6 ms·

Unions are obligated to defend the person accused of harassment. Why do you believe that giving accused harassers another line of defense will help?

andy_ppp 10y ago
And they are also obligated to defend the accuser right? Your arguments are very one sided; makes me think you just dislike unions.
- Symmetry 10y ago
  Well, they're obligated to prevent the accuser from losing their job from making the accusation. The accuser probably wants more than that, however. My understanding is that in many countries other than the US unions are legally allowed to do the sort of self-policing of their members that would help in this case. The law exists because historically many non-socialist unions in the US formed part of the bulwark of segregation and had to be prevented from finding ways to kick non-white members out.
- 013a 10y ago
  Unions are obligated to protect jobs. In this situation, the perpetrator's job is at stake, but the victim's job is not.
byroot 10y ago
Unions defends workers like lawyers defend criminals. They make sure your rights are preserved. Do you think people accused of harassment shouldn't be defended by lawyers?
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I'm glad we are in agreement - unions will attempt to protect the job/rights of the accused harasser. Hence my comment that I'd be very happy to have a union rep if I wanted to harass people.
  - 14113 10y ago
    Just as you'd be happy to have a lawyer if you wanted to commit a crime - your point being?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I'm glad we all now agree that the main problem to be solved with sexual harassment cases is ensuring the protection of the accused and due process. Strange - so much interest in due process now. But I don't recall seeing a single comment of that nature when discussing Uber firing Amit Singhal, or Susan Fowler's accusations. Where were all the union advocates then?
      - abiox 10y ago
        probably because they weren't mentioned then, and unions aren't that topical in the US where the corporate lobby has mostly dismantled them and disadvantaged the citizenry.
  - dannypgh 10y ago
    I don't think this is inherent to the idea of a union. Unions should be democratic (I don't defend unions that don't give a shit about democracy), and tend to be quite concerned with process. If the union wants to support the accused and not defend the harasser that's their perogative, and if you don't like how your union handles (or doesn't handle) these situations you have the ability to lobby your union to change its process.
  - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
    Except that the victim of the harassment would also have union representation. Assuming that both the perpetrator and the victim started out equal, the union hasn't changed the balance of power at all. However, in most cases of harassment, the perpetrator is someone with more power than the victim, so the union shifts power towards the victim.
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    Isn't the union going to protect the rights/jobs of both the accuser and the accused until a determination is reached?
alex_hitchins 10y ago
Are you sure? Is that really the case? They have a legal duty to defend you against all charges whatever the evidence? I don't think so. Certainly not in the UK. I know people who have been dismissed by the employer with the union rep present to ensure it's legal and above board and the worker is represented. Representation isn't equal to defense. Edit : Spelling

andy_ppp 10y ago

And they are also obligated to defend the accuser right? Your arguments are very one sided; makes me think you just dislike unions.

Symmetry 10y ago
Well, they're obligated to prevent the accuser from losing their job from making the accusation. The accuser probably wants more than that, however. My understanding is that in many countries other than the US unions are legally allowed to do the sort of self-policing of their members that would help in this case. The law exists because historically many non-socialist unions in the US formed part of the bulwark of segregation and had to be prevented from finding ways to kick non-white members out.
013a 10y ago
Unions are obligated to protect jobs. In this situation, the perpetrator's job is at stake, but the victim's job is not.

byroot 10y ago

Unions defends workers like lawyers defend criminals. They make sure your rights are preserved. Do you think people accused of harassment shouldn't be defended by lawyers?

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I'm glad we are in agreement - unions will attempt to protect the job/rights of the accused harasser. Hence my comment that I'd be very happy to have a union rep if I wanted to harass people.
- 14113 10y ago
  Just as you'd be happy to have a lawyer if you wanted to commit a crime - your point being?
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    I'm glad we all now agree that the main problem to be solved with sexual harassment cases is ensuring the protection of the accused and due process. Strange - so much interest in due process now. But I don't recall seeing a single comment of that nature when discussing Uber firing Amit Singhal, or Susan Fowler's accusations. Where were all the union advocates then?
    - abiox 10y ago
      probably because they weren't mentioned then, and unions aren't that topical in the US where the corporate lobby has mostly dismantled them and disadvantaged the citizenry.
- dannypgh 10y ago
  I don't think this is inherent to the idea of a union. Unions should be democratic (I don't defend unions that don't give a shit about democracy), and tend to be quite concerned with process. If the union wants to support the accused and not defend the harasser that's their perogative, and if you don't like how your union handles (or doesn't handle) these situations you have the ability to lobby your union to change its process.
- TheCoelacanth 10y ago
  Except that the victim of the harassment would also have union representation. Assuming that both the perpetrator and the victim started out equal, the union hasn't changed the balance of power at all. However, in most cases of harassment, the perpetrator is someone with more power than the victim, so the union shifts power towards the victim.
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  Isn't the union going to protect the rights/jobs of both the accuser and the accused until a determination is reached?

alex_hitchins 10y ago

Are you sure? Is that really the case? They have a legal duty to defend you against all charges whatever the evidence? I don't think so. Certainly not in the UK. I know people who have been dismissed by the employer with the union rep present to ensure it's legal and above board and the worker is represented. Representation isn't equal to defense. Edit : Spelling