http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/21/bosses-can-legally-fire-employees-they-see-as-an-irresistible-attraction-iowa-court/
QuoteA dentist acted legally when he fired an assistant that he found attractive simply because he and his wife viewed the woman as a threat to their marriage, the all-male Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The court ruled 7-0 that bosses can fire employees they see as an "irresistible attraction," even if the employees have not engaged in flirtatious behavior or otherwise done anything wrong. Such firings may be unfair, but they are not unlawful discrimination under the Iowa Civil Rights Act because they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender, Justice Edward Mansfield wrote.
An attorney for Fort Dodge dentist James Knight said the decision, the first of its kind in Iowa, is a victory for family values because Knight fired Melissa Nelson in the interest of saving his marriage, not because she was a woman.
The rest of the article is even better. :argh!:
:madbanana:
WHAT
THE
FUCK
This is fucking disgusting.
Quotebecause they are motivated by feelings and emotions, not gender
I...how is that better? I've caused a lot of feelings and emotions (mostly outrage and/or confusion, but still) in the workplace. Obvious gender discrimination aside, that's a terrible precedent to allow on its own merits. Does anyone have a rail we can borrow to provide a brief ride?
DON'T BE MAD, IT'S ONLY SLAPSTICK!
this article has to be fake...like it just when you think it can't get worse...IT FUCKING DOES!!!
Hm. I'm of mixed feelings on this. Before y'all jump me, let me explain.
In a larger business setting and you find that you're in an awkward relational or emotional situation with an employee, you kind of have to suck it up... but you also have a built-in support network of other coworkers and management. When you are a small business owner such as a dentist or, as in my own case as a small glass supply business, you are working alone with maybe one to five other employees present at a time.
I am a firm believer in small businesses (under, say, 50 employees) being able to let employees go for issues as trivial as personality clashes or sexual distraction. Working with a guy or chick you hate (or like too much) could make a huge difference in the bottom line... at that level, you're talking about YOUR business, YOUR ability to focus, in relation to your business success. You CAN'T get away from them in a small business that size. I let go of a guy who simply bugged the shit out of me. If I had been unable to let him go (we're still friends BTW) I would have gladly collapsed the whole business and sacked everyone in order to not work with him anymore.
This woman's argument that she couldn't have been let go if she had been a man is, in this context, flawed because it assumes that business owners are never attracted to men. She presumes that there is never a situation in a small business setting where a business owner could be attracted to a male employee to such an extent that it jeopardizes the well-being of the owner and therefore of the business. That's manifestly incorrect.
Maybe Oregon is simply far ahead of its times, or Iowa far behind, but the distinction between employment practices of large companies and employment practices of small companies has been well established here for a long time.
In the UK you have a period of 12 months in which you can be fired for any reason- or no reason at all. I believe part of the justification there is personality clashes, and really I don't see too much wrong with that.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 22, 2012, 08:38:16 AM
Hm. I'm of mixed feelings on this. Before y'all jump me, let me explain.
In a larger business setting and you find that you're in an awkward relational or emotional situation with an employee, you kind of have to suck it up... but you also have a built-in support network of other coworkers and management. When you are a small business owner such as a dentist or, as in my own case as a small glass supply business, you are working alone with maybe one to five other employees present at a time.
I am a firm believer in small businesses (under, say, 50 employees) being able to let employees go for issues as trivial as personality clashes or sexual distraction. Working with a guy or chick you hate (or like too much) could make a huge difference in the bottom line... at that level, you're talking about YOUR business, YOUR ability to focus, in relation to your business success. You CAN'T get away from them in a small business that size. I let go of a guy who simply bugged the shit out of me. If I had been unable to let him go (we're still friends BTW) I would have gladly collapsed the whole business and sacked everyone in order to not work with him anymore.
This woman's argument that she couldn't have been let go if she had been a man is, in this context, flawed because it assumes that business owners are never attracted to men. She presumes that there is never a situation in a small business setting where a business owner could be attracted to a male employee to such an extent that it jeopardizes the well-being of the owner and therefore of the business. That's manifestly incorrect.
That, is a very good point, Nigel. I had the same thought regarding her argument, but I didn't consider it from the small business point of view.
Whether it is right or not, I don't know why the boss just doesn't make up some other reason, that has nothing to do with her gender, for firing the person. I'm assuming Iowa is an at-will employment state, which really makes it easy to fire people for just about any reason.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 22, 2012, 01:17:20 PM
Whether it is right or not, I don't know why the boss just doesn't make up some other reason, that has nothing to do with her gender, for firing the person. I'm assuming Iowa is an at-will employment state, which really makes it easy to fire people for just about any reason.
It sounds like the employer decided to be honest with her about it, probably had an "it's not you, it's me, and I'll give you a good reference" talk with her.
Because women are responsible for all the dicks in the world, even though most of them are attached to people we wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. Same way republitards are responsible for our privates.
Boundaries, anyone?
Didn't think so.
OK, since I can't effect a change, I intend to have fun with this.
I AM A QUEEN OF DICKS. What should my first edict be?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 22, 2012, 08:38:16 AM
Hm. I'm of mixed feelings on this. Before y'all jump me, let me explain.
In a larger business setting and you find that you're in an awkward relational or emotional situation with an employee, you kind of have to suck it up... but you also have a built-in support network of other coworkers and management. When you are a small business owner such as a dentist or, as in my own case as a small glass supply business, you are working alone with maybe one to five other employees present at a time.
I am a firm believer in small businesses (under, say, 50 employees) being able to let employees go for issues as trivial as personality clashes or sexual distraction. Working with a guy or chick you hate (or like too much) could make a huge difference in the bottom line... at that level, you're talking about YOUR business, YOUR ability to focus, in relation to your business success. You CAN'T get away from them in a small business that size. I let go of a guy who simply bugged the shit out of me. If I had been unable to let him go (we're still friends BTW) I would have gladly collapsed the whole business and sacked everyone in order to not work with him anymore.
Yeah, I cannot fly with this one, sorry. Mostly because I have been the young girl (17) who was being sexually harassed by her boss (and when I finally worked up the courage to report him I was asked what I did to make him think his behaviour would be welcome, but that's a different story). I cannot get on board with the idea that because Person A finds Person B sexually attractive, a feeling that is not reciprocated, Person B should lose their job. Seriously, why should I be punished -- lost my freaking
job -- because my boss has decided I'm fuckable?
