4 ms·

Zero tolerance polices are almost never a good idea. There should always be some room for human grace and forgiveness, and room for misunderstandings to be work

Zero tolerance polices are almost never a good idea. There should always be some room for human grace and forgiveness, and room for misunderstandings to be worked through and resolved. Zero tolerance policies give way too much power to people who might cry "wolf" to benefit their own careers.

r00fus 9y ago
From TFA: "From this point forward, when we encounter something unacceptable, it’s our responsibility to confront it. The offending party has the opportunity to apologize, own their behavior, and change it going forward. " Doesn't sound so intolerant. There is a 2nd chance given. But not a third.
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  It also doesn't sound like a zero tolerance policy
- falcolas 9y ago
  The article also says, "If found to be valid, we will request an immediate termination of the harasser, regardless of job position." Not as supportive of a second chance. Especially since this wording is part of the actual policy, not the soft sell leading up to it. I interpret it as: If I fuck up once, even if I recognize and own it, I will still be fired if the victim reports it. This would seem to encourage silence and denial on the part of the accused, since owning up to it will be effectively a confession. And in such an environment, the power will reside almost entirely with the accusers, since I can't imagine the accused ever winning in a pure hearsay (i.e. no witnesses) investigation.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Note that the two quoted pieces refer to different problems. One is treatment short of professional respect[0] (for which second chances are held out), the other is validated complaints of sexual harassment (for which no second chances are held out.) This appears to be both a clear zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment, and an attempt to prevent anything near the border of harassment and illegal discrimination by addressing behavior which is not necessarily illegal but falls short of professionalism strongly (but without a “zero-tolerance” approach.) [0] it says such treatment is unacceptable, then relates the consequences of discovery of such unacceptable behavior.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    I agree with you that this is in contrast to the verbiage I posted. The crux is the investigation. Will it be a "we must have a clean image so any hint of impropriety will be pruned aggressively" or "we won't let unsubstantiated accusations derail a valuable employee" or somewhere in between? Another question is, how will they handle the false accusers? A lot of questions to be clarified if you happen to be part of their ecosystem.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    I really can't see actual harassment being seen as a "fuck up", though. A fuck up is an accident. Harassment is deliberate. And, quite frankly, we all should be adults, and we should know how to act in the workplace.

r00fus 9y ago

From TFA: "From this point forward, when we encounter something unacceptable, it’s our responsibility to confront it. The offending party has the opportunity to apologize, own their behavior, and change it going forward. " Doesn't sound so intolerant. There is a 2nd chance given. But not a third.

oh_sigh 9y ago
It also doesn't sound like a zero tolerance policy
falcolas 9y ago
The article also says, "If found to be valid, we will request an immediate termination of the harasser, regardless of job position." Not as supportive of a second chance. Especially since this wording is part of the actual policy, not the soft sell leading up to it. I interpret it as: If I fuck up once, even if I recognize and own it, I will still be fired if the victim reports it. This would seem to encourage silence and denial on the part of the accused, since owning up to it will be effectively a confession. And in such an environment, the power will reside almost entirely with the accusers, since I can't imagine the accused ever winning in a pure hearsay (i.e. no witnesses) investigation.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Note that the two quoted pieces refer to different problems. One is treatment short of professional respect[0] (for which second chances are held out), the other is validated complaints of sexual harassment (for which no second chances are held out.) This appears to be both a clear zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment, and an attempt to prevent anything near the border of harassment and illegal discrimination by addressing behavior which is not necessarily illegal but falls short of professionalism strongly (but without a “zero-tolerance” approach.) [0] it says such treatment is unacceptable, then relates the consequences of discovery of such unacceptable behavior.
- r00fus 9y ago
  I agree with you that this is in contrast to the verbiage I posted. The crux is the investigation. Will it be a "we must have a clean image so any hint of impropriety will be pruned aggressively" or "we won't let unsubstantiated accusations derail a valuable employee" or somewhere in between? Another question is, how will they handle the false accusers? A lot of questions to be clarified if you happen to be part of their ecosystem.
- s73ver 9y ago
  I really can't see actual harassment being seen as a "fuck up", though. A fuck up is an accident. Harassment is deliberate. And, quite frankly, we all should be adults, and we should know how to act in the workplace.