dagblog - Comments for "#metoo is wrong"

Harassment is a crime. So

Flavius — Fri, 23 Feb 2018 13:51:11 +0000

Harassment is a crime. A lot of consequences start to flow from agreeing that.. The punishment should fit it , for example.

Which won't be true if that is decided by every corporation's HR department.Or CEO. Or by the victim.

We also know a lot of other stuff . That if you ignore it, you'll have more of it., that the consequences of conviction need to be predictable. And not delayed too long

And that the accused should be allowed to defend himself. And BTW sometimes accusations are false c.f. 1680 Salem.

So we could START BY rationally discussing harassment and maybe have less of it. That is , if we start by deciding it really is a crime.

Despite my provocative title that doesn't mean #metoo was wrong.It put the turkey on

the table . That was their job. Ours is to proceed rationally

edited to insert words in CAPS

Yeah, I was describing the

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:51:00 +0000

In reply to " Mike notifies HR, which has

Yeah, I was describing the way it's supposed to work. In the case of a working stiff like "Jim," it probably would work as designed. The folks who get away with serial harassment are "too big to fail" executives and celebrities with enough power and money to silence their victims. These are the chief targets of #MeToo. Yet when these harassers finally get their due (long overdue), some people imagine mobs of angry feminists unfairly destroying the lives of the poor, innocent Jims of the world.

" Mike notifies HR, which has

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 13:07:30 +0000

In reply to I don't think you understand

" Mike notifies HR, which has specific policies and people trained to handle sexual harassment. ~~HR investigates as they would investigate any serious infraction and recommends a response.~~ HR buries it." - Fixed that for you, at least for a number of cases. Gotta keep those Silicon Valley lads energetic...

Sure women are more at risk.

Flavius — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 03:01:16 +0000

In reply to Flavius, since your paragon

Sure women are more at risk. Although the only time I was personally involved was in a case of male vs male harassment on an army troop ship. The guy who had been harassed wanted help in getting his bed out of the stateroom so I and another officer went in and did that while the harasser- a more senior officer - watched impassively.

Flavius, since your paragon

NCD — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 01:13:13 +0000

In reply to You're right again about

Flavius, since your paragon of gender equality and justice was elected President after 19 women accused him of physical assault/aggression and after the video surfaced of him bragging about doing the same, we can assume Jill Lunchpail remains far more at risk than Joe, from the mindset of countless supervisory males just like Trump.....or you.

You're right again about

Flavius — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 23:11:01 +0000

In reply to I don't think you understand

You're right again about "Maybe they should get married" .

When the penalty is being fired for cause an employee should have the right to competent assistance defending him or herself in a formal process before an unbiased authority. Mostly that's unrealistic.

Lay offs happen , carry little stigma. athough your prospective employers realize that not everybody hit the bricks..So you carry a question mark .But not more.

Being fired is completely different . You wave an invisible but fully understood sign saying "Don't hire me".It can mean a deep ,never recovered , cut in pay. . Far too drastic a penalty to require Joe Lunchpail to defend himself against . Whether in front of an HR executive or an operating guy.

Whether the crime is harassment or some culpable damage ( my friend ,Mike, was so desperate to get off a soul destroying repetitive drill press job that he fed it the wrong way risking his life and thousands of dollars of equipment .Btw he was a shop steward) the employee whose future compensation bracket is at stake for many years is entitled to a " public defender" type to assist her. And isn't going to get it.

When the charge is sexual harassment he can't be considered guilty until proven innocent. But he will be . #metoo is playing hard ball. Good for them But all the more reason the putative defendents can't be issued a whiffle bat. Or forget the tiresome analogies.Sexual harrassment defendents are entitiled to due process. Even though Trump said so.

Wow! Really?

rmrd0000 — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:25:18 +0000

In reply to I was wrong. Lynching should

Wow! Really?

Do you know anyone who says they faced sexual harassment at work? Even when you can the guy, you can’t repair the damage.

I don't think you understand

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:09:00 +0000

In reply to I was wrong. Lynching should

I don't think you understand what sexual harassment is, or you wouldn't make light of it by writing, "Maybe they get married." Sexual harassment isn't Jim making a pass at Sally over lunch. No one gets fired for that. Sexual harassment is coercive and repeated. There are often multiple victims, and those who refuse the sexual advances are often threatened or punished by the harasser. It doesn't fall to Mike Manager to make these decisions. Mike notifies HR, which has specific policies and people trained to handle sexual harassment. HR investigates as they would investigate any serious infraction and recommends a response. I fail to see why you think this process is fine for other infractions but not sexual harassment.

Ftr, US companies have the right to fire anyone at any time for any reason unless restricted by employee contract--which non-executive, non-union workers lack. I'm all for adding more worker protections across the board, but that doesn't have much to do with sexual harassment except to say that the protections should apply in all cases.

This will all be sorted out

artappraiser — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 19:17:20 +0000

In reply to #metoo is wrong

This will all be sorted out by Tavis Smiley, Flav.

I'm being sarcastic, but maybe not, maybe he can redeem himself this way: let's get this back to the courts.

I was wrong. Lynching should

Flavius — Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:14:33 +0000

In reply to Yes, he used it as shock

I was wrong. "Lynching "should only be used by Blacks just as Holocaust should only be used by Jews. Sorry.

The similarity is that a lynch mob like a corporate HR is a collection of people with no necessary skills to bear trying to substitute activity for thought.

Being fired ranks as a punishment up there with non trivial time in jail. Ask me about it. ( Being fired, not jail.)

Corporations' right to terminate for corporate needs is intrinsic to capitalism. Not so their right to decide whether non-physical-assault-harassment merits termination.

If the payroll is $100K/week and revenues , $90K you don't need McKinsey. Mike Manager has been trained at Wharton or the school of hard knocks to do what needs to be done.

But if Sally suddenly learns that Jim isn't just a charming lunch mate but wants Something More MM is clueless.

And even if MM or HR could handle it should they?

The Corp's need to cut $10K/week from payroll as of this Friday totally conflicts with Sally -and Jim's- personal needs. And even if he wasn't busy with the payroll records, maybe MM might not be the worst possible adjudicator of the Sally and Jim impasse but he's got him worried.

.BTW NPR's solution :hire a white shoe law firm was wrong. Who do you think they are going to want to be pleased by their decision? Lawyers need clients today and more tomorrow.

By rights these he said/she said puzzles should be judged by judges . But at a time when we can't stop this week's mass murderer from committing this week's mass murder, that ain't gonna happen. So hire an arbitrator. And offer Sally and Jim an incentive to settle it for themselves Maybe get married.