6 ms·

> You'd need to convince workers to not believe that someone who says sexist stuff in a book is going to cause a problem for them. No. A million times no. If

by imgabe 5y ago

> You'd need to convince workers to not believe that someone who says sexist stuff in a book is going to cause a problem for them. No. A million times no. If and when an employee creates a hostile work environment, then the employer may address it by disciplining or firing that employee. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is under any obligation to preemptively address things someone imagines might happen based on their misinterpretation of an out-of-context fragment of writing.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
> If and when an employee creates a hostile work environment, then the employer may address it by disciplining or firing that employee. I don't believe this at all, and more importantly, the way you've phrased your second paragraph, I don't think you really believe it all, either. That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired. But your second paragraph actually shows you think the offense really wasn't that bad, that you think it was a "misinterpretation" taken "out of context". But what if the employee had been in the KKK, and had argued for white supremacy, and that other races were lazy and poor workers? Would you still think an employer would be out of bounds for firing that employee? My point is that I think it's perfectly fine to fire someone for egregious behavior or writings before they were hired. It's certainly worth debating whether Chaos Monkey rises to the level of egregious - I haven't read the book so I don't have an opinion. But I think some kind of blanket statement that "what you've written before being hired shouldn't matter" is pretty ludicrous.
- imgabe 5y ago
  > That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired. What do you think a hostile work environment is? How do writings outside of work affect the work environment? The work environment is...things that happen at work. In order for the employee to have created a hostile work environment they would have to, you know, act hostilely at work. That is literally what it means. An employee proselytizing their religion at work might create a hostile work environment. If they go door-to-door and proselytize on the weekends, and never mention their religion at work, that does not create a hostile work environment and they shouldn't be fired for what they do in their own time. I don't see how that is hard to understand.
  - Beldin 5y ago
    > never mention their religion at work, that does not create a hostile work environment "Never mention" is a bit vague/weak. If you wouldn't be able to pick the one colleague proselytising from amongst the others, likely(1) they're not creating a hostile work environment. E.g., a colleague that never mentions the KKK, but has their memorabilia all over his desk, is dropped off by hooded, white-dress wearing buddies etc., is poisoning the work atmosphere. (1) excepting weird cases like a colleague intentionally gaslighting others.
  - ayyy 5y ago
    > I don't see how that is hard to understand. For a growing percentage of the workplace, knowing that a coworker has a socially unacceptable opinion is creating a hostile work environment. I completely understand where you're coming from, but you're literally wrong. If you don't want to be shunned from society, don't be identified as someone who does socially unacceptable things. I'm not super keen on how this is all shaking out either, but it's pretty obvious how to avoid problems at this point.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      They aren't literally wrong; we've covered this ground when deciding the role religion plays in society and made some excellent decisions that we don't want to lose. People who claim to have superior moral principles do not get to enforce them in the workplace. Organisations that rally around moral principles don't get to decide who does and does not enjoy employment. Intransigent squeaky wheels do not get to decide what "hostile work environment" means. It has to mean hostility in the work environment. If it comes to mean "disagrees with my politics" then society is in for a world of hurt.
    - SiVal 5y ago
      "Socially unacceptable" is the litmus test? So, regardless of what the majority of your coworkers think, if you express a contrary opinion that they don't agree is acceptable, you have created a hostile environment. "If you don't want to be shunned from society, don't be identified as someone who does socially unacceptable things," warned the Holy Inquisition and every Puritan minister.
- belorn 5y ago
  What if the employee is into domination role playing in the bedroom. Should we fire such employees in the case they brought their interest into the work place and created a toxic environment? I could imagine how any generic law that tried to address this would break horrible in all the multiple ways people have opinion, views and hobbies that if brought to work would create a toxic environment and be grounds for firing. Many would be in direct conflict with anti-discrimination laws.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you're arguing. If someone is into domination role playing and "brought that interest into the work place" (not quite sure what that means) then there is a very, very good chance they will get fired, and indeed many many people have been fired for unwelcome sexual discussions at work.
