Dimmerswitch wrote:DSGamer wrote:I must work in the filthiest city in the world, then, because I've seen exactly the situations bandit describes many times. And honestly I've never thought to turn people in to HR.
I may have missed it - did anyone respond to bandit0013's post saying that HR should be a first recourse?
Hehe, you kind of did.
I can see how you'd read it that way, but that isn't what I'd intended (my fault for posting well after my bedtime). I should have been more clear that I view contacting HR as an option if taking it up with the person directly fails or is otherwise off the table for whatever reason (perceived safety issue or other fear of retribution, for example).
Sequence was correct (person directly, HR is escalation). Clarity left something to be desired.
Apologies if my less-than-ideal phrasing got anyone unduly riled up here.
ianunderhill wrote:momgamer wrote:It's hard to know what to say here. From my perspective, what those ladies said by the watercooler doesn't belong at work, and I don't care what sort of plumbing you have.
Thunderous applause to this. If the "it's not appropriate for a work environment" excuse isn't good enough for you, remember that you're also not getting paid to drink booze on the clock.
Come on. Everyone brings a slightly different version of themselves to work. Whether that's refraining from drinking on the job, refraining from blue talk, dressing for the job, being respectful of authority when you might not normally be or just being more polite and courteous than you normally would. No one is saying that there isn't a reasonable trade-off between meeting expectations of a job and what that job provides. It's possible to both understand all of that, respect all of that and even live all of that but still wish things were different.
Sure it is. So "come on" and do what, exactly? My point was, "if you can't agree to what's suitable in a work environment and (caveat!) you insist on sticking around, what the hell's wrong with doing what you're paid to do?" I'm sure there's somebody somewhere in Hypothetical Work Purity Rage Land whose primary interest in serving an employer isn't earning a living, but until they can present the specifics of their case, I'm betting on a work-for-pay arrangement remaining the accepted standard for "why work?".
As for the high horse stuff? Don't put words in my mouth.
DSGamer wrote:I must work in the filthiest city in the world, then, because I've seen exactly the situations bandit describes many times. And honestly I've never thought to turn people in to HR.
I may have missed it - did anyone respond to bandit0013's post saying that HR should be a first recourse?
I did, somewhat. Really, my thought on this is just that if it's such a problem and something we should lay our hand on our head and lament, you should do something. I don't mean in the vein of going to someone in HR and saying, "Well, Sally said such-and-such and it was awful, just awful! DO SOMETHING!" More like, "Look, this happened, what the hell am I supposed to do? Will I get in trouble if I say something? Is the person in question the one who should stop?"
I mean, the reality of the situation is that bandit supposed an imaginary situation would occur if he did something. But he didn't do that thing, and now we're all worried about something that is effectively invented. It's well and good to say, "Oh, well we all know that double standard is in play and it totally would have happened," but... you don't know. Not really. People project this kind of stuff all the time, and then get riled up about completely illusive disparities. For all the "well it totally happened when so-and-so did such-and-such!" stories, I can give you a dozen times where one of my employees have made completely false or ridiculous projections here about my expected behavior, the expected behavior of other employees, or even the expected outcome per our regulations and procedures. But they sure did enjoy lamenting the thing that didn't actually happen. So, in the end, there are two choices - actually see what reality is, or continue sighing about fantasy situations.
This read to me like he was uncomfortable about language a female co-worker was using, or possibly just lamenting the fact that he can't engage in banter that is (apparently) too salacious to post on a gaming site for fear of repercussions, while his female co-workers can.
He's since clarified that this was actually about pointing out there are grey areas that would be acceptable social interaction but are contrary to HR policies.
Which I'd actually agree with - but I'd argue that the situation bandit0013 described in his original post is pretty clearly not an example of that.
Sorry I've been away from the thread today, I'm quite busy with stuff related to a new product release.