I've worked in small businesses where I've been attracted to someone. I've also worked in small businesses with incompetent, bigoted assholes. I think it's harder with the personality clashes, and I do see your point there Nigel, although I think there should be a time limit on it. In this case, the woman had worked in this dental office for
ten years, so I'm not sure how she suddenly became such a distraction that he had to let her go. But in cases where you're attracted to a coworker? You suck it the fuck up and move on. It is possible to maintain a professional working relationship with someone you want to drag into bed; I've done it more than once (and hell, Pæs and I work in the same office!)
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 22, 2012, 08:38:16 AM
This woman's argument that she couldn't have been let go if she had been a man is, in this context, flawed because it assumes that business owners are never attracted to men. She presumes that there is never a situation in a small business setting where a business owner could be attracted to a male employee to such an extent that it jeopardizes the well-being of the owner and therefore of the business. That's manifestly incorrect.
Agreed, and that argument struck me as a little odd. I got what she was trying to say -- that it was a gender-based firing because her presumably heterosexual boss wouldn't have wanted to stick it to her if she'd been a man -- but the argument as she made it is flawed.
Quote from: Signora Pæsior on December 22, 2012, 10:55:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 22, 2012, 08:38:16 AM
Hm. I'm of mixed feelings on this. Before y'all jump me, let me explain.
In a larger business setting and you find that you're in an awkward relational or emotional situation with an employee, you kind of have to suck it up... but you also have a built-in support network of other coworkers and management. When you are a small business owner such as a dentist or, as in my own case as a small glass supply business, you are working alone with maybe one to five other employees present at a time.
I am a firm believer in small businesses (under, say, 50 employees) being able to let employees go for issues as trivial as personality clashes or sexual distraction. Working with a guy or chick you hate (or like too much) could make a huge difference in the bottom line... at that level, you're talking about YOUR business, YOUR ability to focus, in relation to your business success. You CAN'T get away from them in a small business that size. I let go of a guy who simply bugged the shit out of me. If I had been unable to let him go (we're still friends BTW) I would have gladly collapsed the whole business and sacked everyone in order to not work with him anymore.
Yeah, I cannot fly with this one, sorry. Mostly because I have been the young girl (17) who was being sexually harassed by her boss (and when I finally worked up the courage to report him I was asked what I did to make him think his behaviour would be welcome, but that's a different story). I cannot get on board with the idea that because Person A finds Person B sexually attractive, a feeling that is not reciprocated, Person B should lose their job. Seriously, why should I be punished -- lost my freaking job -- because my boss has decided I'm fuckable?
I've worked in small businesses where I've been attracted to someone. I've also worked in small businesses with incompetent, bigoted assholes. I think it's harder with the personality clashes, and I do see your point there Nigel, although I think there should be a time limit on it. In this case, the woman had worked in this dental office for ten years, so I'm not sure how she suddenly became such a distraction that he had to let her go. But in cases where you're attracted to a coworker? You suck it the fuck up and move on. It is possible to maintain a professional working relationship with someone you want to drag into bed; I've done it more than once (and hell, Pæs and I work in the same office!)
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 22, 2012, 08:38:16 AM
This woman's argument that she couldn't have been let go if she had been a man is, in this context, flawed because it assumes that business owners are never attracted to men. She presumes that there is never a situation in a small business setting where a business owner could be attracted to a male employee to such an extent that it jeopardizes the well-being of the owner and therefore of the business. That's manifestly incorrect.
Agreed, and that argument struck me as a little odd. I got what she was trying to say -- that it was a gender-based firing because her presumably heterosexual boss wouldn't have wanted to stick it to her if she'd been a man -- but the argument as she made it is flawed.
Here's the thing, though: It's perfectly possible for someone to A) grow bored with their marriage, B)find someone attractive whom they've spent
ten years working with, and C) decide that after having such feelings for a long enough of period that it is affecting their productivity. It's not clear that there was any sort of sexual harassment going on before hand, and the woman claims that there was none. So, it's one of those things where, it's actually, I believe, perfectly acceptable. It SUCKS, but let's be honest here, if I was in a committed marriage, didn't want to fuck it up, and had the option of either not going into work for fear of lacking the self restraint necessary to maintain said professional relationship, or letting the person in question go, then Imma go with option B, sorry.
Maybe you, personally, can maintain that decorum. Not everyone can. Recognizing that and admitting it is not a fault. If the scenario had played out differently, and he spent the next five years making unwanted advances, and fired her anyway, which would be worse?
My issue with this is that the responsibility for maintaining professionalism is being projected on the woman and not the one holding the view. Any way you swing it, the argument goes somewhere along the lines of the dentist relinquishing accountability for his own thoughts and actions and, as a result, objectifying the woman. The man is responsible for his own marriage not the woman.
I had to think about the small business argument and while that does throw things a bit I'm not sure it should apply. From what I've understood, to do it legally one puts the employee on a set of disciplinary actions, thoroughly documented, that if not followed results in termination. Of course, Nigel's case might have been more unique as it sounds behavioral...so I can't really go much further in that regard.
As far as the dentist, if things get weird and uncomfortable at least it would present her with the CHOICE of staying or leaving rather than a full-on canning.
Quote from: Signora Pæsior on December 22, 2012, 10:55:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 22, 2012, 08:38:16 AM
Hm. I'm of mixed feelings on this. Before y'all jump me, let me explain.
In a larger business setting and you find that you're in an awkward relational or emotional situation with an employee, you kind of have to suck it up... but you also have a built-in support network of other coworkers and management. When you are a small business owner such as a dentist or, as in my own case as a small glass supply business, you are working alone with maybe one to five other employees present at a time.
I am a firm believer in small businesses (under, say, 50 employees) being able to let employees go for issues as trivial as personality clashes or sexual distraction. Working with a guy or chick you hate (or like too much) could make a huge difference in the bottom line... at that level, you're talking about YOUR business, YOUR ability to focus, in relation to your business success. You CAN'T get away from them in a small business that size. I let go of a guy who simply bugged the shit out of me. If I had been unable to let him go (we're still friends BTW) I would have gladly collapsed the whole business and sacked everyone in order to not work with him anymore.