    - belorn 5y ago
      Should we fire every such person who is or even has been into domination role playing, not because they have brought it to work, but because they might do it at some time in the future. The person who got fired by apple did not bring his book to work. He did not talk about the book at work. The action for which he was fired occurred before he was even employed. Put it in an other way, are people who is into domination role playing suitable to be in a leader role? Can they represent the diverse employees at work? Is the world views expressed in that sexual behavior acceptable in a public figure?
- kortilla 5y ago
  Ironic speech police coming from a throwaway. You clearly don’t really think people should be held accountable for what they write. Writing under a pseudonym doesn’t change the meaning of what is written or the damage it can do.
- nearbuy 5y ago
  > But what if the employee had been in the KKK, and had argued for white supremacy, and that other races were lazy and poor workers? Would you still think an employer would be out of bounds for firing that employee? I'm going to go in a different direction here and say maybe we shouldn't fire former KKK members if they aren't causing problems at work. Look, these people need to eat. Either they work somewhere, or they get welfare. At least with the former they're doing something productive with their time other than... whatever a white supremacist might do with their free time. Also, if we're firing former KKK members, we're not really leaving them a path towards deradicalization. If they can't integrate with society and get a normal job even if they renounce the KKK, then they have a strong disincentive to leave their hateful community.
  - gsk22 5y ago
    If you are a former KKK member who truly wishes to renounce your former beliefs and reform, you should be aware of what an uphill battle it will be to rejoin normal society after espousing such abhorrent hateful beliefs. You have to be aware that some people will never be able to forgive you for that, and that you will lose social and financial opportunities based on your past actions. As someone who participates in the hiring process, and who works with a large contingent of non-white people, I could not justify hiring a former KKK member unless they showed serious, ongoing efforts to rectify their past. For the same reason I would never hire a former Auschwitz guard if I worked with many Jewish people. Actions have consequences, and allying yourself with a racist organization has lifelong repercussions.
    - nearbuy 5y ago
      I am a minority hated by the KKK (more than one, actually). The condition I specified, "if they aren't causing problems at work" is important. If they come in wearing a KKK t-shirt or espousing racist views at work, of course they should be fired. But if they're respectful at work, how would I even know they had been a KKK member? It's not about what they deserve. I'm not looking to let them off easy. It's a matter of pragmatism. If they can't get employment, the alternative is we have former (or current) white supremacists living off tax payer dollars with too much free time on their hands and no path towards deradicalization. And I think that's more dangerous to society.
taurath 5y ago
With how much we know about implicit bias causing so many problems in equity for things like promotions and opportunity in the workplace, having someone publicly espouse explicit bias should come with some consequences. The glass ceiling exists. You’re saying it shouldn’t be based on an out of context fragment, and I agree but often in those situations in context can mean the same thing. Case by case for sure but if you’re saying white supremacist/chauvinistic talking points online and you’re in any position of responsibility, people who are not white or male are justified in not feeling like they’ll get a fair shake.
- imgabe 5y ago
  There's "feeling" you're getting a fair shake, and then there's actually getting a fair shake. If you're going to destroy someone's livelihood, it should be for something they actually do, not for what someone imagines they might hypothetically do.
  - taurath 5y ago
    Turns out those feelings are true more often than not and there are statistics to back it up. Not that ones feelings is enough to ruin someone’s livelihood, but sorry if you’re responsible for people’s career development in 2021 there shouldn’t be any reasonable questions about your being actually biased against groups. It’s against the law even.
    - imgabe 5y ago
      Then you should have no trouble finding real evidence in a given specific instance instead of relying on hunches and generalizations.
      - taurath 5y ago
        May be talking past each other here, but I’m thinking of a scenario where a person puts out writing that shows mysogynistic or racist/homophobic views and then is responsible for giving performance reviews, or hiring/firing people. Bias is hard to prove in the moment as there can always be other factors to point to, but easy to see in statistics of who gets hired and promoted.

