As a hemale...

[troyguitar]

Is company policy sufficiently vague/broad and accuser-supporting that one can be found to be in violation without any proven wrongdoing, perhaps?

Helllllll no. Has to be legally admissable in a civil court in the event of a lawsuit. Same with all my investigative procedures and notes. I nearly have to it document if I take a dump during an investigation.

Then what are all of these people doing to get fired that is both so bad and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt but is NOT against the law?

[goIftdibrad]

Helllllll no. Has to be legally admissable in a civil court in the event of a lawsuit. Same with all my investigative procedures and notes. I nearly have to it document if I take a dump during an investigation.

Then what are all of these people doing to get fired that is both so bad and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt but is NOT against the law?

from teh wiki

Although laws surrounding sexual harassment exist, they generally do not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or minor isolated incidents—that is, they do not impose a "general civility code".[3] In the workplace, harassment may be considered illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted, or the victim quitting the job). The legal and social understanding of sexual harassment, however, varies by culture.

In other words, the standard of proof legally is "beyond a reasonable doubt" while company policy might some lower standard such as 'reasonably certain'

[Sno]

Work is NOT in the same legal space as your citizenry and "your rights"

At work you don't have the right to a trial, hearing, fair review, etc. If they don't like what you did, or how you act, you are gone.

Right, because money is more important than the truth.

Shhh... just remove money from the equation. It's really a nonissue here, I promise.

[stripethree]

RE: louie CK someone mentioned. Apparently he asked many/all those women and they thought he was joking (he is a comedian)...idk. They also had the power to get up and leave.
And while masturbating in front of another person that does not want you to is clearly inappropriate..... ITS. NOT. RAPE. And they were free to get up and leave. Sure I get fight, Flight, or freeze is a thing..... but realize freeze is a personal / genetic flaw and make peace with it.

I mentioned CK, but never said it was rape or even a crime. It might be a crime but not sure TBH. Either way, it is still a shitty, creepy, and grossly inappropriate thing to do and I don't see a problem with people spreading the word that he is apparently a shitty, creepy, inappropriate colleague. Especially since it was a repetitive behavior. It also sounds like he had opportunities to realize it was inappropriate many times so I don't have a lot of sympathy for him if his career is impacted. The industry surrounding him also gets some of the blame since it was apparently a "known secret". OTOH, I give him more credit than others in his response because he did not victim blame or shame and he accepted his faults and the consequences. I have a hard time with the "I didn't know any better" reasons. We'll see where it goes from there.

[goIftdibrad]

Then what are all of these people doing to get fired that is both so bad and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt but is NOT against the law?

Impossible to say without being in the investigations. Inappropriate touching is the number one I work on. The law says it needs to be "pervasive" but company policy (everywhere) is any inappropriate contact is a termable offense. Lots of butt and boob grabbing in the world. Some dong grabbing too

It's also not that many people. It just seems like it because it's finally involving high profile powerful people. Industry wide we estimate that we only get reported about 10% of terminationable sexual offenses where women are the victims and less than 5% when men are.

Probably because 2/3rds of the remainder are not unwelcome.

[troyguitar]

Then what are all of these people doing to get fired that is both so bad and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt but is NOT against the law?

Impossible to say without being in the investigations. Inappropriate touching is the number one I work on. The law says it needs to be "pervasive" but company policy (everywhere) is any inappropriate contact is a termable offense. Lots of butt and boob grabbing in the world. Some dong grabbing too

It's also not that many people. It just seems like it because it's finally involving high profile powerful people. Industry wide we estimate that we only get reported about 10% of terminationable sexual offenses where women are the victims and less than 5% when men are.

If being that strict is the right thing to do, then why not make the actual law that strict and solve the problem for the whole country?

[goIftdibrad]

Probably because 2/3rds of the remainder are not unwelcome.

These are the ones considered unwelcome. Generally we don't think we are missing 90% of the perpetrators, we think that the ones we are getting are doing it wayyyy more than is reported.

The worst is when you get a report about a manager that you can validate, then you look at the team history and you can see young women joining and quitting the team on a fairly regular basis and way over what you'd expect.

got it, that makes sense.

[goIftdibrad]

Impossible to say without being in the investigations. Inappropriate touching is the number one I work on. The law says it needs to be "pervasive" but company policy (everywhere) is any inappropriate contact is a termable offense. Lots of butt and boob grabbing in the world. Some dong grabbing too

It's also not that many people. It just seems like it because it's finally involving high profile powerful people. Industry wide we estimate that we only get reported about 10% of terminationable sexual offenses where women are the victims and less than 5% when men are.

If being that strict is the right thing to do, then why not make the actual law that strict and solve the problem for the whole country?

Because our country is founded on the tenet that we would rather 10 guilty go free rather than 1 be imprisoned falsely.