I have to agree. I have two questions, though. How does this relate to "political correctness"? And again, if Bandit felt uncomfortable, why let it go and then complain about it? It's bad wrong to let this stuff go, in the workplace. I say that from personal experience. If no one stands up, then it's not going away, and it's not going to improve. (And the same logic works the other way - as I said, if you think it's harmless, then join in, you should have no trouble explaining it, if someone calls you on it.)
And finally, what's preventing him from addressing this with his co-worker? Because that assumption - that women can get away with it, but men can't - seems to me to be the problem. It's wrong. And it reflects a line of thought that seeks to roll back equality, on the belief that women (or minorities or whoever) will use laws enforcing that to shut down reasonable speech of people they don't like.
DimmerSwitch wrote:This read to me like he was uncomfortable about language a female co-worker was using, or possibly just lamenting the fact that he can't engage in banter that is (apparently) too salacious to post on a gaming site for fear of repercussions, while his female co-workers can.
He's since clarified that this was actually about pointing out there are grey areas that would be acceptable social interaction but are contrary to HR policies.
Which I'd actually agree with - but I'd argue that the situation bandit0013 described in his original post is pretty clearly not an example of that.
Sorry I've been away from the thread today, I'm quite busy with stuff related to a new product release.
I have to agree. I have two questions, though. How does this relate to "political correctness"? And again, if Bandit felt uncomfortable, why let it go and then complain about it? It's bad wrong to let this stuff go, in the workplace. I say that from personal experience. If no one stands up, then it's not going away, and it's not going to improve. (And the same logic works the other way - as I said, if you think it's harmless, then join in, you should have no trouble explaining it.)
And finally, what's preventing him from addressing this with his co-worker? Because that assumption - that women can get away with it, but men can't - seems to me to be the problem. It's wrong. And it reflects a line of thought that seeks to roll back equality, on the belief that women (or minorities or whoever) will use laws enforcing that to shut down reasonable speech of people they don't like.
You answered your own question.
I don't know that that is what Bandit intended. I'd be a lot more comfortable not just making inferences.
I don't know that that is what Bandit intended. I'd be a lot more comfortable not just making inferences.
Understandable, but I still stand my assertion. There's a reason this was posted in the PC thread and not a "My HR department is terrible" thread.
I hear you. It goes with what I hear from my conservative friends. But I trust Bandit and give him more than the benefit of the doubt.
Because it's simpler for the company, they give the truck driver, who is not part of the custodial staff, the same pay scale, hours, and benefits as them. He is now the recipient of union benefits without having to pay dues. This goes on for years, as no one really wants to be the one to point out that the truck driver is getting benefits that the union had to fight for. He didn't really ask for these things, he just got them. But eventually, the union elects a president who decides this is unfair enough that the truck driver should really be paying union dues, and he approaches the company. The truck driver now has to pay union dues, or lose benefits.
The truck driver doesn't know that his position was because someone else made things better for him. This is what he was given. Now, someone has pointed out that no, he doesn't deserve those things by default just because he got hired after the union had fought and won those battles. We can hope that the truck driver would see the fairness in paying his dues, but he's likely to be angry. In reality, the inequality was corrected. From his perspective, his paycheck is a little smaller, despite the fact that it was much larger to begin with than it would have been otherwise.
Forgive me if I have little sympathy if the truck driver is standing around lamenting those lost dues.
Forgive me if I would take their asses to court because I was hired under an agreement to receive those benefits without the dues and they have no right to reach into my pocket and force me to pay them or lose my benefits. And by the way, if you make me start paying, I want the union to kick in any retirement pay, tenure, etc that I would otherwise have been entitled to. Also, if the union has gotten any contractual raises during the tenure that I didn't get I expect them to pay me for all that with interest too.
Sound fair?
Sorry, but that story is awful, that is a terrible breach of that driver's employment. He was happy with his offer, the ownership was happy with his offer, who the fark does the union leader think he is butting into that financial arrangement?
Maybe start a new thread...
And finally, what's preventing him from addressing this with his co-worker? Because that assumption - that women can get away with it, but men can't - seems to me to be the problem. It's wrong. And it reflects a line of thought that seeks to roll back equality, on the belief that women (or minorities or whoever) will use laws enforcing that to shut down reasonable speech of people they don't like.
