> though I honestly doubt its more or less common in working class unions vs white collars. Sexual harassment doesn't seem to be something that respects class lines as much as people would like it to.
Oh, I never said that it did. I'm referring to blue-collar jobs like Rust Belt manufacturing specifically because that's a historically heavily unionized industry where the workforce is disproportionately male and white.
> . The union my Dad was a member of bragged about how it ran women out, usually via overt sexual harassment.
Yeah, the AFL-CIO didn't allow women to join either. Sexual harassment is a huge problem within unions, because harassers (as members, and oftentimes members with power within the union) are able to use their power to silence victims' complaints. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/19/us/ford-chica...
> Sexual harassment is the name for a particular category of unlawful behavior by an employer to an employee.
Indeed - which was my point.
It's not necessarily the perpetrator who's held legally accountable. It's the organization. So, from a legal stand point. The perpetrator may not be breaking the law, the organization may.
Thus, most sexual harassment by an individual is not in itself illegal. It's in the context of their place of employment.
This is semantics, but plays a large impact as to why (for instance) employees are paid to leave as opposed to fired.
>Men at work are not harassing every female employee.
Ever work a shitty job in the food industry? Not all men are harassers, but anecdotally it seems like maybe 10-25% of men at these jobs will systematically harass every female employee below the age of 30. Unsolicited back-rubs, ass-grabs, the whole shebang. It's, like, really bad, and when the owner/manager is involved there's not much you can do. I do feel like the "always believe the accuser" narrative goes too far, but I don't think this behavior is really an edge case. It seems like a significant minority of males in unprofessional work environments.
>The problem is that there's a culture where sexual harassment isn't taken seriously
Is there? I've seen people claim this but I haven't seen any evidence for it. I know Susan Fowler's account is used frequently as basis for that statement and though I don't doubt her sincerity and truthfulness, you can't just extrapolate her experience to the entire (global) company.
> Its amazing that none of the replies (so far) have pointed out something in the very article that spawned this thread, the status of women and minorities.
It's not that surprising; Hacker News comments tend not to sympathize with victims of harassment, sexism, or racism when stories about those topics come up. So it's not surprising that it doesn't become the focus of the thread here, since it's not the lede in the story.
> f you read the article it goes on to note that was because of sexual harrassment and his attitude toward gay men. These are bread and butter union issues.
In theory, yes. In practice, it depends on the workplace. If the workplace is mostly men who don't really have a problem with harassment of women, the union won't either, and women aren't going to have a great time there. That's sadly pretty common in blue-collar unions[0].
> I'd rather an industry with 0 women than one where mere allegations [...] are career ending.
You seem to assume sexual misconduct only happens when women are in the workplace, which is plain wrong. You do know that sexual misconduct can happen between two people who aren't women, right? The misogyny in your comment is pretty overwhelming.
>The reason I get the idea that you're advocating sexual harassment is that you keep casting this in sexual terms -- why would you want to be surrounded by men, unless you're gay? Work is not a sexual environment (let's ignore the exceptions for this conversation); why is sexual orientation relevant?
So you think that if I'm not actively looking for sex from women, that I should be perfectly happy to live a life completely devoid of any kind of female contact whatsoever?
That seems extremely disturbing to me.
Does that also mean that if I'm not actively looking to have a sex partner of a different race/ethnicity, then I should be perfectly happy to never have any kind of contact with people from other ethnic groups?
Wow, I guess on HN I'm just a real weirdo because I don't want to be surrounded by white males and be completely cut off from contact with other kinds of people.
>I see no abuse of power by said manager at the point of expressing an interest.
I don't think you understand the perspective of women then. I don't know if this comment alone will be able to change that, but there are so many dynamics involved that I'm guessing you are unaffected or less affected by, and are therefore failing to take into account when judging what this situation would be like if you were in it. Things like the female-male power imbalance, the manager-employee power imbalance, the fact that this happens orders of magnitude more often to women than to men, etc.
I would urge you to read more accounts of women's experiences with workplace sexual harrassment, and/or to speak with women you know about it with an open mind. Their average experience is so different from yours in this respect that it can be hard to understand why something that seems innocuous to you is absolutely toxic to them.
> Vetting a place for a hostile work environment, esp. when the company is small and has had few employees, is really difficult.
From the anecdote, it doesn't sound like she interviewed with anyone from the support team, that is a big problem and something she could have asked about. You're right, it's easy to hide, but since she only worked there one day and ran into this, it seems likely it would have been a red flag in the interview process.
> His attitude isn't troubling except in hindsight after we learn that sexism and sexual harassment are A-OK
I agree, which is why I said "but clearly was supported by the people working there at the time" so I'm not sure why you said:
> Uh, the author clearly related that several people seemed uncomfortable by the sexual harassment in the office.
