Even if you believe that, why shouldn’t there be a process to investigate the claims? You think all harassment claims should be automatically dismissed as false instead?
all harassment claims should be
There should be an objective, measurable process. Given the cul-de-sac that organisations like Google have been strong-armed into, I think the obvious next step is
(1) to record all work-time interaction of all employees and store them for a long time, e.g. at least 10 years.
(2) Give a absolutely clear-cut criteria as to what counts as acceptable behaviour and what doesn't.
This. I imagine most are absolutely true, but there are some that absolutely are not. I've personally been accused by rape, online, of someone in another state that I've never even been to. Fortunately, no one took the claim serious but I imagine there are many innocent people that have been wrongly accused for whatever reason.
I also had a friend, that was using OkCupid, reject a girl very politely in the first message or two. She then went on 'cheaterville' and posted that he gave her sexual transmitted diseases/infections and made multiple accounts alleging the same, one even as him with his name. He's an actor, he was up for a role and they retracted their offer when googling his name brought the cheaterville page up on the first page. Now if these two instances have happened to 2 guys from the midwest that have no power or money, I can only imagine there are quite a few false accusations regularly. I also imagine there are many many more TRUE accusations.
We need to protect individuals regardless of race, gender and sexual orientation but at the same time we need to avoid workplace harassment turning into McCarthyism.
I imagine most are absolutely
true,
(1) There is simply no agreement currently on what counts as harassment.
(2) Anecdote: I've been involved in investigating a sexual harassment claim at a previous employer, at it was absolutely and categorically and provably false.
turning into McCarthyism.
This is an absolutely fair observation.
>The situation has gotten so out of hand, that recording all employee interaction might indeed be the only way forward.
Yeah, I think something like bodycams is likely the most effective solution to the issue but then things get tricky for various industries, stuff like patient/client confidentiality laws, trade secrets, etc. Not to mention stuff like using the restroom, where sexual harassment could still take place.
Then audio-only wouldn't cover miming explicit actions.
It's certainly a problem with no easily actionable answer.
Not sufficient. Should store them for at least 36 years.
Because it quickly becomes a witch-hunt.
It is hard enough to have a fair investigation within a proper court system and legal framework - it’s far more likely any Google process will end up as a kangaroo court than the process leading to any justice.
Why would you think that?
I think the majority of claims need to go into the “not really sure” bucket where they belong.
Acknowledging this basic truth does not mean you have to then do nothing.
There are many well tested solutions but they all carry different trade offs.
E.g.
- Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies.
Or,
- When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.
Etc.
That's a very good way to be found liable for both later harassment by the accused and, if you move the accuser, for retaliation; and also a PR nightmare when it is discovered to have been your policy or even a common practice to move accused wrongdoers without follow-up (just ask the Catholic Church.)
If priests had been moved around for simply leering at a woman or making a suggestive sexual comment I don’t think there would have been any outrage.
I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes - or any crimes for that matter.
You are suggesting that they should shuffle people around without investigation to quiet complaints of situations against which are obligated by law to protect their employees, including potentially involuntary reassignment of the reporting party (again, without investigation of the facts) despite the legal prohibition on retaliation.
Uh no - to protect their employees from abuse.
> despite the legal prohibition on retaliation.
Why is it retaliation to seperate the accused and accuser?
In fact if you don’t seperate them you are opening yourself up to legal liability and a PR nightmare.
This addresses only the tiniest subset of issues, and mostly the ones toward the consensual end of the spectrum. Groping; quid pro quo suggestions (subtle or explicit); coercive threats (subtle or explicit); lewd remarks; invitations to strip clubs; etc ad nauseum (and yes, they're nauseating) have nothing to do with actual romantic relationships.
> When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.
Due to the nature of company hierarchies, this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain much more than it does the one higher - both in terms of short term impacts and long term career advancement. Which often means punishing the victim, due to how the power dynamics of harassment interactions tend to work out.
It's also a pretty damn weak reaction. If your Director of X insinuates that they'll fire an engineer if the engineer won't sleep with the director, you think the only consequence for the director should be that that engineer no longer reports to them?
Not at all - in practice it removes ambiguity which is where most of the issues stem.
> this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain
At a large company that is not true - it’s actually the opposite.
For those below director level it’s usually a privilege to be able to shift teams.
On the other hand when you are director level and up it’s usually a negative because most of your ability to operate effectively comes from the interpersonal relationships you have built up.
> It's also a pretty damn weak reaction.
It’s a weak reaction based on typically weak evidence. In fact most commonly there is no evidence at all.
What it does is it ensures any abuse is stopped.
In practice it’s one of the most effective techniques I’ve seen because it can be used to nip problems in the bud - nobody feels too bad about using the system early and often.
It doesn’t ensure abuse is stopped. It may just expose a different set of employees to abuse. It doesn’t send a message that abuse is unacceptable or will meet with meaningful consequences. It’s only a solution to anything if the only problematic interactions are between two specific employees. If you have an employee with a boundary problem or who enjoys abusing their position or who “just can’t help themselves”, it does nothing to prevent or deter them from subjecting another report to the same unacceptable behavior. Like the molesting priests mentioned in another thread - moving them to another parish accomplishes nothing except to make it clear that they can get away with misbehavior and to expose a new set of victims to abuse.
Maybe at the very top - not for the majority of cases though.
> It doesn’t send a message that abuse is unacceptable or will meet with meaningful consequences.
Does sending a message that abuse is unacceptable stop abuse?
It seems to me that the only people it scares are the people who aren’t a problem in the first place.
In truth such a message seems to enable abusers although I couldn’t explain to you why.
> moving them to another parish accomplishes nothing
That might be the case when children are involved.
In a workplace context though such an approach empowers potential victims.
It empowers victims in four key ways:
1) It stops women from threatening innocent men - saying “I can make you move teams to an equivalent position” is not particularly threatening - more of a pain in the ass.
2) It limits the ability of a male manager to sexually pressure his female subordinates. Saying “you will never advance in this company unless you ...” carries a lot less weight when you can easily switch managers.
3) It empowers women to be able to voice concerns without having to worry about getting people fired.
You’d be surprised at the number of women who keep quiet about real problems because they don’t want an overzealous HR to come in and ruin people’s livelihoods.
4) It limits abuse without requiring strong evidence of abuse in a way that doesn’t result in strong backlash.
Have a zero tolerance policy on
relationships between colleagues.
Conjecture: the planet would be depopulated.