It’s not that hard to know where the line is. Besides, crossing the line once before catching yourself is not enough to be sexual harassment. “Simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious are not illegal, but it become harassment when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision.”
Even a small implied hint of adverse employment decision is enough if the victim perceives it that way. Because he’s your boss, how many will feel pressure to kinda gloss over the sexual stuff thrown at them instead of shooting down the creep like they deserve to be? Personally, I’d let the subordinate do the asking out. Yes it can still be considered sexual harassment if repeated and can create a bad work environment but at least you do away with the threat of adverse employment decisions. And boss has way more leeway to get rid of the problem than the subordinate usually.
Also it doesn’t have to get to touching, although touching pretty much checks the “severe” box instantly. But law covers both verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. A ton more verbal stuff than people realize can be considered sexual harassment. Comments about a woman’s anatomy or their clothes, referring to them as babe, girl, or any other term of endearment, asking about personal sexual preferences, fantasies, etc., making sexual comments or innuendos, repeatedly asking them out, turning work topics into sexual topics, telling them sexual jokes or stories, or spreading false rumors about them, all are forms of harassment. The law encompasses a lot but it really boils down to creating a hostile or uncomfortable work environment for a co-worker. It’s entirely based on the comfort level of the recipient of these actions/words which is why drawing a fixed line is very difficult.
The problem is, that line is subjective and mostly left up to the discretion of the accuser. And, especially these days, there are often third parties involved in convincing the victim that they are a victim.
My problem is that, as a business owner, I should have the right to set the tone of what’s acceptible in my own business. Slavery is illegal, every employee choses to work there - if they dont like the environment I create, they can work elsewhere. That’s where the law, and current interpretation/application of the law, has gone off the rails. What’s the point of owning a business if I’m the only one who cant decide what’s acceptible and appropriate?
I would think of it as a guardrail. Maybe you don’t need the law to help you set the tone, etc. However, many other humans that make up this world have poor judgement.
Your ignoring the point. In my business, my judgement should be all that matters, no matter how poor anyone else may consider it. There are plenty of other laws that protect someone’s actual safety. If someone feels offended by or uncomfortable with my behavior or the work environment I prefer, than it should be on them to find a new place to work.
Of course, if no one else agrees with my judgement, the situation will resolve itself and my business wont last long. But when someone is uncomfortable in or offended by their work environment, yet continues to subject themselves to it, it is their judgement that should be called into question.
I disagree with this view. During my first industry job, I had the sad experience of working for a privately owned (two owners) start-up. I was on an H1-B visa at the time, so legal status but not a permanent resident. These owners abused employees, most of which were on H1-B visas: late payroll, explicit racial denigrating comments, an owner that “forgot” to zip his pants after going to the bathroom… You get the idea.
The thing is that at least back then you couldn’t just quit your job if you were on an H1-B visa. You needed to have another job offer, and the new employer needed to get approval for your new H1-B visa before you could leave the first employer.
Then there is the issue that it doesn’t look good in anybody’s resume to quit jobs during the first couple years of employment. Invariably it comes up in an interview: why did you quit/are you quitting this job so soon?
There is a price to pay for extricating yourself of a bad employment situation.
Should it be left to the discretion of the abuser then? Sometimes third parties help victims realize that their working conditions are not normal. If the behavior is gradual and intensifying slowly, you may not realize as the victim that it crossed the line from teasing to harassment. Third parties removed emotionally from the situation sound fine to me. That’s ultimately what the courts are.
Some of the conditions of the work environment you set is your choice as business owner. Being obnoxious is rarely prosecuted. But total hands-off is dangerous because many people cannot help themselves be exploitative assholes if you don’t force them not to be. Why did we have to implement anti-discrimination laws, workplace safety laws, harassment laws? Because otherwise the bad behavior can become so pervasive that you don’t have a practical option to go elsewhere. You could use the argument of go work elsewhere for allowing any kind of workplace condition abuse. Don’t like getting groped at work? Don’t like being insulted at work? Don’t like being exploited with low pay? Don’t like frequent work injuries because employer fosters unsafe workplace? Can’t find a job because of your age or gender? Go work elsewhere solves all of these. What if every local business does this in a race to the bottom?
The best example of what happens when you remove those laws is the working conditions of illegal immigrants. Because employers know they have no practical choice to go elsewhere, they are free to underpay them, force them to work in unsafe conditions, etc. I believe that would effectively be the norm without legal safeguards like harassment laws or anti-discrimination laws.
And to be fair, if you don’t like these laws, open your business elsewhere. You know like China sweat shops.
No glitch. That’s not the way it is today. It’s, “I’ll take you to court”.
In most cases a small business probably would be wiped out. I agree that sexual abuse happens daily in our country & world. If you’re working in Government, it’s a challenge.
This is happening every day. Usually a working women just takes this harassment or quits.
The short answer is, they’ll all go out fo business because they wont have any employees.