Yeah, I cannot fly with this one, sorry. Mostly because I have been the young girl (17) who was being sexually harassed by her boss (and when I finally worked up the courage to report him I was asked what I did to make him think his behaviour would be welcome, but that's a different story). I cannot get on board with the idea that because Person A finds Person B sexually attractive, a feeling that is not reciprocated, Person B should lose their job. Seriously, why should I be punished -- lost my freaking job -- because my boss has decided I'm fuckable?
I've worked in small businesses where I've been attracted to someone. I've also worked in small businesses with incompetent, bigoted assholes. I think it's harder with the personality clashes, and I do see your point there Nigel, although I think there should be a time limit on it. In this case, the woman had worked in this dental office for ten years, so I'm not sure how she suddenly became such a distraction that he had to let her go. But in cases where you're attracted to a coworker? You suck it the fuck up and move on. It is possible to maintain a professional working relationship with someone you want to drag into bed; I've done it more than once (and hell, Pæs and I work in the same office!)
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 22, 2012, 08:38:16 AM
This woman's argument that she couldn't have been let go if she had been a man is, in this context, flawed because it assumes that business owners are never attracted to men. She presumes that there is never a situation in a small business setting where a business owner could be attracted to a male employee to such an extent that it jeopardizes the well-being of the owner and therefore of the business. That's manifestly incorrect.
Agreed, and that argument struck me as a little odd. I got what she was trying to say -- that it was a gender-based firing because her presumably heterosexual boss wouldn't have wanted to stick it to her if she'd been a man -- but the argument as she made it is flawed.
The thing is, with a business that small, working in close proximity with someone, IT DOESN'T MATTER why he fired her. It really just doesn't. He wasn't sexually harassing her, so that's a strawman. He just wanted her out of his life and his business. Like I said before, if this kind of thing happens in larger business setting, you HAVE to suck it up... but you have the corporate buffer, as well. When you're a small business owner, you don't have that buffer and the well-being of your business depends on your ability to hold your shit together.
Is it ideal? No. But at least he was honest about it, which means she gets a good reference and can collect unemployment. If he was being an asshole about it, he could have come up with some bullshit to pin on her and cheated her out of her reference and unemployment eligibility.
You seem to be claiming that the court did something fucked by upholding the dentist's right to fire an employee simply because he was uncomfortable. I disagree. The court was right; small business owners are not and should not be forced to retain employees they are uncomfortable with, regardless of whether it's the fault of the employee.
:argh!: I find myself agreeing with Nigel again.
This is a perfect example why I no longer feel that small businesses are inherently any better than large corporations, and have thus stopped supporting them.
Go Wal-Mart!
Quote from: Emo Howard on December 23, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
This is a perfect example why I no longer feel that small businesses are inherently any better than large corporations, and have thus stopped supporting them.
Go Wal-Mart!
I dunno. I think the attitude that this dentist is supposed to I've daily with an unpleasant situation comes from the plastic, PC, SHH or HR will hear you, corporate world. Its great that big companies put things in place to protect people from that kind of discrimination because those jobs are meant to be as fillable as possible. Any meat sack with thumbs, OR NOT, will do. Now customers expect such rigidity in their service people, they don't want them to glands, or bills, or anything but a shit swallowing grin.
Of course small business can be terrible, they're still the product of human beings.
QuoteNelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.
He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, "that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."
Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight's wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.
Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month's severance. He later told Nelson's husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.
How is this not sexual harassment? Also, it seems like he's not really in control here, since it was his wife's and his pastor's idea to fire her.
I kinda see Nigel's point, but considering the rest of the article, I can't agree with the court's ruling.
The again, where exactly does it end for small business? What if you don't want to employ someone who's black because you're a racist piece of garbage?
On one hand, its their business and it may fail or succeed based in the small choices they make and the relationships they build or fail yo build.
On the other hand they're a racist piece of garbage.
This guys sounds like an asshole who needs to get his monkey brain in check and/or get laid.
If he was afraid that he was going to try and start an affair, that's on him to fix in his own head, or maybe go to marriage counseling.
Or maybe because he is in his 50s and she's in her early 30s it's a midlife crisis thing. He's a dentist, he can go get a flash car if he likes.
Quote from: Alty on December 23, 2012, 08:55:47 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on December 23, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
This is a perfect example why I no longer feel that small businesses are inherently any better than large corporations, and have thus stopped supporting them.
Go Wal-Mart!
I dunno. I think the attitude that this dentist is supposed to I've daily with an unpleasant situation comes from the plastic, PC, SHH or HR will hear you, corporate world. Its great that big companies put things in place to protect people from that kind of discrimination because those jobs are meant to be as fillable as possible. Any meat sack with thumbs, OR NOT, will do. Now customers expect such rigidity in their service people, they don't want them to glands, or bills, or anything but a shit swallowing grin.
Of course small business can be terrible, they're still the product of human beings.
Yeah, it's more about how the business is run. Wal-Mart was a facetious example. Costco or Starbucks would probably be better.
Some of the worst stories I've heard about people on the job were from folks working for some Little Napoleon, alcoholic/cokehead/Christian zealot, small business owner who has wild swings of emotion.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 23, 2012, 09:05:04 PM
QuoteNelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.
He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, "that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."
Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight's wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.
Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month's severance. He later told Nelson's husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.
How is this not sexual harassment? Also, it seems like he's not really in control here, since it was his wife's and his pastor's idea to fire her.
I kinda see Nigel's point, but considering the rest of the article, I can't agree with the court's ruling.
Yeah, this. I mean, on one hand, she has quite clearly said that,
to her, it didn't reach the level of sexual harassment. And that's awesome, and I don't want to try and label someone else's experiences. But I don't think it's much of a leap to say that someone else in that situation would have absolutely found his comments to be sexual harassment. Which is why, IMO, saying that talking about sexual harassment in this specific instance is a strawman is somewhat disingenuous.
She might not have seen it as sexual harassment because she didnt expect that from him. Article even says she was surprised. Its also that peoplee equate sexual harassment with the worplace equivalent of tits or gtfo. The end result is the same though. Boss couldnt bonk this woman so she gets fired.
The car comment is especially skeezy. And also suggests again midlife crisis
Quote from: Alty on December 23, 2012, 08:55:47 PM
Quote from: Emo Howard on December 23, 2012, 08:20:12 PM
This is a perfect example why I no longer feel that small businesses are inherently any better than large corporations, and have thus stopped supporting them.
Go Wal-Mart!
