How sexual harrassment corrupts an office

As much as I chafe against political correctness, I have to say that it's a very good thing, on balance, that this sort of thing is generally not tolerated in offices anymore...

This made me laugh.

1970s hippies hated being told they were boorish, and so used to chafe at how "uptight" we were, now today's conservatives hate being told when they're being loutish, and so chafe at our "political correctness."

But the effects of having and enforcing clear boundaries is not that we become more "uptight" or "politically correct" but that we become more respectful and fair.

My sister works in the sports world and told me how awful it gets (not ESPN, for the record).

Grumpy Old Man, I'm guessing if your daughter, mother, or sister was affected by this, you wouldn't sound so glib.

"it's a very good thing, on balance, that this sort of thing is generally not tolerated in offices anymore"

As someone who has sat through training classes on this subject, my understanding is that it isn't simply not tolerated, it's positively against the law and that someone could start a legitimate legal complaint in response to this kind of environment. Any attorney readers perhaps can set us straight.

I don't doubt it had some impact on the office atmosphere, but this woman kept her mouth shut about it and didn't complain to human resources or make any effort to put a stop to it. Maybe it would have cost her more to make an issue out of it, but on the other hand they couldn't know it was causing a problem if the women didn't complain. It's also hard to judge whether these affairs actually did give them more influence or if that's just the perception. I think everyone has worked in an office where people get involved with one another or the boss has an affair. The behavior would have to be pretty offensive and spilling over into the office to a noticeable degree for me to make a complaint.

Excellent post, Rod. I agree completely (and I like Letterman) at how destructive these kinds of sexual shenanigans can be to the workplace environment.

It may be human nature, but that doesn't make it right or healthy.

The words of Nell Scovell shouldn't be treated as the absolute truth on what went on at the Letterman show, nor should she necessarily regarded as an objective judge of what was and was not appropriate. What she describes sure sounds like an unpleasant environment, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy being in Nell Scovell's ideal workplace either.

To me, the most fascinating thing is watching the anger of commentators who are clearly thinking "I had to sit through all those bleepin' sexual harrassament seminars and Letterman got away with this?!?!"

Mike

The way bringing the legal system to bear in governing everyday human relations puts everybody on edge, and makes workers nervous about saying anything remotely controversial, for fear that someone will interpret it as sexual harrassment, racial bigotry, etc., and go to human resources with a complaint that could be a career-ender in these litigious times.

This suggests that the speaker wishes to say things that are rude or insulting. It strikes me as completely unprofessional to start spouting off in the workplace without giving a thought to one's co-workers or (even worse) clients.

May I suggest discussions of sports (how about those Broncos btw?) or the weather or a good bit of fiction you've read lately if you're making small talk at work?

"The idea of the gentleman figures more largely in conservatism than in liberalism"

Uh, the idea of the gentleman USED to figure more largely in conservatism than in liberalism. That is no longer the case for the conservatism of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, Michelle Bachman and Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Modern conservatives are just as caddish as liberals because it's more fun than being gentlemanly, and personal gratification is all anyone cares about any more.

Mike

Having resigned from a Christian ministry (and subsequently spent 6 months unemployed) because of what I found to be a culture of sexual harrassment, I have great sympathy for the individual quoted. Ultimately it's really about selfishness and power; the sex is just a means to that. It's incredibly destructive, and often there is little one can do, especially when it's condoned or even initiated from the top, as it was in my case and appears to have been here. Legal recourse is really the only way to fight back.

Also, where there's one brand of sin, others will usually make their way in also. In my case, I heard later from reliable sources that there were severe financial improprieties as well.

Uh, the idea of the gentleman USED to figure more largely in conservatism than in liberalism.

The *idea* of the gentleman figures exactly the way it did in the past: as cover. For heaven's sake, we're talking about a crowd that sees the antebellum Southern plantation owner on his patio as a gentlemanly figure to be revered. These are not the people you want to trust with notions of good and bad behavior.

MBunge,

Most of the people you name are libertarians not conservatives -- in other words right-wing *liberals.*

John E.,

I'll take the splenetic gesticulation you substitute for engagement with my post as a sign that you agree.

Your Name,

There's no "crowd" I know of that sees the antebellum Southern plantation owner on his patio as a gentlemanly figure to be revered.

But there *is* a President with quite a crowd of supporters, one who chose as he spokesperson a woman who reveres a figure far worse than any antebellum Southern plantation owner -- Mao Tse Tung, who murdered upwards of fifty million people, as opposed to merely enslaving a relative few.