This in a lot of ways is also a soft crime in the sense it's hard to prove. Its by nature he said/she said.

[goIftdibrad]

RE: louie CK someone mentioned. Apparently he asked many/all those women and they thought he was joking (he is a comedian)...idk. They also had the power to get up and leave.
And while masturbating in front of another person that does not want you to is clearly inappropriate..... ITS. NOT. RAPE. And they were free to get up and leave. Sure I get fight, Flight, or freeze is a thing..... but realize freeze is a personal / genetic flaw and make peace with it.

There is absolutely no justification for jerking it or wiggling your in someone's direction without consent.

That being said, wiggling at fellow DFD'ers...

That's what I was saying.....from his point of view he had consent. Even many of the accusers admit they were asked for permission by CK.

[4zilch]

I support this. Naturally, one of my first texts to Zilch this morning (he's traveling) was "there's no way." but have already come across a good point on Facebook. This is NBC and the Today show. Matt Lauer would not have been fired over winking at somebody at the water cooler.

In true DFD fashion of being off topic - what was your dream about?!

I was at a Sheetz filling up the barge, which I never do, and then a little FiST pulls up and out jumps that young fella. So strange.


And right on the mark. This is one of the most valuable people in TV on a revenue basis, something happened. This one hits me the hardest too. I am not a huge Today show viewer but it's freaking Matt Lauer.

I was at a Sheetz getting gas yesterday afternoon.
:inception:

[troyguitar]

If being that strict is the right thing to do, then why not make the actual law that strict and solve the problem for the whole country?

Because our country is founded on the tenet that we would rather 10 guilty go free rather than 1 be imprisoned falsely.

This in a lot of ways is also a soft crime in the sense it's hard to prove. Its by nature he said/she said.

So is the law too soft or are company policies too strict? What's the fix?

[Apex]

Because our country is founded on the tenet that we would rather 10 guilty go free rather than 1 be imprisoned falsely.

This in a lot of ways is also a soft crime in the sense it's hard to prove. Its by nature he said/she said.

So is the law too soft or are company policies too strict? What's the fix?

People to be respectful.

[goIftdibrad]

Because our country is founded on the tenet that we would rather 10 guilty go free rather than 1 be imprisoned falsely.

This in a lot of ways is also a soft crime in the sense it's hard to prove. Its by nature he said/she said.

So is the law too soft or are company policies too strict? What's the fix?

I don't see a problem. As we can see with the current way things are going, one does not need to have legal trouble for it to seriously affect their lives in negative ways.

[Melon]

I can imagine internal corporate investigations are tough, so much "He said, she said."

[goIftdibrad]

That's what I was saying.....from his point of view he had consent. Even many of the accusers admit they were asked for permission by CK.

why disappoint? I mean to me it sounds like a failure of all that were involved. The victims for not doing...something. Louie's management / handlers for not telling him he is being a creep and people are talking. Louie for not taking any offered hints and cleaning up his behavior.

And don't even come at me with victim blaming on this: this is not assault OR RAPE. Its inappropriate behavior, and people are responsible to report it.

[stripethree]

why disappoint? I mean to me it sounds like a failure of all that were involved. The victims for not doing...something. Louie's management / handlers for not telling him he is being a creep and people are talking. Louie for not taking any offered hints and cleaning up his behavior.

CK was in the position of power, in this case financially. Some of the victims that spoke up before the larger, recent story, did not do so until they had "made it" and felt their own careers wouldn't be jeopardized if they spoke up. The stigma in many industries is that if you speak up against the successful guy (esp. white guy) you'll get buried.

[troyguitar]

So is the law too soft or are company policies too strict? What's the fix?

I don't see a problem. As we can see with the current way things are going, one does not need to have legal trouble for it to seriously affect their lives in negative ways.

If all of these accusations have actually been proven to be true by people like who are smarter than any judge, then I guess it's fine.

All I hear are things like "Jim was fired from BigCorp after accusations of misconduct" - usually with no follow-up regarding the truth... Are we really supposed to believe that every firing is a result of accusations being proven to be true, yet the truth is rarely being reported? It doesn't make any sense.

[goIftdibrad]

why disappoint? I mean to me it sounds like a failure of all that were involved. The victims for not doing...something. Louie's management / handlers for not telling him he is being a creep and people are talking. Louie for not taking any offered hints and cleaning up his behavior.

CK was in the position of power, in this case financially. Some of the victims that spoke up before the larger, recent story, did not do so until they had "made it" and felt their own careers wouldn't be jeopardized if they spoke up. The stigma in many industries is that if you speak up against the successful guy (esp. white guy) you'll get buried.

