Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are a number of issues involved in 'context'.
One is the power relationship between the employees involved. A manager is wise to keep communications and social activities business-like. A male manager hosting a football/poker/billiards party that includes subordinates when he has subordinates of both genders can be problematic. Sexual harassment, not likely, but it can communicate a workplace environment that isn't friendly to women.
The other issue is gender. For example a woman complementing another woman about her footwear, or a man complementing another man about 'new sneakers', rarely rises to the level of sexual harassment. In that example both women, and both men, shop for the same product and conversations about that product are common within each gender. Between genders, not so much.
So I'm hired by what appears to be a dream company. They like my work. I tend to talk to folks in offices to relationship build so I can easily get what I need from them for the documents I create.
I asked HR if I could get an opportunity to defend myself or tell my side. No and no. Why? I was within my 90-day probation, so they didn't involve me. I was told that had I been there longer than 90 days, I would have been told.
By now, my heart was racing, my hands were shaking, and the soles of my feet were itching. I tell HR I had no idea what I said or did, to whom, when, where or how. Did I look at someone too long? Did I make an offhand comment I thought was harmless? Or did someone overhear me say something and go to HR? I'll never know.
I'm a married man with three children who's been in the workforce for 34 years. I'm 57. I've dealt with my share of workplace **** but this sexual harassment accusation tops the cake.
I post this as a cautionary tale. I am chatty, bordering on flirty with women who I get to know and think I can read real well. That ends here for me. Watch who you talk to or what you say in an office setting. And by all means, don't look at someone of the opposite sex for more than a split second.
You got screwd if what u saying is true and u know were u went wrong.
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,907 posts, read 2,069,146 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell Plotts
There are a number of issues involved in 'context'.
One is the power relationship between the employees involved. A manager is wise to keep communications and social activities business-like. A male manager hosting a football/poker/billiards party that includes subordinates when he has subordinates of both genders can be problematic. Sexual harassment, not likely, but it can communicate a workplace environment that isn't friendly to women.
The other issue is gender. For example a woman complementing another woman about her footwear, or a man complementing another man about 'new sneakers', rarely rises to the level of sexual harassment. In that example both women, and both men, shop for the same product and conversations about that product are common within each gender. Between genders, not so much.
A while ago, a Sales Manager for one of the big office supply stores won a big settlement mainly because she was "excluded from after hour social gatherings/trips which she claims were important in order to move up within the organization".
There are a number of issues involved in 'context'.
One is the power relationship between the employees involved. A manager is wise to keep communications and social activities business-like. A male manager hosting a football/poker/billiards party that includes subordinates when he has subordinates of both genders can be problematic. Sexual harassment, not likely, but it can communicate a workplace environment that isn't friendly to women.
The other issue is gender. For example a woman complementing another woman about her footwear, or a man complementing another man about 'new sneakers', rarely rises to the level of sexual harassment. In that example both women, and both men, shop for the same product and conversations about that product are common within each gender. Between genders, not so much.
That's a very good point, that some will not think about, and right away post something that proves they don't get it.
I worked in HR for about 40 years and have never seen a person fired for sexual harassment who didn't exhibit inappropriate workplace behavior as a pattern of conduct.
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,907 posts, read 2,069,146 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell Plotts
ToLoveFromANFIELD: My point exactly!!!
I worked in HR for about 40 years and have never seen a person fired for sexual harassment who didn't exhibit inappropriate workplace behavior as a pattern of conduct.
No, no. I'm saying that she felt discriminated because "she was not allowed to participate in these social gatherings". Not that she felt discriminated during these gatherings.
I never have to worry that if I compliment guy's sneakers about him thinking I'm out to sleep with him. Why do I have to worry about the same comment to a woman? How's that equal? Who provides the context? I, as an employer? An employee? Social Norms?
Edit: By the way in the same post you say two contradictory things:
a.) Context Matters
b.) Laws are pretty clear
If laws are pretty clear, why would context matter?
Laws are clear, and context matters a great deal when laws are written. That's why manslaughter is differentiated from first-degree murder. In both cases someone dies at the hands of another. The difference is context.
And sexual harassment isn't only about the harasser wanting to sleep with someone. Sexual harassment is about power. The power to make another person feel objectified, the power to make another person feel powerless, the power to make another person feel demeaned and worthless. If I as a woman compliment a man's footwear in the office, maybe I am out to sleep with him. And if you as man compliment a woman's footwear, maybe you are out to sleep with her. Or maybe not.
