Men now avoid women at work – another sign we're being punished for #MeToo

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The two point highlighted are good examples of why you see the behaviour that this thread is about.

 

Actually from a cost benefit analysis I could see such preventative behaviour being supported. 

 

     As has been said previously, the people who feel that way probably had the wrong approach. It is “work” after all. If someone is looking primarily for social engagement, there are some really great established venues for doing that. The work environment is not really one of them. I go to work because I want money. No other reason. If I wanted a social event or to meet someone, there are better places.

[laylalex 7,247]

 

41 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

   Someone gave an example in another thread of not being able to give a consensual massage. There are probably 3 points I would bring up from a HR point of view.

 

   -there’s no real way to know it’s consensual. You are not in a social environment where people always feel free to object or leave.

 

  -other people may not feel comfortable with the activity, even if you do. It’s not just about the 2 people involved in the activity. Other people may not want to work in such an environment. 

 

  -you are being paid to work. If you want to give massages while getting paid, go to school and get training in that field.

 

   No matter which point you emphasize, it comes down to the same thing. If you like, then yes it is all driven by cost in one way or another. Employers want to minimize cost by providing a productive environment where people generally feel comfortable and happy. Does it always work for everyone. Probably not. Thats why we find another job sometimes. However That is what drives policy. 

Pretty sure it was @Boris Farage who mentioned this. I think his reasoning was that because it was his family's company, and the co-worker was okay with it, that he should have gotten a pass. I just can't agree on that at all, even though (as far as I know) the co-worker found it not only acceptable but enjoyed it. The point I made with him (not here but separately) was that it isn't enough that it was okay, it's that it potentially did not look okay, and that it made it look like employees could touch each other intimately without any repercussions. It may be even worse because the person giving the massage was a person in a position of authority.

 

I think even people who are romantic partners or spouses should hold themselves back from doing these kinds of things at work. It's just creepy and unnecessary in a professional environment. I work with one of my best friends, a man, and occasionally I give him a hug -- I'm a hugger! And since we're also best friends, I guess I'm used to being able to do these things without thinking about it, but maybe I should. We have only one other member of staff, but she's never mentioned feeling uncomfortable about it. It may be that in our kind of environment -- quirky and vaguely artsy and hey, in Berkeley -- there's a little more leeway than in a corporate headquarters, but I think massages are one thing that should only be acceptable in a spa environment, or similar.

[Boiler 43,431]

43 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     As has been said previously, the people who feel that way probably had the wrong approach. It is “work” after all. If someone is looking primarily for social engagement, there are some really great established venues for doing that. The work environment is not really one of them. I go to work because I want money. No other reason. If I wanted a social event or to meet someone, there are better places.

Nobody is saying it is, these are just techniques to avoid any such suggestion.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, laylalex said:

 

Pretty sure it was @Boris Farage who mentioned this. I think his reasoning was that because it was his family's company, and the co-worker was okay with it, that he should have gotten a pass. I just can't agree on that at all, even though (as far as I know) the co-worker found it not only acceptable but enjoyed it. The point I made with him (not here but separately) was that it isn't enough that it was okay, it's that it potentially did not look okay, and that it made it look like employees could touch each other intimately without any repercussions. It may be even worse because the person giving the massage was a person in a position of authority.

 

I think even people who are romantic partners or spouses should hold themselves back from doing these kinds of things at work. It's just creepy and unnecessary in a professional environment. I work with one of my best friends, a man, and occasionally I give him a hug -- I'm a hugger! And since we're also best friends, I guess I'm used to being able to do these things without thinking about it, but maybe I should. We have only one other member of staff, but she's never mentioned feeling uncomfortable about it. It may be that in our kind of environment -- quirky and vaguely artsy and hey, in Berkeley -- there's a little more leeway than in a corporate headquarters, but I think massages are one thing that should only be acceptable in a spa environment, or similar.

 

   We actually have a policy where they won't hire spouses in the same department. Too many issues come up. If it happens, it's usually just temporary where somebody gets moved for a day because of workload. The only time we have had it come up on a longer term was where two people got married. Even then, they had some strict conditions in place including that neither of them was allowed to assume any form of leadership position while the other worked there. Basically rewrote the SOP for that situation. They actually had no desire to work together after they tied the knot, which I understand perfectly, and one of them ended up getting a job elsewhere after a short time.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

6 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Nobody is saying it is, these are just techniques to avoid any such suggestion.

 

  You did. You said some of the techniques are leading to the situation in the thread title, where men just avoid women at work altogether. Or perhaps I misunderstood what you were getting at.

[Boiler 43,431]

The title was from the article as required by the Mods, blessings be upon them.

 

The issue is about people wishing to avoid putting themselves in a situation where they are at risk. The married couple thing by the way has existed well before as a 'Fidelity Guarantee' issue, not good practice where the collusion risk depending on the activity would be high.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The title was from the article as required by the Mods, blessings be upon them.

 

The issue is about people wishing to avoid putting themselves in a situation where they are at risk. The married couple thing by the way has existed well before as a 'Fidelity Guarantee' issue, not good practice where the collusion risk depending on the activity would be high.

 

   As an actual policy, it was something we implemented only a few years ago. However it has always been a question on the job application.

[TBoneTX 43,058]

13 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

If you have a good HR department

Too often, the dregs of the company, the "losers," are thrown here.

 

I once briefly worked at a place where the (all-minority) HR dept. staff were openly favoring members of their own race in terms of hiring, promotion, preferential matters, etc.  Of course, no one could ever say a thing about it.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

23 hours ago, Bettie Page said:

This is nonsense - what, pray tell, would be the punishment? You get asked a few questions in an HR investigation? And if it gets as far as a lawsuit you get deposed? (and if it gets that far, you were probably asleep at the wheel.

Based on training I just underwent, if I saw person A doing something offensive to person B, and said nothing, even if person B didn't report it, but person C did, and person D said I was there, but failed to report it immediately...

 

I can receive any actions from "retraining to termination".

[Bettie Page 118]

I suspect this relates to serious misconduct and not some grey area of whether someone was offensive - I know you want us to believe the latter because for some reason the kind of victimization you probably deplore when women and minorities do it is something you relish for yourself

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

2 hours ago, Bettie Page said:

I suspect this relates to serious misconduct and not some grey area of whether someone was offensive - I know you want us to believe the latter because for some reason the kind of victimization you probably deplore when women and minorities do it is something you relish for yourself

Pretty judgemental,  are you that sure of his motivations to be so specific in your call out? Seems a little presumptuous to me, but of course I am seeing it throught the filter of whitr, male privelidge

[TBoneTX 43,058]

Yes; please minimize accusations of this type.

[Bettie Page 118]

What is the accusation exactly? I see a lot of white men assuming the mantle of victimhood in this here forum, including a thread that conflated being a Trump supporter with the Holocaust.

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

6 hours ago, Bettie Page said:

I know you want us to believe the latter because for some reason the kind of victimization you probably deplore when women and minorities do it is something you relish for yourself

This kind of implied your position to me. Perhaps you could explain to me if I am mistaken

[Bettie Page 118]

Are you offended by that comment? If we were at work and someone didn’t report it would you get fired? What is offensive?