Is it sexual harassment... (page 9)

SixofNine

But sir, her ass meant everything to me; you're saying I shouldn't have looked?!

This email is to review our conversation yesterday. At that time, you received a verbal warning that, in spite of how much her @$$ means to you, you cannot look at it for extended periods of time, esp at the expense of the very important work you do....

Any further leering at said @$$ could result in further disciplinary action, up to dismissal from the company.

Next time, try reading an old Readers Digest. It'll take the desire right out of you.

SixofNine

I thought things would be different now that I work in a strip club. I guess corporate America is corporate America...

AGuest

what about the scenario given where a woman wears clothing that is definitely revealing and unprofessional?

Or a man (and may you have peace, dear ATJ!)...

Most companies have Sexual Harassment and Dress Codes that are tied in. Shouldn't a woman who wears such clothing be brought up before HR and the process of warnings started in that case?

Absolutely. If someone violates the company dress code, they should be disciplined (i.e., sent home to change and/or written up)… if not outright terminated (depending on the situation). Believe me, I will send an employee home if they’re not in the proper uniform (whether it’s the right color blouse, missing I.D. tag, lack of safety shoes, etc.), per company code, let alone if they are inappropriately dressed. Why? First, because I learned… the HARD way… what can happen if you don’t (accusations of sexual harassment, injuries, etc.). Second, because I learned… it creates a potential liability… for my company AND for me, as supervisor. The company could be sued… AND I could be written up and/or terminated (because some underling didn’t follow policy? Oh, no, no, no, no…) Third, because I also learned that if I let one get away with it, I will have to let others do so… because folks have a way of “testing” stuff like that. And then my evaluations are even harder to do. Nope, keep it clean and “everybody’s” happy! No surprises come eval time!

That would also create a hostile work environment according to my understanding of HR?

It would! People are SUPPOSED to come to work… to work (yeah, I know that’s a pipedream, but it IS what is SUPPOSED to be going on!). But when staff dress inappropriately other members become distracted, irritated, unhappy, whiney, complainy… omigawd, even hateful, mean, jealous… you name it. The emotions… and accusations… run the gamut! Employee shows up showing cleavage? We immediately have a little talk in my office. I am kind, but I am candid. Employee shows up with too much tight crotch. Time for the little talk. And it’s easy to have: “John Doe, I know those are probably your favorite jeans. Unfortunately, the company policy is that technicians must wear LOOSE clothing so that they can do the work. We don’t want you pulling or otherwise hurting anything. So, I’m sending you home to change. You can clock out for lunch, now, and I’ll see you in an hour.” Or, “That’s quite a lovely blouse, Betty Sue, and you look fabulous in it; however, the company policy is that clothing may not be too revealing and since I am the supervisor, I reserve the right to say whether something is too revealing or not. And I believe your blouse is. So, I am sending you home to change. Now, you only have an hour or so, but you should take some time to think about what you’re going to wear instead, so I don’t have to send you home again. Thanks for coming in to see me, girl, and be sure to wear that one to happy hour”

Whatever happened to common sense being a virtue?

First, while it can, as ATJ said, rule YOUR world, dear JD (and peace to you!) quite obviously it does not rule THE world. Indeed, I would wager, given the world’s conduct for millennia, that common sense is a possession of a very few minority, the world over. Second, IF common sense ruled ANYWHERE, there would BE no revealing apparel at work. Nothing FOR folks to look at (although, sometimes nothing even needs to BE revealed – you know, ‘cause there are some “x-ray eyed” pervs, out there!)

Which is exactly what the problem is. Sexual harassment still certainly exists, but in many cases it's become ridiculous.

Yes, dear Mary (and peace to you, as well!). As have many cases of child abuse, child molestation, domestic abuse, domestic violence, incest, rape, racism… and other forms of discrimination. Yes, it is sad that some exploit the situation/laws… but obviously, there are enough VALID cases to have warranted laws NEEDING to be put into place.

Or perhaps we just care to be more balanced in our views and don't see "sexual harassment" behind every comment that comes out of a guys mouth.

Not every comment, no. But even that is subjective, isn’t it? Because you MIGHT see as such what someone else might NOT. And vice versa. For instance, there are men who “don’t see” what’s wrong with man/boy love. I see something wrong with that. There are people who “don’t see” that a child or wife is not a possession to be pummeled at an “owner’s” whim. I see something wrong with that. There are some who “don’t see” anything wrong with “she didn’t scream, so she wasn’t raped.” I see something wrong with that.

And, obviously, there are some who “don’t see” anything wrong with eyeballing a woman’s backside when she UNKNOWINGLY bends over. I see something wrong with that. Now, if she KNEW and did it ON PURPOSE… then, I say, she should get what she asked for. Ain’t nuthin’ to me. BUT… the LAW might very well say it is indeed “sexual harassment” (if she SAYS she didn’t know/do it on purpose).

My point? In THIS matter (sexual harassment) it doesn’t always matter what YOU “see”… or “don’t see.” As in my example, yeah, I knew it was sexual harassment… but it didn’t BOTHER me. It DID bother someone ELSE, though, which created an obligation for ME.

Again, I know folks don’t WANT things to be “sexual harassment,” or “child abuse”, or “emotional abuse,” etc. And so that’s why there are laws… because WE don’t always agree.

Again, I bid you all peace!

A slave of Christ,

SA

AllTimeJeff

Shelby,

Thanks, and peace to you as well. In the context of this thread, I used a woman as an example, although it is clearly a gender neutral subject. Thanks for your input!

John Doe

And, obviously, there are some who “don’t see” anything wrong with eyeballing a woman’s backside when she UNKNOWINGLY bends over. I see something wrong with that.

And that's where you lose all credibility.

snowbird

“John Doe, I know those are probably your favorite jeans. Unfortunately, the company policy is that technicians must wear LOOSE clothing so that they can do the work. We don’t want you pulling or otherwise hurting anything.

LOL.

Sylvia

AGuest

So, okay, she bent over... you looked. Heck, I might have looked because I noticed she was wearing red-checkered drawers under nylon white pants. Okay. But I meant "eyeballing"... not just glancing. I probably should have used "ogling"?

Peace!

Shel

John Doe

Does the presence or absence of drool make a difference?

Is it sexual harassment...

Share this