Yes, because no minority groups use the law to shut down reasonable speech of people they don't like. :-p It only happens pretty much any time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are in range of a microphone.
I guess I'm jaded, I've worked with a ton of companies being a consultant and unlike you I have never once seen a woman get busted on pc violations. The sexism of the dress code does get to me as well. I really hate it that I have to wear long pants and a button down in the summer and women can wear skirts. Why can't I wear shorts? If you're going to make me act like an automaton, make everyone dress like one too. *sarcasm*
It is interesting to note though that many educators are starting to get concerned about male students being left behind since all the supportive female programs have been pushing them up through collegiate levels far beyond their male counterparts.
I hear you. It goes with what I hear from my conservative friends. But I trust Bandit and give him more than the benefit of the doubt.
So where does that benefit of the doubt stand now?
Maybe start a new thread...
Yup.
In your haste to respond to the labor analogy, you did overlook Robear's "How does this relate to "political correctness?" question.
I'm also still unsure if I'm parsing everyone's current positions correctly, and would love clarification about whether anyone in-thread is actually mourning the absence of "army guy"-type conversations (for lack of a better word) - or feeling that they've surrendered some essential part of themselves by choosing to not engage in them at work?
Or is everyone now just using bandit0013's story about conversations too salacious to post here as a way to point to grey areas? (If so, I still think it's a pretty poor example to make that argument, as it is about as technicolor an example of not-okay-for-work as I could come up with without Godwinning the thread).
It is interesting to note though that many educators are starting to get concerned about male students being left behind since all the supportive female programs have been pushing them up through collegiate levels far beyond their male counterparts.
Not sure if this was an edit or if I missed it in my first readthrough, but while this may or may not be an interesting conversation to have, it's probably something that deserves its own thread as well.
Maybe one with citations, even. :)
Yes, because no minority groups use the law to shut down reasonable speech of people they don't like. It only happens pretty much any time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson are in range of a microphone.
Do they work in your office? Seriously, I can't think of an example of this. Can you cite your reason for thinking this is a regular thing that affects you and all of us? Who did Sharpton and Jackson sue for the use of free speech?
Put another way, do you really think the women in your office were baiting you, trying to get you to step over the line and then BLAMMO! HR and lawsuit! ...Really? Because that in itself is a reason to look for another gig. (Or, perhaps, to reconsider your fears.)
Total side note, but saying "minority group" is doing something because a member of that minority did it is pretty awful. I really hope that's just poor phrasing.
Total side note, but saying "minority group" is doing something because a member of that minority did it is pretty awful. I really hope that's just poor phrasing.
Honestly, crying race because every time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson gets near a microphone whites start losing privilege is a really bad way to get through life the 21st century.
Do they work in your office? Seriously, I can't think of an example of this. Can you cite your reason for thinking this is a regular thing that affects you and all of us? Who did Sharpton and Jackson sue for the use of free speech?
Oh, those two don't sue for free speech, basically they have a history of going to wealthy business owners and extort them into donating a bunch of money to their causes in exchange for not mounting public accusations of racism. It's pretty well documented if you look.
Put another way, do you really think the women in your office were baiting you, trying to get you to step over the line and then BLAMMO! HR and lawsuit! ...Really? Because that in itself is a reason to look for another gig. (Or, perhaps, to reconsider your fears.)
Actually I worked at a company where an incompetent woman abused the sexual harassment policy twice, got one employee dismissed and another reprimanded so that she could get moved to a new department for a fresh start. After the third time they got wise and took action against her. HR was doing it's "job", but that CYA policy basically treats hearsay as fact in practice.
If the topic involves sexism though how about we discuss the treatment of female educators who molest male students vs the treatment of male teachers who molest female students? I don't think any reasonable person can say that there isn't a bias towards the claims of woman these days that makes them get more benefit of the doubt than males.