The context is supplied by the people involved in the situation. That's where context is at all times. It is part of the situation. It's the background of an event. The people viewing the event all view it from their own perspective. Your perspective might be, "I was just complimenting her shoes." Her perspective might be, "When he was complimenting my shoes he wasn't looking at my shoes, he was looking at my booty, and this is a pattern. He often compliments my clothing or jewelry, but when he does, he's not looking at that item of clothing or jewelry, he's looking at my chest, he's looking at my butt, he's looking at my body like it's something he's entitled to." HR might hear both of your perspectives, and then evaluate those perspectives. Have other women complained about you and your "compliments"? Does this woman in particular make a habit of such complaints? And if either person involved has a pattern of behavior that disrupts the workplace, that pattern has to be addressed.
And you would be wrong, wrong, wrong. You are totally off base. While I do appreciate that you would be honest and tell me to buzz off (and no I wouldn't call you a cold *****), you, like other posters on this thread, took one word, "flirty" and ran with it without looking at the broader picture of what I'm describing. I'm sorry I used the word. I was told specifically one individual lodged a sexual harassment complaint against me.
I don't know what triggered the complaint and neither does anyone else on these boards. I told you all the truth, I tend to be friendly, but I have my reasons for the way I do my personal interactions, which I'm not getting into here.
Perhaps my supervisor went asking around to see how I was doing and heard someone didn't appreciate my speaking to them. I don't know if that's how it went down, but I would hope that if he had, he would have told me because I was HIS HIRE and he doesn't want to look bad. And that would have given me the chance to switch up my interactions.
I never said I tried to suck up to managers, female or otherwise. Oh and yes, I stopped by to chat with MEN also. I have not CHOSEN to remain ignorant of harassment. There was no sexual harassment training given and frankly I cannot remember when I last got such training. But I didn't think I needed it because my notion was of the classic quid pro quo, go out with me, lewd joke telling, groping type, which I would NEVER do. I made someone uncomfortable without knowing it and it cost me, period.
damm i went through 28 pages of this mess and found this whiny immature crap. i cant tell u to grow up cuz u already… grown but they have a investigation on u and u know what u did. YOU learn from YOUR mistatkes. we can only judge what u are based on what u write here. most people know how not be a stalker without a employee manuel. Not saying u are guilty cuause people lie but move on and learn.
btw I’m wondering how old are the females u were scoping cuz thats a diff story.
Location: In a city within a state where politicians come to get their PHDs in Corruption
2,907 posts, read 2,069,146 times
Reputation: 4478
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Laws are clear, and context matters a great deal when laws are written. That's why manslaughter is differentiated from first-degree murder. In both cases someone dies at the hands of another. The difference is context.
And sexual harassment isn't only about the harasser wanting to sleep with someone. Sexual harassment is about power. The power to make another person feel objectified, the power to make another person feel powerless, the power to make another person feel demeaned and worthless. If I as a woman compliment a man's footwear in the office, maybe I am out to sleep with him. And if you as man compliment a woman's footwear, maybe you are out to sleep with her. Or maybe not.
The context is supplied by the people involved in the situation. That's where context is at all times. It is part of the situation. It's the background of an event. The people viewing the event all view it from their own perspective. Your perspective might be, "I was just complimenting her shoes." Her perspective might be, "When he was complimenting my shoes he wasn't looking at my shoes, he was looking at my booty, and this is a pattern. He often compliments my clothing or jewelry, but when he does, he's not looking at that item of clothing or jewelry, he's looking at my chest, he's looking at my butt, he's looking at my body like it's something he's entitled to." HR might hear both of your perspectives, and then evaluate those perspectives. Have other women complained about you and your "compliments"? Does this woman in particular make a habit of such complaints? And if either person involved has a pattern of behavior that disrupts the workplace, that pattern has to be addressed.
Manslaughter is differentiated from First Degree Murder when it comes to sentencing. It's still a murder. There's no context there. There's no denying that the person is dead. It's a fact. An intent is what is at stake, not the outcome.
What you don't get that it is almost always "he said" and "she said" in your other example. And that is the true crux of the situation. She said he looked at my booty, but he said he did no such thing? Who to believe?
This is why these cases are such life sucking blood leaches for the managers and companies all together.
Woman feels insulted, man feels his integrity is at stake, and all reason and logic goes out the window.
No, no. I'm saying that she felt discriminated because "she was not allowed to participate in these social gatherings". Not that she felt discriminated during these gatherings.
The social gatherings created and reinforced personal relationships that may have been key to raises, promotions and advancements within the company. To exclude women from such social gatherings can be detrimental to their career goals. The courts would have looked at the pattern in the company, and who got promoted, who got raises, and were they part of the social group that the manager created at his off-work gatherings. If a pattern in the company could be discerned that advancement was related to participation in the off-work gatherings, then she was discriminated against.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
