. and ailes is happily working for him..
  - smsowmya 10y ago
    anyway, i only said the company needs to encourage investigations and reporting, not discourage them. this has nothing to do with people at all - it is the company's attitude that i am talking about.
csydas 10y ago
I disagree slightly - having been in management and having dealt with multiple harassment issues, the responsibility of the target of harassment is to report it, and it is the management's responsibility to investigate even handedly. As outside observers, we need to try to restrain ourselves and refrain from brash judgements. Harassment situations like these can be difficult to talk about publicly for a number of reasons; respecting the privacy of all parties involved, readers' natural tendencies to issue a judgement, and so on. My take has always been that anonymized public stories like these are mostly as awareness raising not specific accusations - the emphasis is on the difficulty of the experience, not really trying to bring a specific person to justice (usually, of course there are exceptions). I do think that, if the reader is receptive, such stories are useful for helping to understand what this sort of thing looks like and what someone who is targeted by harassment is going through and perhaps provide suggestions to those who can help on how to help. But as for placing guilt itself, I'd suggest that's not the business of stories like this or the business of those reading it. Even when you are in a position where it is your responsibility to address an issue of harassment, getting the story in a fair way is very difficult, and it's really unpleasant for everyone involved. Those who are responsible for others of course need to get over the discomfort of such discussions and work to resolve the issues, whether it's by correcting behavior or helping to explain misunderstandings, which can still be hurtful even if they are not meant to be. It is unfortunate though understandable why many businesses take a handsoff position out of fear of legal reprecussions, since such actions just make the entire thing worse. Pretending it's not happening doesn't help anyone, whether it's based on a misunderstanding or not. edit: changed onus to "responsibility of" since I cross posted mentally from a different discussion
dang 10y ago
In this context, "No, actually, it's not" is not a particularly civil way to make this point. The valid countervailing concern you're raising would not be hard to express in a good-faith way. I think we can all agree that there are multiple concerns and it's not obvious how to balance them. The fact that you led with "No actually" instead, and ended by imputing a strawman ("everyone needs to automatically assume") gives your comment an absence-of-good-faith quality that we should all be striving to avoid on HN—particularly when the topic is divisive.
- AlexB138 10y ago
  I'm sorry if I've violated some set of community standards. I personally find this article rather distasteful and lacking in details. The cultural signaling strewn throughout it come off as an attempts to raise an angry internet mob against a company based on what is very clearly a bias representation of the situation. This sort of manipulation and axe-grinding is not something I see as being in particularly good faith, so my distaste for it colored my comments. I tried to make sure I wasn't attacking anyone, but rather the ideas presented. I'll keep your guidance in mind if I find myself making such comments again.
smsowmya 10y ago
what about the livelihood of the victim ? is that not at stake because of someone else's misbehavior ?

eternalban 10y ago

Curious as to your thoughts on official corporate surveillance on employees in context of this sort of she said/he said situations.

smsowmya 10y ago
If things happen in places that have cameras, maybe it is helpful. But otherwise ? These things just happen - they cannot really be anticipated.