4 ms·

> Even if you believe that, why shouldn’t there be a process to investigate the claims? Because it quickly becomes a witch-hunt. It is hard enough to have a f

> Even if you believe that, why shouldn’t there be a process to investigate the claims? Because it quickly becomes a witch-hunt. It is hard enough to have a fair investigation within a proper court system and legal framework - it’s far more likely any Google process will end up as a kangaroo court than the process leading to any justice.

cimmanom 8y ago
So you think all claims should be dismissed as false and people who are actually subjected to sexual harassment and coercion at work should have no recourse.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > So you think all claims should be dismissed as false Why would you think that? I think the majority of claims need to go into the “not really sure” bucket where they belong. Acknowledging this basic truth does not mean you have to then do nothing.
  - cimmanom 8y ago
    Which is why they merit investigation. For which there should be a process. Without an investigation process, what alternatives would you suggest for avoiding treating all claims as true or all claims as false?
    - sheepmullet 8y ago
      > what alternatives would you suggest There are many well tested solutions but they all carry different trade offs. E.g. - Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies. Or, - When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams. Etc.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams. That's a very good way to be found liable for both later harassment by the accused and, if you move the accuser, for retaliation; and also a PR nightmare when it is discovered to have been your policy or even a common practice to move accused wrongdoers without follow-up (just ask the Catholic Church.)
        sheepmullet 8y ago
        > just ask the Catholic Church If priests had been moved around for simply leering at a woman or making a suggestive sexual comment I don’t think there would have been any outrage. I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes - or any crimes for that matter.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes You are suggesting that they should shuffle people around without investigation to quiet complaints of situations against which are obligated by law to protect their employees, including potentially involuntary reassignment of the reporting party (again, without investigation of the facts) despite the legal prohibition on retaliation.
        sheepmullet 8y ago
        > to quiet complaints Uh no - to protect their employees from abuse. > despite the legal prohibition on retaliation. Why is it retaliation to seperate the accused and accuser? In fact if you don’t seperate them you are opening yourself up to legal liability and a PR nightmare.
      - cimmanom 8y ago
        > Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies. This addresses only the tiniest subset of issues, and mostly the ones toward the consensual end of the spectrum. Groping; quid pro quo suggestions (subtle or explicit); coercive threats (subtle or explicit); lewd remarks; invitations to strip clubs; etc ad nauseum (and yes, they're nauseating) have nothing to do with actual romantic relationships. > When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams. Due to the nature of company hierarchies, this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain much more than it does the one higher - both in terms of short term impacts and long term career advancement. Which often means punishing the victim, due to how the power dynamics of harassment interactions tend to work out. It's also a pretty damn weak reaction. If your Director of X insinuates that they'll fire an engineer if the engineer won't sleep with the director, you think the only consequence for the director should be that that engineer no longer reports to them?

cimmanom 8y ago

So you think all claims should be dismissed as false and people who are actually subjected to sexual harassment and coercion at work should have no recourse.

sheepmullet 8y ago
> So you think all claims should be dismissed as false Why would you think that? I think the majority of claims need to go into the “not really sure” bucket where they belong. Acknowledging this basic truth does not mean you have to then do nothing.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  Which is why they merit investigation. For which there should be a process. Without an investigation process, what alternatives would you suggest for avoiding treating all claims as true or all claims as false?
  - sheepmullet 8y ago
    > what alternatives would you suggest There are many well tested solutions but they all carry different trade offs. E.g. - Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies. Or, - When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams. Etc.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams. That's a very good way to be found liable for both later harassment by the accused and, if you move the accuser, for retaliation; and also a PR nightmare when it is discovered to have been your policy or even a common practice to move accused wrongdoers without follow-up (just ask the Catholic Church.)
      - sheepmullet 8y ago
        > just ask the Catholic Church If priests had been moved around for simply leering at a woman or making a suggestive sexual comment I don’t think there would have been any outrage. I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes - or any crimes for that matter.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes You are suggesting that they should shuffle people around without investigation to quiet complaints of situations against which are obligated by law to protect their employees, including potentially involuntary reassignment of the reporting party (again, without investigation of the facts) despite the legal prohibition on retaliation.
        sheepmullet 8y ago
        > to quiet complaints Uh no - to protect their employees from abuse. > despite the legal prohibition on retaliation. Why is it retaliation to seperate the accused and accuser? In fact if you don’t seperate them you are opening yourself up to legal liability and a PR nightmare.
    - cimmanom 8y ago
      > Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies. This addresses only the tiniest subset of issues, and mostly the ones toward the consensual end of the spectrum. Groping; quid pro quo suggestions (subtle or explicit); coercive threats (subtle or explicit); lewd remarks; invitations to strip clubs; etc ad nauseum (and yes, they're nauseating) have nothing to do with actual romantic relationships. > When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams. Due to the nature of company hierarchies, this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain much more than it does the one higher - both in terms of short term impacts and long term career advancement. Which often means punishing the victim, due to how the power dynamics of harassment interactions tend to work out. It's also a pretty damn weak reaction. If your Director of X insinuates that they'll fire an engineer if the engineer won't sleep with the director, you think the only consequence for the director should be that that engineer no longer reports to them?