by imgabe 5y ago

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

> If and when an employee creates a hostile work environment, then the employer may address it by disciplining or firing that employee. I don't believe this at all, and more importantly, the way you've phrased your second paragraph, I don't think you really believe it all, either. That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired. But your second paragraph actually shows you think the offense really wasn't that bad, that you think it was a "misinterpretation" taken "out of context". But what if the employee had been in the KKK, and had argued for white supremacy, and that other races were lazy and poor workers? Would you still think an employer would be out of bounds for firing that employee? My point is that I think it's perfectly fine to fire someone for egregious behavior or writings before they were hired. It's certainly worth debating whether Chaos Monkey rises to the level of egregious - I haven't read the book so I don't have an opinion. But I think some kind of blanket statement that "what you've written before being hired shouldn't matter" is pretty ludicrous.

imgabe 5y ago
> That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired. What do you think a hostile work environment is? How do writings outside of work affect the work environment? The work environment is...things that happen at work. In order for the employee to have created a hostile work environment they would have to, you know, act hostilely at work. That is literally what it means. An employee proselytizing their religion at work might create a hostile work environment. If they go door-to-door and proselytize on the weekends, and never mention their religion at work, that does not create a hostile work environment and they shouldn't be fired for what they do in their own time. I don't see how that is hard to understand.
- Beldin 5y ago
  > never mention their religion at work, that does not create a hostile work environment "Never mention" is a bit vague/weak. If you wouldn't be able to pick the one colleague proselytising from amongst the others, likely(1) they're not creating a hostile work environment. E.g., a colleague that never mentions the KKK, but has their memorabilia all over his desk, is dropped off by hooded, white-dress wearing buddies etc., is poisoning the work atmosphere. (1) excepting weird cases like a colleague intentionally gaslighting others.
- ayyy 5y ago
  > I don't see how that is hard to understand. For a growing percentage of the workplace, knowing that a coworker has a socially unacceptable opinion is creating a hostile work environment. I completely understand where you're coming from, but you're literally wrong. If you don't want to be shunned from society, don't be identified as someone who does socially unacceptable things. I'm not super keen on how this is all shaking out either, but it's pretty obvious how to avoid problems at this point.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    They aren't literally wrong; we've covered this ground when deciding the role religion plays in society and made some excellent decisions that we don't want to lose. People who claim to have superior moral principles do not get to enforce them in the workplace. Organisations that rally around moral principles don't get to decide who does and does not enjoy employment. Intransigent squeaky wheels do not get to decide what "hostile work environment" means. It has to mean hostility in the work environment. If it comes to mean "disagrees with my politics" then society is in for a world of hurt.
  - SiVal 5y ago
    "Socially unacceptable" is the litmus test? So, regardless of what the majority of your coworkers think, if you express a contrary opinion that they don't agree is acceptable, you have created a hostile environment. "If you don't want to be shunned from society, don't be identified as someone who does socially unacceptable things," warned the Holy Inquisition and every Puritan minister.
belorn 5y ago
What if the employee is into domination role playing in the bedroom. Should we fire such employees in the case they brought their interest into the work place and created a toxic environment? I could imagine how any generic law that tried to address this would break horrible in all the multiple ways people have opinion, views and hobbies that if brought to work would create a toxic environment and be grounds for firing. Many would be in direct conflict with anti-discrimination laws.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you're arguing. If someone is into domination role playing and "brought that interest into the work place" (not quite sure what that means) then there is a very, very good chance they will get fired, and indeed many many people have been fired for unwelcome sexual discussions at work.
  - belorn 5y ago
    Should we fire every such person who is or even has been into domination role playing, not because they have brought it to work, but because they might do it at some time in the future. The person who got fired by apple did not bring his book to work. He did not talk about the book at work. The action for which he was fired occurred before he was even employed. Put it in an other way, are people who is into domination role playing suitable to be in a leader role? Can they represent the diverse employees at work? Is the world views expressed in that sexual behavior acceptable in a public figure?
kortilla 5y ago
Ironic speech police coming from a throwaway. You clearly don’t really think people should be held accountable for what they write. Writing under a pseudonym doesn’t change the meaning of what is written or the damage it can do.
nearbuy 5y ago
> But what if the employee had been in the KKK, and had argued for white supremacy, and that other races were lazy and poor workers? Would you still think an employer would be out of bounds for firing that employee? I'm going to go in a different direction here and say maybe we shouldn't fire former KKK members if they aren't causing problems at work. Look, these people need to eat. Either they work somewhere, or they get welfare. At least with the former they're doing something productive with their time other than... whatever a white supremacist might do with their free time. Also, if we're firing former KKK members, we're not really leaving them a path towards deradicalization. If they can't integrate with society and get a normal job even if they renounce the KKK, then they have a strong disincentive to leave their hateful community.
- gsk22 5y ago
  If you are a former KKK member who truly wishes to renounce your former beliefs and reform, you should be aware of what an uphill battle it will be to rejoin normal society after espousing such abhorrent hateful beliefs. You have to be aware that some people will never be able to forgive you for that, and that you will lose social and financial opportunities based on your past actions. As someone who participates in the hiring process, and who works with a large contingent of non-white people, I could not justify hiring a former KKK member unless they showed serious, ongoing efforts to rectify their past. For the same reason I would never hire a former Auschwitz guard if I worked with many Jewish people. Actions have consequences, and allying yourself with a racist organization has lifelong repercussions.
  - nearbuy 5y ago
    I am a minority hated by the KKK (more than one, actually). The condition I specified, "if they aren't causing problems at work" is important. If they come in wearing a KKK t-shirt or espousing racist views at work, of course they should be fired. But if they're respectful at work, how would I even know they had been a KKK member? It's not about what they deserve. I'm not looking to let them off easy. It's a matter of pragmatism. If they can't get employment, the alternative is we have former (or current) white supremacists living off tax payer dollars with too much free time on their hands and no path towards deradicalization. And I think that's more dangerous to society.

taurath 5y ago

With how much we know about implicit bias causing so many problems in equity for things like promotions and opportunity in the workplace, having someone publicly espouse explicit bias should come with some consequences. The glass ceiling exists. You’re saying it shouldn’t be based on an out of context fragment, and I agree but often in those situations in context can mean the same thing. Case by case for sure but if you’re saying white supremacist/chauvinistic talking points online and you’re in any position of responsibility, people who are not white or male are justified in not feeling like they’ll get a fair shake.

imgabe 5y ago
There's "feeling" you're getting a fair shake, and then there's actually getting a fair shake. If you're going to destroy someone's livelihood, it should be for something they actually do, not for what someone imagines they might hypothetically do.
- taurath 5y ago
  Turns out those feelings are true more often than not and there are statistics to back it up. Not that ones feelings is enough to ruin someone’s livelihood, but sorry if you’re responsible for people’s career development in 2021 there shouldn’t be any reasonable questions about your being actually biased against groups. It’s against the law even.
  - imgabe 5y ago
    Then you should have no trouble finding real evidence in a given specific instance instead of relying on hunches and generalizations.
    - taurath 5y ago
      May be talking past each other here, but I’m thinking of a scenario where a person puts out writing that shows mysogynistic or racist/homophobic views and then is responsible for giving performance reviews, or hiring/firing people. Bias is hard to prove in the moment as there can always be other factors to point to, but easy to see in statistics of who gets hired and promoted.