Sure, and that sucks, and I'm glad the tide is turning against those types of status quo, as it should.

but in the same breath you cannot expect things to change if you don't stand up for what is right yourself. Those women picked their carriers over speaking out about this thing, IE they made a choice. It's the same logical fallacy of telling yourself you should do XYZ because it's good for you but never actually take steps to do it. Then at a later time blame your personal failures on the government, or the fast food industry, or shitty parks, difficult to use libraries, etc.

[Melon]

why disappoint? I mean to me it sounds like a failure of all that were involved. The victims for not doing...something. Louie's management / handlers for not telling him he is being a creep and people are talking. Louie for not taking any offered hints and cleaning up his behavior.

And don't even come at me with victim blaming on this: this is not assault OR RAPE. Its inappropriate behavior, and people are responsible to report it.

Disappoint because if they gave consent and still filed a complaint... I mean, come on. You can't just pull a sexual misconduct card for that.

It's the thing to do.

[razr390]

But what if it’s not right? What if a court says he’s not guilty? Do the company rules or ruling trump that? I’m asking, not stating, because I’m assuming yes? Fire at will rights and all that?

Correct. Company policy is almost always stricter than law.

Friend of mine who is a cop told me “as long as I follow departmental policy, I will never break the law, because policy is stricter than law.”

[goIftdibrad]

why disappoint? I mean to me it sounds like a failure of all that were involved. The victims for not doing...something. Louie's management / handlers for not telling him he is being a creep and people are talking. Louie for not taking any offered hints and cleaning up his behavior.

And don't even come at me with victim blaming on this: this is not assault OR RAPE. Its inappropriate behavior, and people are responsible to report it.

Disappoint because if they gave consent and still filed a complaint... I mean, come on. You can't just pull a sexual misconduct card for that.

Yea. I mean, Mr CK probably crossed some lines. I think its far more complicated than it been made out to be.

And while his conduct was likly innapropriate and his view of sexuality and healthy sexual behavor is distored.... IT. WAS. NOT. RAPE.

[wap]

Then what are all of these people doing to get fired that is both so bad and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt but is NOT against the law?

Impossible to say without being in the investigations. Inappropriate touching is the number one I work on. The law says it needs to be "pervasive" but company policy (everywhere) is any inappropriate contact is a termable offense. Lots of butt and boob grabbing in the world. Some dong grabbing too

It's also not that many people. It just seems like it because it's finally involving high profile powerful people. Industry wide we estimate that we only get reported about 10% of terminationable sexual offenses where women are the victims and less than 5% when men are.

It's news now because the previously untouchable (no pun intended) are now touchable, and I don't have a problem with that. Also, remember, these dudes losing their jobs are NOT the same as you or me losing ours. They are financially set for many lifetimes and will NOT suffer as you or I would from being fired. Their public lives may be ruined, but their cushy private lives will go on just fine.

[Apex]

Impossible to say without being in the investigations. Inappropriate touching is the number one I work on. The law says it needs to be "pervasive" but company policy (everywhere) is any inappropriate contact is a termable offense. Lots of butt and boob grabbing in the world. Some dong grabbing too

It's also not that many people. It just seems like it because it's finally involving high profile powerful people. Industry wide we estimate that we only get reported about 10% of terminationable sexual offenses where women are the victims and less than 5% when men are.

It's news now because the previously untouchable (no pun intended) are now touchable, and I don't have a problem with that. Also, remember, these dudes losing their jobs are NOT the same as you or me losing ours. They are financially set for many lifetimes and will NOT suffer as you or I would from being fired. Their public lives may be ruined, but their cushy private lives will go on just fine.

Article I read on CNN regarding Lauer was his contract paid him tens of millions each year. Financially he's fine.

[troyguitar]

If all of these accusations have actually been proven to be true by people like who are smarter than any judge, then I guess it's fine.

All I hear are things like "Jim was fired from BigCorp after accusations of misconduct" - usually with no follow-up regarding the truth... Are we really supposed to believe that every firing is a result of accusations being proven to be true, yet the truth is rarely being reported? It doesn't make any sense.

The company is accountable to civil court action. As I said before, we are EASILY sued. Additionally the investigation itself is confidential so the company can't go out and say "Jim did X, Y, and Z". Jim does have the right to privacy and the right to sue for wrongful termination.

Both sides have recourse.

So we're left to just assume that the executives and lawyers working in secret are doing everything right? Sorry, I don't trust anyone to do that.

[wap]

It's news now because the previously untouchable (no pun intended) are now touchable, and I don't have a problem with that. Also, remember, these dudes losing their jobs are NOT the same as you or me losing ours. They are financially set for many lifetimes and will NOT suffer as you or I would from being fired. Their public lives may be ruined, but their cushy private lives will go on just fine.

Article I read on CNN regarding Lauer was his contract paid him tens of millions each year. Financially he's fine.

Yup, and same for Weinstein, Cosby, Charlie Rose (that one hit me hardest), etc.