I dunno. I think the attitude that this dentist is supposed to I've daily with an unpleasant situation comes from the plastic, PC, SHH or HR will hear you, corporate world. Its great that big companies put things in place to protect people from that kind of discrimination because those jobs are meant to be as fillable as possible. Any meat sack with thumbs, OR NOT, will do. Now customers expect such rigidity in their service people, they don't want them to glands, or bills, or anything but a shit swallowing grin.
Of course small business can be terrible, they're still the product of human beings.
Yes, small business owners are not inherently better people. It's just a better model on a lot of levels.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 23, 2012, 09:05:04 PM
QuoteNelson, 32, worked for Knight for 10 years, and he considered her a stellar worker. But in the final months of her employment, he complained that her tight clothing was distracting, once telling her that if his pants were bulging that was a sign her clothes were too revealing, according to the opinion.
He also once allegedly remarked about her infrequent sex life by saying, "that's like having a Lamborghini in the garage and never driving it."
Knight and Nelson — both married with children — started exchanging text messages, mostly about personal matters, such as their families. Knight's wife, who also worked in the dental office, found out about the messages and demanded Nelson be fired. The Knights consulted with their pastor, who agreed that terminating Nelson was appropriate.
Knight fired Nelson and gave her one month's severance. He later told Nelson's husband that he worried he was getting too personally attached and feared he would eventually try to start an affair with her.
How is this not sexual harassment? Also, it seems like he's not really in control here, since it was his wife's and his pastor's idea to fire her.
I kinda see Nigel's point, but considering the rest of the article, I can't agree with the court's ruling.
OK, those comments are sexual harassment (IMO) and I think she would have been justified in filing a sexual harassment lawsuit. That, however, is a different issue from whether the court should have ruled that he had no right to fire her. Whether he's morally right is also a different issue from whether the court should rule that he had no right to fire her.
Quote from: Alty on December 23, 2012, 09:06:34 PM
The again, where exactly does it end for small business? What if you don't want to employ someone who's black because you're a racist piece of garbage?
On one hand, its their business and it may fail or succeed based in the small choices they make and the relationships they build or fail yo build.
On the other hand they're a racist piece of garbage.
This guys sounds like an asshole who needs to get his monkey brain in check and/or get laid.
Courts have ruled that small businesses can practice certain types of hiring discrimination if it suits their business model. Some large businesses can also practice hiring discrimination... Hooters, for example. Many small business owners practice racial preference in hiring... unless they tell someone, who's going to know? You're describing something that is more or less impossible to legislate.
My argument isn't whether the business owner is right, it's whether the court was right in upholding his right to fire an employee for the simple reason that he doesn't, for whatever reason, want to work with her anymore. In my opinion, a small business owner should not be legally forced to continue to work with an employee they don't want to work with, for any reason. For the court to rule otherwise would throw a huge wrench in the ability of small business owners to run their businesses, which is why the rules are different for them in the first place.
Mang's argument is that the burden should be upon the business owner to get therapy so that he can deal with his issue of being attracted to his assistant.
How far do you really want to take that, if it became a precedent? I don't think any of you guys are really thinking through the absurdity of the ramifications you're proposing. Sure, in this case, you're like "That guy is wrong! It's his problem and he should have to suck it up and deal with it!" but the burden that precedent could potentially place on small business owners or other smalltime employers is pretty heavy. Alty and Mang, as small business owners, I'd like you to imagine for a moment that you found yourself the employer of an assistant that for some reason made you really uncomfortable, but you could not legally let go. Going to work puts a knot in your stomach... you hate it. The stress of the situation is taking a toll on your marriage. You are powerless to do anything about it, and your emotional state and ability to do your job is slipping.
What do you do?
That's the situation a court ruling against him would have put thousands of small business owners like yourselves in.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 03:55:30 AM
Quote from: Alty on December 23, 2012, 09:06:34 PM
The again, where exactly does it end for small business? What if you don't want to employ someone who's black because you're a racist piece of garbage?
On one hand, its their business and it may fail or succeed based in the small choices they make and the relationships they build or fail yo build.
On the other hand they're a racist piece of garbage.
This guys sounds like an asshole who needs to get his monkey brain in check and/or get laid.
Courts have ruled that small businesses can practice certain types of hiring discrimination if it suits their business model. Some large businesses can also practice hiring discrimination... Hooters, for example. Many small business owners practice racial preference in hiring... unless they tell someone, who's going to know? You're describing something that is more or less impossible to legislate.
My argument isn't whether the business owner is right, it's whether the court was right in upholding his right to fire an employee for the simple reason that he doesn't, for whatever reason, want to work with her anymore. In my opinion, a small business owner should not be legally forced to continue to work with an employee they don't want to work with, for any reason. For the court to rule otherwise would throw a huge wrench in the ability of small business owners to run their businesses, which is why the rules are different for them in the first place.
Mang's argument is that the burden should be upon the business owner to get therapy so that he can deal with his issue of being attracted to his assistant.
How far do you really want to take that, if it became a precedent? I don't think any of you guys are really thinking through the absurdity of the ramifications you're proposing. Sure, in this case, you're like "That guy is wrong! It's his problem and he should have to suck it up and deal with it!" but the burden that precedent could potentially place on small business owners or other smalltime employers is pretty heavy. Alty and Mang, as small business owners, I'd like you to imagine for a moment that you found yourself the employer of an assistant that for some reason made you really uncomfortable, but you could not legally let go. Going to work puts a knot in your stomach... you hate it. The stress of the situation is taking a toll on your marriage. You are powerless to do anything about it, and your emotional state and ability to do your job is slipping.
What do you do?
That's the situation a court ruling against him would have put thousands of small business owners like yourselves in.
I haz doppleganger? I didn't make an argument in this thread. :)
I was the one who obliquely made reference to therapy. Marriage counseling to be more exact instead of going to his pastor. His pastor i understand to the degree of "committing adultery in your mind" like jesus said but thats kind of a fucked up way of following through with jesus' advice on the matter (cut off your hand if it makes you sin. Better to be in heaven without your hand than burn in gehenna whole). Shes not his hand. If hes bored with his wife as middle aged men are wont to be he should take her out for dinner and a movie and bonk in the back of his new lamborghini
what troubles me is that she had been working there a decade with no sexual attraction. The firing just because is way past the expiration date.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 05:23:36 AM
I was the one who obliquely made reference to therapy. Marriage counseling to be more exact instead of going to his pastor. His pastor i understand to the degree of "committing adultery in your mind" like jesus said but thats kind of a fucked up way of following through with jesus' advice on the matter (cut off your hand if it makes you sin. Better to be in heaven without your hand than burn in gehenna whole). Shes not his hand. If hes bored with his wife as middle aged men are wont to be he should take her out for dinner and a movie and bonk in the back of his new lamborghini
what troubles me is that she had been working there a decade with no sexual attraction. The firing just because is way past the expiration date.