SixteenBlue wrote:Total side note, but saying "minority group" is doing something because a member of that minority did it is pretty awful. I really hope that's just poor phrasing.
Honestly, crying race because every time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson gets near a microphone whites start losing privilege is a really bad way to get through life the 21st century.
Ah, so if I point out there's a gray area I'm a closet sexist. And if I point out that some people use political correctness for personal gain I'm now a closet racist.
Life is so much simpler in your world dude, so clear cut.
Robear wrote:Do they work in your office? Seriously, I can't think of an example of this. Can you cite your reason for thinking this is a regular thing that affects you and all of us? Who did Sharpton and Jackson sue for the use of free speech?
Oh, those two don't sue for free speech, basically they have a history of going to wealthy business owners and extort them into donating a bunch of money to their causes in exchange for not mounting public accusations of racism. It's pretty well documented if you look.
Put another way, do you really think the women in your office were baiting you, trying to get you to step over the line and then BLAMMO! HR and lawsuit! ...Really? Because that in itself is a reason to look for another gig. (Or, perhaps, to reconsider your fears.)Actually I worked at a company where an incompetent woman abused the sexual harassment policy twice, got one employee dismissed and another reprimanded so that she could get moved to a new department for a fresh start. After the third time they got wise and took action against her. HR was doing it's "job", but that CYA policy basically treats hearsay as fact in practice.
If the topic involves sexism though how about we discuss the treatment of female educators who molest male students vs the treatment of male teachers who molest female students? I don't think any reasonable person can say that there isn't a bias towards the claims of woman these days that makes them get more benefit of the doubt than males.
Personal anecdotes and uncited claims of extortion aside, this is getting pretty far afield.
On-topic, I'd love any answers to Robear's question about how the initial "cool story, bro" post ties back to Political Correctness, or my earlier questions, above.
Unless silence here is assent, and nobody mourns the absence of "army guy" conversations, feels unduly constrained by not engaging in them at work, and everyone agrees that the original "cool story, bro" post does a poor job of making the grey-area point it was apparently trying to make.
In which case, cool!
Maybe one with citations, even. :)
I'm too lazy to start a new thread, but here you go if you want to spin one up.
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/20242513/concern-over-gender-gaps-shifting-boys
"men's share of undergraduate enrollment shrank from 58 percent to 44 percent. By 2001, the report adds, women earned 60 percent of all associate's degrees and 57 percent of all bachelor's degrees."
Jayhawker wrote:SixteenBlue wrote:Total side note, but saying "minority group" is doing something because a member of that minority did it is pretty awful. I really hope that's just poor phrasing.
Honestly, crying race because every time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson gets near a microphone whites start losing privilege is a really bad way to get through life the 21st century.
Ah, so if I point out there's a gray area I'm a closet sexist. And if I point out that some people use political correctness for personal gain I'm now a closet racist.
Life is so much simpler in your world dude, so clear cut.
It is pretty simple to say "some people" instead of categorizing entire groups. There's also a reason I added "I really hope it's just poor phrasing" but you're really not helping yourself by attacking me instead of saying "That's not what I meant."
bandit0013 wrote:Jayhawker wrote:SixteenBlue wrote:Total side note, but saying "minority group" is doing something because a member of that minority did it is pretty awful. I really hope that's just poor phrasing.
Honestly, crying race because every time Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson gets near a microphone whites start losing privilege is a really bad way to get through life the 21st century.
Ah, so if I point out there's a gray area I'm a closet sexist. And if I point out that some people use political correctness for personal gain I'm now a closet racist.
Life is so much simpler in your world dude, so clear cut.
It is pretty simple to say "some people" instead of categorizing entire groups. There's also a reason I added "I really hope it's just poor phrasing" but you're really not helping yourself by attacking me instead of saying "That's not what I meant."
I was talking to Jayhawker, who has been making trollish comments for the last few pages. And yes, that was poor phrasing, but in our haste to condemn the "privileged" groups we shouldn't forget that it cuts both ways.