There's no "crowd" I know of that sees the antebellum Southern plantation owner on his patio as a gentlemanly figure to be revered.

Yeah, OK. Keep telling yourself that as you smile at that treasonous flag.

Doesn't CBS have anti-harassment policies in place?

CBS isn't the relevant organization; Worldwide Pants isl

As someone who has sat through training classes on this subject, my understanding is that it isn't simply not tolerated, it's positively against the law and that someone could start a legitimate legal complaint in response to this kind of environment. Any attorney readers perhaps can set us straight.

Someone could, but then that someone would be entering into a protracted legal action with many risks and no clear benefit to them personally, particularly if they're hoping to continue working in that particular field. Is the potential satisfaction of seeing a perpetrator MAYBE put in his place, assuming everything goes well in court and your legal representation is equal to or better than his, really worth probably career suicide? I recently spoke with a woman who worked for years in a highly "Lettermanesque" office in a financial firm who decided the answer to that was pretty solidly no, and instead just kept her head down until she'd accumulated sufficient resume-building experience to move on.

Your Name,

Which "treasonous flag" do you mean -- the Stars and Stripes or some other one?

Not that I -- of all people -- have ever smiled at a flag in my life.

There are way too many examples of bad sexual behavior from all walks of life for this to be a liberal or conservative problem. Even if this was all completely consensual and there was absolutely no harassment per se, it is still demoralizing and not conducive to work. I saw this a lot in the military where it made things difficult. Sometimes an officer and an enlisted person would see each other and it resulted in marriage. This was actually pretty common for my female nurses seeing male enlisted. There were other instances where it was clearly just abusive. It is clearly not a black and white issue, but based on what I have seen, the risks of the downsides are enough that sex at the workplace should discouraged and if between people with unequal positions, there should be legal remedies if it was abusive.

Having said that, my corporation has gone through two entirely bogus sexual harassment claims, both settled with the women going on to work for the same guys after we fired them. It is a downside to hiring women and men at the same work place.

Steve

"John E.'s standard rhetorical move is simply to deny the existence of any evidence that might contradict the conclusions to which he has come"

You mean like classifying conservatives as libertarians when it suits your argument?

Mike

MBunge,

You say that I don't understand my own beliefs.

What, then -- pay-tell -- *are* my beliefs.

Why don't you identify them and explain them to me, since you recognize them and understand them so much better than I do.

In exchange for that "enlightenment," perhaps I can explain to you what liberalism and libertarianism are, because you clearly don't know.

"MBunge,

You say that I don't understand my own beliefs.

What, then -- pay-tell -- *are* my beliefs."

Near as I can tell, your fundamental belief is nothing more than that you and your self-defined group are better than those people over there who aren't like you.

Now, if you could explain how Rush, Cheney, Palin and Bachman qualify as libertarians and not conservatives, that I'd appreciate...if only for the humor value.

Mike

"MBunge,

*Who* specifically am I, besides someone whom you don't like?"

Seriously dude, give it up. Anyone who reads your comments here has a pretty good idea of *who* you are, or at least who you present yourself to be. I'm sorry if you like to think of yourself as some unknowable enigma, but it ain't the case.

"Not having been unfaithful to my wife or sexually harassed any women at work or made any dirty jokes about teenage girls on national tv, I do number myself in the very large majority of people who are more gentlemanly and less caddish than David Letterman is, but it that really so bold a claim as to justify *this* much bile out of you?"

Try and keep up, skippy. Any bile I'm directing toward you has nothing to do with your own gentlemanly behavior or lack thereof. As I think I made clear to anyone with a brain, what I contest is your claim that the idea of the gentleman means anything more to today's conservatives than it does to liberals.

And again, how do Rush, Cheney, Bachman and Palin qualify more as libertarians than they do conservatives?

Mike

I apologize for engaging in this sort of troll war stuff at your place, Rod. I can get a little too confrontational sometimes.

Mike

My point was that sexual harrassment law makes the kind of insane thing that happened to JerryS -- his complimenting a female co-worker, then finding himself hauled up on sexual harrassment charges -- more likely now.

In my experience the stories like JerryS's are the exception, not the rule, and they tend to occur when there are no clear policies and procedures in place.

My larger point is that no law is perfect, and we can find anecdotes for nearly any law of how and when they were applied unfairly.

Clarity and consistency is the issue, not political correctness or enforcement. If you find yourself walking on eggshells it is because you don't have clarity or consistency of the boundaries of acceptable behavior. JerryS was not the victim of political correctness, he was the victim of bad management practices.

Bad management hides behind so many masks, but is responsible for more mayhem than nearly anything else.