Still talking about "what he should do" and missing the point of what the court should rule.
Quote from: Mangrove on December 24, 2012, 04:33:33 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 03:55:30 AM
Quote from: Alty on December 23, 2012, 09:06:34 PM
The again, where exactly does it end for small business? What if you don't want to employ someone who's black because you're a racist piece of garbage?
On one hand, its their business and it may fail or succeed based in the small choices they make and the relationships they build or fail yo build.
On the other hand they're a racist piece of garbage.
This guys sounds like an asshole who needs to get his monkey brain in check and/or get laid.
Courts have ruled that small businesses can practice certain types of hiring discrimination if it suits their business model. Some large businesses can also practice hiring discrimination... Hooters, for example. Many small business owners practice racial preference in hiring... unless they tell someone, who's going to know? You're describing something that is more or less impossible to legislate.
My argument isn't whether the business owner is right, it's whether the court was right in upholding his right to fire an employee for the simple reason that he doesn't, for whatever reason, want to work with her anymore. In my opinion, a small business owner should not be legally forced to continue to work with an employee they don't want to work with, for any reason. For the court to rule otherwise would throw a huge wrench in the ability of small business owners to run their businesses, which is why the rules are different for them in the first place.
Mang's argument is that the burden should be upon the business owner to get therapy so that he can deal with his issue of being attracted to his assistant.
How far do you really want to take that, if it became a precedent? I don't think any of you guys are really thinking through the absurdity of the ramifications you're proposing. Sure, in this case, you're like "That guy is wrong! It's his problem and he should have to suck it up and deal with it!" but the burden that precedent could potentially place on small business owners or other smalltime employers is pretty heavy. Alty and Mang, as small business owners, I'd like you to imagine for a moment that you found yourself the employer of an assistant that for some reason made you really uncomfortable, but you could not legally let go. Going to work puts a knot in your stomach... you hate it. The stress of the situation is taking a toll on your marriage. You are powerless to do anything about it, and your emotional state and ability to do your job is slipping.
What do you do?
That's the situation a court ruling against him would have put thousands of small business owners like yourselves in.
I haz doppleganger? I didn't make an argument in this thread. :)
Sorry Mang! I conflated you with Burns.
Quote from: Alty on December 23, 2012, 09:06:34 PM
The again, where exactly does it end for small business? What if you don't want to employ someone who's black because you're a racist piece of garbage?
On one hand, its their business and it may fail or succeed based in the small choices they make and the relationships they build or fail yo build.
On the other hand they're a racist piece of garbage.
This guys sounds like an asshole who needs to get his monkey brain in check and/or get laid.
If your business only has 5 or 10 employees and they are all white, that's not going to trip any discrimination detection algorithms unless you live in an area with a disproportionate amount of black people. You can't say you didn't hire any of the qualified non white applicants because they weren't white, but that doesn't mean anyone can catch you or that any of those non hired applicants have grounds for a suit as long as those hired were of equivalent qualification. You can say you didn't hire them because you wouldn't feel comfortable working with them, and the fact that is because they are black is irrelevent.
The, perhaps awful, part is that if you are a racist running a small business you shouldn't hire blacks. Even if you are a benevolent racist who wants to do the right thing but is genuinely uncomfortable around blacks you shouldn't. You'll hurt your own productivity and they'll notice pretty quickly which will cause a hostile work environment. And if you ever admit your discomfort you will never be able to fire them, even if they do bad work, without facing a justified discrimination lawsuit.
The good thing about small businesses is that they are much easier to influence. That dentist has a small number of clients, if all the friends of that woman and her husband stop patronizing him, that is a significant chunk of his business. On the other hand if she worked for a corporate consortium of some sort and was fired for this (which would then be illegal, I believe) her friends and family would represent no financial threat. A dentist who never hires black people is less likely to get black clients, how much that matters depends on the community the racist dentist is in, but the less it matters for him financially the less of a problem it is anyway, because there are less black people being unfairly denied a job.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 07:15:30 AM
Sorry Mang! I conflated you with Burns.
Aha! Burns is my double. He can work on my client this morning and I can go home :lol:
What protects the small business worker from being terminated for no fault of their own?
Its not just be saying what this guy should do. Its also that this womans job was not protected somehow. After a decade of good work.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 02:46:25 PM
What protects the small business worker from being terminated for no fault of their own?
Its not just be saying what this guy should do. Its also that this womans job was not protected somehow. After a decade of good work.
This is what gets in my craw too and I suspect there's really no good solution to this based on what Nigel has pointed out.
Quote from: Mangrove on December 24, 2012, 01:29:09 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 07:15:30 AM
Sorry Mang! I conflated you with Burns.
Aha! Burns is my double. He can work on my client this morning and I can go home :lol:
ON IT.
Luckily enough for her fort dodge has a population of 25000ish so she may well be able to get another job in her field. But im also thinking that what if she couldnt get another job because her town was too small? What if it was like 1000 people and one dentist?
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 02:46:25 PM
What protects the small business worker from being terminated for no fault of their own?
Its not just be saying what this guy should do. Its also that this womans job was not protected somehow. After a decade of good work.
NOTHING. Nothing protects small business employees. Nothing, likewise, protects small business owners. There is NO job security in a small business, whether it's the owner or the employees. I feel like you aren't understanding that when you operate a business that small, the business IS YOU. YOU ARE THE BUSINESS.
If that dentist broke his arm, he'd be out of work until he got better, and so would his employee. Twisted his ankle... same. Woman dentist gets pregnant and wants to take a maternity leave... employees are SOL until she gets back. If Alty hurts his back and can't work, he can't work. If I got in a car wreck and couldn't make beads, that would just be it for me; too bad, what a loss. Short-term disability insurance, if I had it (most people don't) would cover part of my wages, but none of my employees. There is no buffer for a business that small, which is why dentists and other professionals whose business revolves entirely on their personal ability to provide a service so often share a practice and its employees, so that if something happens to one of them the business can still continue. If you want to change that, you'll have to either institute some socialized buffers (and if there were socialized buffers, it would be reasonable to require small business owners to adhere to certain socially friendly policies in order to participate in them, win/win) or outlaw small businesses.