Being uncomfortable with it doesn't mean that it isn't pervasive and effectively sanctioned by the company. So I think we actually agree here, maybe I've phrased something poorly, sorry about that.
> For the low pay those customer service people received, it is abhorrent that they must also pay for supplies
I agree, they should provide equipment at this company, given the context, and the salary of the service employees. My reaction is that I've done this kind of work and this seems to be a common situation at many companies, again this is why I said engineers may not relate well to the story.
You should check with your less prestigious teams and make sure they are getting the same care and attention that your engineers are, you may be surprised at how poorly non technical people are treated even at your own companies.
> When you call it sexual harassment it's criminal.
No. Sexual harassment is not always a criminal offence.
> With regards to going to the boss, I'm perplexed with the role of the boss and the company in an interaction between two adults.
Those two adults met at work, and this meeting was a work related meeting - she had said that. The employer has a duty of care to the employees, so that's why its gone to the boss.
> Maybe that's a cultural issue, but I think it's the court's job to decide if an action was a sexual harassment or not
If the boss doesn't do anything it might go to court. Or if the boss does something like fire the man, and he disagrees, it might go to court.
> neither a lawyers (If lawyers were to decide on cases, oh dear god...).
Well, if it goes to court everyone is going to have lawyers, right?
> Sat by while coworkers traded stories about sexual conquests. Even if the sexual advances are towards someone else, if they make you uncomfortable, it's still sexual harassment.
Not to belittle your other experiences, but I never understood this. If you hear a conversation about sexual experiences and it makes you uncomfortable, I don't think it's immediately sexual _harassment_. I would probably feel uncomfortable listening to those kinds of talks too but I don't think I'm entitled to claim it's harassment just because I felt uncomfortable.
Raise your hand if you're a man and you've been sexually harassed at work!
raises hand
I worked somewhere where I was the only man and was constantly harassed and my work belittled by my bosses and coworkers. I was outperforming my coworkers but put under extra scrutiny and was groped by my colleagues on several occasions.
At another job where I was in a minority of males, my coworkers were excessively flirtatious to the detriment of my performance at work.
I worked somewhere else where my male boss made me stay several hours late to help him with his work while he would praise me while trying to rub my leg and tell me how good looking I was.
Heck, I've worked at other places where because I wasn't macho enough for the rest of my coworkers, I was called a pussy and my sexual orientation was called into question constantly and they thought it was an okay running gag. That's sexual harassment too!
I'm sorry but sexual harassment at work isn't a gender-exclusive thing. Not by a long shot.
Aside: I'm kind of glad that I got fat and this all stopped happening. I'm somewhat more inclined to think that this is something that happens pretty universally to any reasonably-attractive people. I see these same things playing out with good-looking male coworkers constantly. I'm also totally ashamed of myself for letting these happen because I'm generally a very passive person. My choice in my personality and demeanor allowed other people to hurt me.
> out of fear of press and social media jumping at them and ruining their career forever
People like to claim this all the time, with very little evidence of it actually happening. Also the web is full of sexist shit, even 20 years later. I really don't see the point you are making.
In reality you are WAY more likely to get fired for union organizing or for being the victim of sexual harassment, rather than for being an edge lord on the internet.
> The United States of America have a sexual harassment policy.
If you are talking about the EEOC, then you are only talking about sexual harassment in a workplace with 15 or more employees. Also, it is a concern for the company, not the harasser; while it is antisocial behavior, it isn't a crime.
> Most people don't go around sexually harassing others.
A high proportion of programmers are on the autism spectrum compared to the general population. The law should apply to everybody equally, but this sort of thing is extremely hard to pin down. Something appropriate in one situation is not appropriate in another, and it takes discernment.
> If we were, then you could make the argument that such behavior may be acceptable where the employee is from, but it isn't here in the US.
We're talking about the law in general, about how it's especially not clear cut and black and white in this case. Your arguments aren't relating to that point at all.
> You aren't sure if something may be perceived as sexual harassment? Then don't do it.
That is ridiculous. Most people don't know the law backwards and forwards
It's stupid to think that people are responsible for all of the perceptions people have of them, especially people who are on the spectrum, as I have alluded to earlier. Would you just cut all people with social disorders out of any sort of human interaction, because by your logic, they can't do anything?
There is no hard and fast rule, as I have said before. There are standard deviations from the median, and it's hard to draw lines in human behaviour, a nuance that seems to escape many people.
> The context of that conversation is about whether one's private life should affect how we take one's work. #metoo is an excellent reference in that case.
No, it's not; sexual assault and harassment are part of working life and/or public offenses, not “private life”.
Oh, I never said that it did. I'm referring to blue-collar jobs like Rust Belt manufacturing specifically because that's a historically heavily unionized industry where the workforce is disproportionately male and white.
reply