I think the big factor in different perspectives is if you believe that a job is a right. Is an employee entitled to the job they were hired for? Or do they work at the pleasure of the employer? Most workplace laws are based on fairness (“They said they’d pay me $X for Y hours, but did not”), not on ensuring the employee’s personal and subjective comfort (“I dont like that and thus shouldnt be subjected to it”). You can only give the employee’s perspective priority if you believe that the employee has ownership of the job, not the employer who’s writing the paychecks.
Employers know this with or without any additional laws. If an employer is knowingly hiring illegals, do you think they really care about any harassment law?
A sixth woman has now come out against Cuomo with “me too” stuff.
Ana Liss, who was either number four or number five, stated in an extended interview that she thought the way Cuomo treated her was wrong. But Ana wants Cuomo to be impeached, instead, for having killed all those thousands of senior citizens. She thought the deaths were more important than the abuse.
Give this woman some credit. Ana has her head on straight.
We probably won’t agree on this topic but I would encourage you to consider what some of the posters are posting. I know some of them are women and suspect others might be. I am male so I probably don’t fully understand this topic myself. However, I try to think of it in simple terms: how would I feel if my sister/daughter/cousin were treated in this way? Answer: I would be pissed and might want to do something to the guy
Your treatment of employees may not translate into the success or failure of the business. In some businesses, the customer would not know or know very little about the inner workings. I guess online review sites, glassdoor etc help in this regard.
Or maybe they NEED the job and can’t easily find another one. There are a lot of people that are not living the cushy life some of us on this site live.
Couple of years out of High School & had this good job, bookkeeper in a furniture store. I worked the late shift every Wednesday, the manager was always trying to get me to stop off after work for a drink. (older man & my boss)
Just as soon as I found another job, I quit & was so happy to get away from him.
There can be so many obstacles that effect our various sexual abuse problems. Everyone handles these situations according to their own beliefs.
Conversely, the employer needs an employee, and CAN find one that may be more accepting of the environment. So the question is, who’s entitled to what they are comfortable with, and who’s obligated to adapt to accommodate the other’s entitlement? A lot of business owners became business owners specifically so that they would not be subject to the rules and expectations of others.
The immediate subject is the government, so it is more gray. But in a business, the owner of the business should decide what kind of business they want to run. Even if it’s to their own detriment.
I’m just saying that if you treat employees like crap, you won’t have any employees to operate your business. Customers would certainly notice when no one answers the phone…
With all the attention being paid here to Cuomo, who is a dirtbag, Governor Newsom has come in for virtually no scrutiny whatsoever. I would note that, in our poll (see OP), nobody at all thinks Newsom is in jeopardy. He has garnered zero votes so far.
Newsom is apparently in a LOT less trouble than Cuomo. First, it is primarily Republicans who are attacking Newsom. Everybody is sick of Cuomo.
Second, Newsom continues to enjoy 54% approval. Sure, that is way down from what once it was. But still it’s not a horrible number.
Newsom does have a serious test coming up in the near term. But from the sound of things overall it seems to me he will survive. Here is more:
Doubt it. Going back to my first employer… 3 admins came and went, all female. Finally, a guy came. So the employer can create an abusive environment and still be in business.
I understand your position that owners should have whatever environment they want because, well, they’re the owners. But that isn’t how it should be. A competent, honest, hardworking employee that does a good job and took a job in good faith should be able to work in a harassment free environment.
The employer isn’t the only one making an “investment” in a job relationship. As I indicated, the employee makes a significant investment/assumes risk taking a job as leaving a place of employment too quickly has a detrimental effect on your resume and future prospects.
However, that employee gets sole discretion over deciding what constitutes “harassment”.
To some people, that prude who’s constantly complaining is the one who’s doing the harassing. If we’re suppose to respect others and be tolerant, that respect and tolerance should go both ways. But it doesnt. I’m just an asshole when you dont like stuff I do, but you’re an innocent victim when I dont like stuff you do.
I think the context here was in regards to harassment, particularly of a sexual nature. Like the owner who “forgot” to zip up his pants when going to the bathroom.
Don’t know whether the person you’re referring to was a female, or his/her nastiness was of a sexual nature. Some things are subjective with grey areas, harassment being one of them. But some actions and comments don’t fall inside a grey area.
I’ve worked in places with nasty people that should have been shown the door eons earlier, including female admin and female director of engineering. DoEng played the sex card for a couple of years, until it didn’t work anymore. HR allowed her to resign, though.
My point here is that it shouldn’t be a laissez faire environment where the owners or executives subject others to whatever because, well, I should have a right to do what I want in my realm.
Generally speaking, there would probably be a lot fewer harassment incidents and a lot fewer rich lawyers if this were a more prevalent tact. Another man that isn’t a wimp is usually all it takes to stop the actions of a man that preys on women.
Today’s question: Were Andrew Cuomo a fish, what kind of fish would he be?
It’s not perfect replication. But there is one species of fish which comes closest to mimicking Cuomo based on the latest revelation:
The Grouper
The Groper
Yes, indeed, latest news reveals Cuomo reached beneath the blouse of one of his aides and, without permission and against her wishes, groped her breasts.
Now this is new territory. Sexual abuse is one thing, and it’s not good. But sexual assault like this is another thing entirely, and it is often adjudicated a felony.
You know like China sweat shops.