No- i get it. A band is also a small business. I understand all that. If i break my arm the band doesnt play for 6 weeks. If pete breaks his arm the band doesnt play for 6 weeks. That all makes sense. Being sexually attracted to a bandmate and having them find out by me telling them i want them out of the band doesnt. If anything i just suck up my feelings or address the problem and try and work through it. Or go on tour- as im sure that would kill any attraction. Bands dont really go through lawsuits though unless theyre signed.
I think I got this now.
Small business is just to fragile to be held by the same standards. It doesn't have large amounts of unending capital to draw from, there are no bailouts, and nobody gives a shit if you succeed or fail in the long run, with the exception of the relationships you build yourself. It doesn't really matter if this dentist is a piece of shit or not because any protection enabled to allow a business operate smoothly is more important.
I have an issue where I don't want to deal with a contractor I'm working with, and I feel I should suck it up and it'll be good for me. But it doesn't make me uncomfortable, I don't dread going to work. And if I did I would want to end it, or anything else, immediately because I am not able to switch off. I don't clock out, mentally, though it's a skill I'm developing.
As for bands, most people don't depend on them wholly for all income with little-to-no contingencies in place. If that were the scenario I'd imagine things would be different. I'm still unconvinced that this guy is anything but an asshole, but who said being an asshole should be illegal?
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 05:47:27 PM
No- i get it. A band is also a small business. I understand all that. If i break my arm the band doesnt play for 6 weeks. If pete breaks his arm the band doesnt play for 6 weeks. That all makes sense. Being sexually attracted to a bandmate and having them find out by me telling them i want them out of the band doesnt. If anything i just suck up my feelings or address the problem and try and work through it. Or go on tour- as im sure that would kill any attraction. Bands dont really go through lawsuits though unless theyre signed.
I'm pretty sure Fleetwood Mac broke up over sexual attraction.
Was it at least addressed as a problem before the break up? Were there any lawsuits involved? If so what was the outcome? I ask because i actually dont know.
I have a friend who does web page design. One of her clients is a barber shop/hair salon. My friend is white, but she's also a contractor for them, she doesn't work in the business itself, she just makes their page and keeps it maintained. Every employee in the place is black.
Is that racist? Perhaps, but the place caters to an exclusively black clientele, black people have different hair than white people and even if there are white hair stylists who specialize in black hair having white people working in the place would lose them business and interfere with their business environment.
As far as Fleetwood Mac yes, it was addressed, that's where the album Rumors came from, them trying to work it out. I don't know about lawsuits, I know they had a joint ownership model, not a sole proprietership, which makes things work rather differently.
I guess what im saying is that perhaps if youre going to fire someone for personal reasons in the context of small business it should be policy to have that sort of thing documented first so that resolution could be attempted or give the employee the opportunity to start looking elsewhere or flat out quit. For example with alty- if he doesnt like his contractor it should be policy for him to say i dont like you. We should see how we can work together of if we should reconsider this arrangement. Otherwise its like youre fired. Also your nose looks funny and i hate how you laugh.
I think with joint ownership, like in Fleetwood Mac, there's a lot more motivation to work things out. Dissolving the band means everyone is fired.
Meanwhile for the horny Dentist firing the woman doesn't mean he's out of a job.
Oh certainly theres more incentive. I still think it should be a general policy for small businesses. Especially after a given amount of time.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 05:47:27 PM
No- i get it. A band is also a small business. I understand all that. If i break my arm the band doesnt play for 6 weeks. If pete breaks his arm the band doesnt play for 6 weeks. That all makes sense. Being sexually attracted to a bandmate and having them find out by me telling them i want them out of the band doesnt. If anything i just suck up my feelings or address the problem and try and work through it. Or go on tour- as im sure that would kill any attraction. Bands dont really go through lawsuits though unless theyre signed.
A band is a collective. Different situation. That would be more like, he worked at a dental office with five other dentists and he was really attracted to one of them, and he wanted her to leave. Wouldn't happen; he would have to either work it out or leave. It's a completely different dynamic.
Quote from: Alty on December 24, 2012, 06:03:21 PM
I think I got this now.
Small business is just to fragile to be held by the same standards. It doesn't have large amounts of unending capital to draw from, there are no bailouts, and nobody gives a shit if you succeed or fail in the long run, with the exception of the relationships you build yourself. It doesn't really matter if this dentist is a piece of shit or not because any protection enabled to allow a business operate smoothly is more important.
I have an issue where I don't want to deal with a contractor I'm working with, and I feel I should suck it up and it'll be good for me. But it doesn't make me uncomfortable, I don't dread going to work. And if I did I would want to end it, or anything else, immediately because I am not able to switch off. I don't clock out, mentally, though it's a skill I'm developing.
As for bands, most people don't depend on them wholly for all income with little-to-no contingencies in place. If that were the scenario I'd imagine things would be different. I'm still unconvinced that this guy is anything but an asshole, but who said being an asshole should be illegal?
Yes, exactly.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 06:19:24 PM
I guess what im saying is that perhaps if youre going to fire someone for personal reasons in the context of small business it should be policy to have that sort of thing documented first so that resolution could be attempted or give the employee the opportunity to start looking elsewhere or flat out quit. For example with alty- if he doesnt like his contractor it should be policy for him to say i dont like you. We should see how we can work together of if we should reconsider this arrangement. Otherwise its like youre fired. Also your nose looks funny and i hate how you laugh.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 07:14:59 AM
Still talking about "what he should do" and missing the point of what the court should rule.
Not necessarily. Not all bands are collectives. Its the tendency but not the rule.
Nigel im not missing the point of what the courts should do. You mentioned changing social policy. Thats what im suggesting. The law currently doesnt allow protection for either party. It should. Just because i dont agree with you doesnt mean im missing the point.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 06:26:29 PM
Oh certainly theres more incentive. I still think it should be a general policy for small businesses. Especially after a given amount of time.
So, some kind of legal requirement for mediation? Who pays for the mediation? Who is the mediator?
