4 ms·

Typically one would take harassment issues in the workplace to HR. Is there a stigma attached to this?

emonk59 13y ago
she tweeted that she has been documenting this to github hr for 'years': https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/444887201935945729 https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/444887201935945729
joesmo 13y ago
Going to HR, wether by choice or not, is the last, optional step before one needs to leave a company, regardless of fault. HR isn's some magical department that can fix such issues, and they're not likely to help. That's not their job. Their job is to minimize the impact of anything that might or might not have gone on the company, especially the legal impact. Sure, in theory, one could go to HR and work things out, but in practice, one will not be welcome at a company after doing so. HR does not work for the workers, it works to protect the company and executives. In a situation where one is up against more established employees, it's guaranteed to backfire. HR looks to minimize the damage, and that will usually not be in favor of the person claiming harassment.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Typically one would take harassment issues in the workplace to HR. HR exists to protect the company. In a large company, where both the victim and the harasser are relatively small in the overall scheme of things, HR is (assuming the department is somewhat competent at its job) likely to be somewhat useful to a victim, simply because the downside risk to the company of not dealing with harassment is probably much greater than the value of even a supervisory employee. Even with a higher-level harasser, in a large company the firm is more likely to have established protocols, the violation of which would increase the risk to the company, which might make HR more useful to victims. At smaller companies, its less likely that HR will be useful, and, at any company, its a given that HR's primary interest isn't protecting the victim its protecting the company (including, especially, against a potential lawsuit by the victim). And, all that aside, yes, there is often a stigma attached to reporting the kind of things which constitute sexual harassment (a stigma which is reinforced by a society which engages in victim-blaming and slut-shaming), and, despite the laws against such, a very common fear of retaliation.

she tweeted that she has been documenting this to github hr for 'years': https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/444887201935945729 https://twitter.com/nrrrdcore/status/444887201935945729

joesmo 13y ago

Going to HR, wether by choice or not, is the last, optional step before one needs to leave a company, regardless of fault. HR isn's some magical department that can fix such issues, and they're not likely to help. That's not their job. Their job is to minimize the impact of anything that might or might not have gone on the company, especially the legal impact. Sure, in theory, one could go to HR and work things out, but in practice, one will not be welcome at a company after doing so. HR does not work for the workers, it works to protect the company and executives. In a situation where one is up against more established employees, it's guaranteed to backfire. HR looks to minimize the damage, and that will usually not be in favor of the person claiming harassment.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Typically one would take harassment issues in the workplace to HR. HR exists to protect the company. In a large company, where both the victim and the harasser are relatively small in the overall scheme of things, HR is (assuming the department is somewhat competent at its job) likely to be somewhat useful to a victim, simply because the downside risk to the company of not dealing with harassment is probably much greater than the value of even a supervisory employee. Even with a higher-level harasser, in a large company the firm is more likely to have established protocols, the violation of which would increase the risk to the company, which might make HR more useful to victims. At smaller companies, its less likely that HR will be useful, and, at any company, its a given that HR's primary interest isn't protecting the victim its protecting the company (including, especially, against a potential lawsuit by the victim). And, all that aside, yes, there is often a stigma attached to reporting the kind of things which constitute sexual harassment (a stigma which is reinforced by a society which engages in victim-blaming and slut-shaming), and, despite the laws against such, a very common fear of retaliation.