Though @SixteenBlue it is yet another good example of how people just look for offense in anything that is said or written these days, which goes back to my original point about how some people are becoming increasingly hesitant to express themselves. As in the case of the Pycon scandal, there's a small set of the population that is just looking for trouble, and they often succeed in causing it.
Disagree strongly with your characterization of the events at PyCon, but hey, there's a thread for that.
Though @SixteenBlue it is yet another good example of how people just look for offense in anything that is said or written these days, which goes back to my original point about how some people are becoming increasingly hesitant to express themselves. As in the case of the Pycon scandal, there's a small set of the population that is just looking for trouble, and they often succeed in causing it.
** edit to further clarify, when I wrote it I was using the term "minority group" in the sense that both of those men have formal organizations behind them that are indeed... minority groups as in predominantly a group/club/association of minorities and in existence for the "benefit" of minorities.
Though @SixteenBlue it is yet another good example of how people just look for offense in anything that is said or written these days, which goes back to my original point about how some people are becoming increasingly hesitant to express themselves. As in the case of the Pycon scandal, there's a small set of the population that is just looking for trouble, and they often succeed in causing it.
I think this is a valid point and I defended you on it. Took some crap for it. But the last page or so you've made statements that are along the line of "whiners" and "opportunists". It's one thing to say there are unintended consequences of corrective action. You've gone beyond that point unfortunately.
bandit0013 wrote:Though @SixteenBlue it is yet another good example of how people just look for offense in anything that is said or written these days, which goes back to my original point about how some people are becoming increasingly hesitant to express themselves. As in the case of the Pycon scandal, there's a small set of the population that is just looking for trouble, and they often succeed in causing it.
I think this is a valid point and I defended you on it. Took some crap for it. But the last page or so you've made statements that are along the line of "whiners" and "opportunists". It's one thing to say there are unintended consequences of corrective action. You've gone beyond that point unfortunately.
Those two groups are one of the unintended consequences. Are you denying that they exist?
I hate harassment, it's bs, it should be stamped out wherever it is found.
Having a welcome jest with a coworker is not harassment, it's not directed at anyone, it's not intended to hurt anyone, and it shouldn't be cause for concern.
How about religious symbols in the office? I know many companies that allow Hindu employees to have small idols, they have exceptions for Muslims to observe their religious edicts. However most companies won't allow Flying Spaghetti Monster, because it is a symbol whose intent is to make fun of religion. Some people have a problem with this. If you are to let one group express and observe, surely you must let all.
Grey area.
How about religious symbols in the office? I know many companies that allow Hindu employees to have small idols, they have exceptions for Muslims to observe their religious edicts. However most companies won't allow Flying Spaghetti Monster, because it is a symbol whose intent is to make fun of religion. Some people have a problem with this. If you are to let one group express and observe, surely you must let all.
Grey area.
I don't think banning symbols whose intent is to make fun of religion is really a grey area.
Boy, it'd be great if some of these things were cited so they didn't sound so made up.
bandit0013 wrote:How about religious symbols in the office? I know many companies that allow Hindu employees to have small idols, they have exceptions for Muslims to observe their religious edicts. However most companies won't allow Flying Spaghetti Monster, because it is a symbol whose intent is to make fun of religion. Some people have a problem with this. If you are to let one group express and observe, surely you must let all.
Grey area.
I don't think banning symbols whose intent is to make fun of religion is really a grey area.
Ah but the argument on the other side is that it's an accepted mainstream symbol of atheism. Should a confederate logo be allowed in the office? Is it a symbol of slavery or southern pride? Depends on who you ask. Gray area.
In 2003, Dennis Tafoya, director of the LA County affirmative action office, issued a memo describing an “exhaustive search” for any computer equipment labeled “master” and “slave”. It is a common term for hard drive chaining. One employee, who didn't know anything about technology, complained after seeing a label on equipment.
Should a male transgender be allowed to use the women's restroom facilities in the office? It makes him uncomfortable to use the mens room but it makes some women uncomfortable to have him in there. Should we build a 3rd bathroom?