Say I had an assistant and after ten years I just plain got to the point where I didn't like being around her. Over time, our personalities just drifted in opposite directions and she bugs the shit out of me now. It sounds like you want a law passed that, if I wanted to let her go, with appropriate notice and a good reference and everything, I would have to first document that I don't like her... how? What would that documentation look like? "Martha came in today and hung up her coat in that way I don't like. Then she started talking about things I'm not interested in and complained about her husband for the 37,000th time since she started working here. Then she fondled her cross and stared into space for a minute. I can't stand it anymore".
What would the penalties be for doing it incorrectly? Would I be fined, or sued?
So, then, I have to present Martha with my documentation proving actual instances of me not liking her (this, somehow, is supposed to be more constructive than simply saying "Martha, I feel like we have personality incompatibilities") and then we go to mediation, which isn't even required for a DIVORCE. How many sessions? I've been to mediation, it's about $300 a pop. Four sessions? That's a reasonable amount to find out whether things can be resolved. Also, there goes my mortgage this month. Congratulations, I'm in foreclosure. Martha is also out of a job, because I can't pay her, and my studio is in my house so I can't work either. Fuck you, now we're both out of a job.
Or maybe you want to pass a bill so that the taxpayers cover mediation. I'm all for that... good luck!
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 06:50:58 PM
Nigel im not missing the point of what the courts should do. You mentioned changing social policy. Thats what im suggesting. The law currently doesnt allow protection for either party. It should. Just because i dont agree with you doesnt mean im missing the point.
"Social policy" as encoded by laws, so yes, the court is automatically involved there.
I'm also realllllly interested in the "protection for either party" idea that you mention. Are you proposing that the same process has to be followed in order for a person to quit their job? Because, after all, if a small business owner relies on an employee for the day-to-day operation of their business, they would be up shit creek if the employee just quit on them.
Another way to look at it: say this dentist had set up an arbritation agreement with his employee. He would probably lose out in the end, even if he doesn't go to court because arbitration lawyers cost a lot of money. Its in his best interest to end such a situation quickly and as cleanly as possible.
But for a massive corporation, they can spare the time and money, and don't even have to close up shop to go into court. They can fight it out, the odds are overwhelmingly in their favor.
This mechanism does small bsuienss no good.
Why would mediation be necessary? Whatever happened to "lets have a chat." if youve been working with someone for ten years why wouldnt you let them know they were bugging the shit out of you? Why wouldnt you give them some warning or indication that they were getting on your nerves?
And by protection of the employer i meant from lawsuits like these. Even though he won i imagine he wont be getting a lot of customers and may be out of work himself. But youre right in that people up and leaving you fucks you over.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 06:48:36 PM
Not necessarily. Not all bands are collectives. Its the tendency but not the rule.
*cough*Ritchie Blackmore*cough*
/Irrelevant to where thread is going...
Quote from: Bu☆ns on December 24, 2012, 08:04:27 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 06:48:36 PM
Not necessarily. Not all bands are collectives. Its the tendency but not the rule.
*cough*Ritchie Blackmore*cough*
/Irrelevant to where thread is going...
:lulz:
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 07:29:26 PM
Why would mediation be necessary? Whatever happened to "lets have a chat." if youve been working with someone for ten years why wouldnt you let them know they were bugging the shit out of you? Why wouldnt you give them some warning or indication that they were getting on your nerves?
And by protection of the employer i meant from lawsuits like these. Even though he won i imagine he wont be getting a lot of customers and may be out of work himself. But youre right in that people up and leaving you fucks you over.
So, once again, you're talking about what everyone "should" do in order to be nicer people. And you want to implement that into public policy how?
If I've been working with someone for ten years, odds are that "you're just getting on my nerves these days" is not going to be an especially productive chat. It might be the kind of thing that relationship therapy could help, but really, in a small work environment like that most people are going to try to come up with ways to work things out. Hiring and training an employee is hard and expensive.
So again, my question is, how do you implement "trying to work things out" as an enforceable public policy? And does it go both ways, or are employees not, under your envisioned public policy, required to also "try to work things out" before giving notice?
I don't think you've really thought this through, because it's not workable... it's a pipe dream world where everybody is just a better person. What you're saying is self-contradictory... do you want it to be policy (aka "law") or do you want it to be voluntary? If you want it to be policy, exactly what do those laws look like, how are they enforced, and where does funding come from? Do you want it to be the law that an employer has to document the reasons they want to fire an employee, and have a conversation about those reasons, even when the employee has done nothing wrong?
Can you please describe the policies and procedures you would like to see enacted for the protection of employees and employers?
I don't know Nigel. Not all ideas start off fully baked. Of course I haven't thought this all the way through. Preferably it would be a voluntary thing, like anything else. I just don't think that people should be fired for stupid reasons, especially if they have no idea that anything is going on.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 09:02:33 PM
I don't know Nigel. Not all ideas start off fully baked. Of course I haven't thought this all the way through. Preferably it would be a voluntary thing, like anything else. I just don't think that people should be fired for stupid reasons, especially if they have no idea that anything is going on.
The thing is, this conversation is about whether the court should have mandated that the dentist could not fire his employee for the reason he did. It's about legality, not morality. It almost sounds as if you're wanting to have a different conversation, about what is right from a moral perspective, ie. how people should, ideally, behave, rather than the conversation we are in about whether the legal system should wield their power to force people to behave according to a particular code.
In other words "I don't think people should be fired for stupid reasons" is a different conversation from "I think the government should regulate what reasons people can be fired for".
Much as "I don't think people should be jerks" is a very different discussion from "I think the government should regulate speech to prevent people being jerks".
Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.
Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.
But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 09:53:41 PM
Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.
Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.
But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.
Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.
She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.
Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses... people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 10:11:35 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 09:53:41 PM
Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.
Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.
But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.
Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.
She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.
Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses... people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.
I know that he didn't break the law in firing her. He did break the law in sexually harassing her. He just lucked out she didn't see it that way. Probably because of the different ways that men and women tend to view things (e.g.- "she totally wants my junk"ism vs. "I'm being friendly and sociable with a man who is old enough to be my father")
Personally, I can't sympathize with him, but again, I'm running around right now. I'll give this more thought when I'm bouncing about less.
I think some of the confusion here is that it seems wrong that he's clearly discriminating. He absolutely is, but that's a loaded word. We discriminate daily and make harsh decisions based on our personal preferences. You do not want a corporation doing this because Shit Gets Bad.