How about the 2006 Duke Lacross incident for a great sample of guilty until proven innocent?
Enforcing these policies is hard. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, but I'm pretty taken aback that some of you think it's so clear-cut
Plus, I will just admit that I am not as evolved as you. I don't get it because the list of things that actually offend me... Well it's pretty short. Intent to harm, that's about it. If people are having a conversation and you are not in it I don't get how you could get so upset that you have to insert yourself and report it.
I don't get how people think that turning a workplace into a ball of bland grey goo is a good thing. The reasonable person restriction exists for a reason. A reasonable person does not parse everything around them that doesn't involve them and look for reason to take offense. We end up assuming guilt whenever an accusation is made, which is wrong any way you slice it. I guess my problem is that my level of self actualization doesn't allow me to care.
Yet our litigious system tends to reward that more often then not. We need to balance people's need to be social, and humor is a fantastic way to bond, so is sharing personal things. When these things are not intended to harm, people should be mature enough to let go or join in. To truly blanket ban these activities does more harm than good.
That's all I have to say about that.
By the way, ever see the invention of lying? I think it is great social commentary.
Enforcing these policies is hard. I'm not saying they shouldn't exist, but I'm pretty taken aback that some of you think it's so clear-cut
It's clear-cut because that's the purpose of [em]having[/em] a policy: so that people don't have to make sh*t up on a case-by-case basis and end up enforcing broad guidelines unfairly. When there's a grey area, the right answer is to clarify that actual boundaries of the policy so that it's not a grey area any more. For example, in your scenario where a transgender woman (I'm assuming that's what you meant, since "male transgender" doesn't make any sense in context.) has conflicts with other employees about which restrooms to use, you need an established rule. If you don't have one, you quickly get into a situation where the trans woman is not welcome in either bathroom, which is clearly untenable. One option is to establish some number of unisex bathrooms. Note, however, that eventually you come into situations where there are more well established legal definitions.
This is the reason the law gets so fiddly and precise: Because if you don't go there, people will inevitably come into conflict in a situation where there isn't a well-defined rule. Even when everybody is trying to be fair, this leads to unintentional unfairness as unconscious biases come into play.
So you set things up so that in reasonable situations the intuition of a reasonable person is correct, and in more complex situations you have rules so that everybody knows what's supposed to happen. The final rule is typically some form of mediation in order to work things out the best you can and later establish a new policy clarifying the situation.
(P.S. the use of "transgender" as a noun is generally discouraged, as it very much implies that trans people are something different from "normal" human beings, as if being trans is their only important defining feature. Also, given the context of your post, the correct pronoun would be "her", not "him". It's rather apparent that the hypothetical person is someone who identifies as female but was assigned male at birth.)
(P.P.S. I'm not kidding about the not welcome in any bathroom thing, by the way. It's pretty common for trans women to do everything they can to just hold it until they can get home rather than even consider using a public restroom, since in the absence of any sort of law or policy they'll frequently be ejected from both. That's without any sort of employment aspect being involved. Regarding unisex restrooms: if there is a policy that [em]requires[/em] some people to use unisex bathrooms this may eventually become a matter of being forced to disclose non-obvious and very private medical history to avoid falling afoul of policies or laws.
For myself, I haven't thought about this a lot because I'm quite a distance from appearing feminine enough to have problems. My employer does have unisex bathrooms around, and I expect to use those at some point. Public restrooms may some day be a serious problem for me, because I don't drive, which makes the potential "holding time" if I'm out shopping and waiting for a bus rather ridiculous. It's worth noting that my [em]greatest aspiration[/em] for blending in is hoping to some day be able to use the women's restroom in a public place while wearing jeans and a T-shirt.
So this is kind of a big deal for people, and it might not be a great idea to make light of it by using it as throwaway argument fodder, especially considering things like attempts in Arizona to make it illegal to use a restroom that doesn't match your documentation.)
Pages