Sexual discrimination is one thing, sexual harassment is another.
People are people. Sweaty, stupid, religious people, and they shouldn't be punished for that.
Especially when, you know, there a many other more important issues like quality control, actually unsafe work conditions, and healthcare cry out for attention.
I take back the whole they shouldn't be punished thing. I'm all for that.
Only by me.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 10:18:46 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 10:11:35 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 09:53:41 PM
Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.
Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.
But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.
Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.
She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.
Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses... people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.
I know that he didn't break the law in firing her. He did break the law in sexually harassing her. He just lucked out she didn't see it that way. Probably because of the different ways that men and women tend to view things (e.g.- "she totally wants my junk"ism vs. "I'm being friendly and sociable with a man who is old enough to be my father")
Personally, I can't sympathize with him, but again, I'm running around right now. I'll give this more thought when I'm bouncing about less.
You seem to be under the impression that sexual innuendo, jokes, or comments in the workplace are simply illegal. Sexual harassment isn't codified as a distinct set of actions or words, it's entirely about feelings, which is one of the reasons it's so hard to quantify. Is it sexual harassment for you to kiss your wife in front of your co-worker? No, unless they feel sexually harassed. Is it illegal to hit on your employee? No, unless you are coercive about it, or unless your behavior continues after they rebuff your advances. That's why there are so many protocols around identifying the behavior and asking for it to stop, or providing evidence that you felt afraid to ask for it to stop because of a reasonable fear of coercion.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 10:39:54 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 10:18:46 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 10:11:35 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 09:53:41 PM
Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.
Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.
But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.
Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.
She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.
Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses... people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.
I know that he didn't break the law in firing her. He did break the law in sexually harassing her. He just lucked out she didn't see it that way. Probably because of the different ways that men and women tend to view things (e.g.- "she totally wants my junk"ism vs. "I'm being friendly and sociable with a man who is old enough to be my father")
Personally, I can't sympathize with him, but again, I'm running around right now. I'll give this more thought when I'm bouncing about less.
You seem to be under the impression that sexual innuendo, jokes, or comments in the workplace are simply illegal. Sexual harassment isn't codified as a distinct set of actions or words, it's entirely about feelings, which is one of the reasons it's so hard to quantify. Is it sexual harassment for you to kiss your wife in front of your co-worker? No, unless they feel sexually harassed. Is it illegal to hit on your employee? No, unless you are coercive about it, or unless your behavior continues after they rebuff your advances. That's why there are so many protocols around identifying the behavior and asking for it to stop, or providing evidence that you felt afraid to ask for it to stop because of a reasonable fear of coercion.
I'm not. A male friend of mine in high school used to call a mutual female friend "Sugartits." He's also very obviously gay. I can tell the difference between friendly jests.
I saw in another article elsewhere that he texted her asking how many orgasms she had in x amount of days. Articles says she didn't respond to that text. Hmm. A female coworker did ask me about my frequency with Villager around my birthday. I made a joke about my birthday coming up- this was around the time of the bedbug infestation, where I wasn't getting any very much.
Matter of fact, LMNO asked me in person when the last time I got laid was, a few weeks after this. I mentioned my birthday again.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 10:47:02 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 10:39:54 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 10:18:46 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 10:11:35 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 09:53:41 PM
Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.
Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.
But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.
Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.
She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.
Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses... people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.
I know that he didn't break the law in firing her. He did break the law in sexually harassing her. He just lucked out she didn't see it that way. Probably because of the different ways that men and women tend to view things (e.g.- "she totally wants my junk"ism vs. "I'm being friendly and sociable with a man who is old enough to be my father")
Personally, I can't sympathize with him, but again, I'm running around right now. I'll give this more thought when I'm bouncing about less.
You seem to be under the impression that sexual innuendo, jokes, or comments in the workplace are simply illegal. Sexual harassment isn't codified as a distinct set of actions or words, it's entirely about feelings, which is one of the reasons it's so hard to quantify. Is it sexual harassment for you to kiss your wife in front of your co-worker? No, unless they feel sexually harassed. Is it illegal to hit on your employee? No, unless you are coercive about it, or unless your behavior continues after they rebuff your advances. That's why there are so many protocols around identifying the behavior and asking for it to stop, or providing evidence that you felt afraid to ask for it to stop because of a reasonable fear of coercion.
I'm not. A male friend of mine in high school used to call a mutual female friend "Sugartits." He's also very obviously gay. I can tell the difference between friendly jests.
I saw in another article elsewhere that he texted her asking how many orgasms she had in x amount of days. Articles says she didn't respond to that text. Hmm. A female coworker did ask me about my frequency with Villager around my birthday. I made a joke about my birthday coming up- this was around the time of the bedbug infestation, where I wasn't getting any very much.
Matter of fact, LMNO asked me in person when the last time I got laid was, a few weeks after this. I mentioned my birthday again.
OK... so I guess I am wondering why you made the statement that "the fact is, he did break the law"? :?
I am really confused about what, exactly, you're arguing. Don't take this the wrong way, but are you drinking while you cook? (I would be, if why I ask, and you're not making a whole lot of sense.)
Small businesses can't survive the HR hilarity found at large companies. If they don't break the law, well, I guess they can do what they like.
Is the guy in the story a complete shitlicker? Yes.
Should he be able to do what he did? Unfortunately, yes.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 10:51:08 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 10:47:02 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 10:39:54 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 10:18:46 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 10:11:35 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 09:53:41 PM
Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.
Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.
But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.
Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.
She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.
Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses... people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.
I know that he didn't break the law in firing her. He did break the law in sexually harassing her. He just lucked out she didn't see it that way. Probably because of the different ways that men and women tend to view things (e.g.- "she totally wants my junk"ism vs. "I'm being friendly and sociable with a man who is old enough to be my father")
Personally, I can't sympathize with him, but again, I'm running around right now. I'll give this more thought when I'm bouncing about less.
You seem to be under the impression that sexual innuendo, jokes, or comments in the workplace are simply illegal. Sexual harassment isn't codified as a distinct set of actions or words, it's entirely about feelings, which is one of the reasons it's so hard to quantify. Is it sexual harassment for you to kiss your wife in front of your co-worker? No, unless they feel sexually harassed. Is it illegal to hit on your employee? No, unless you are coercive about it, or unless your behavior continues after they rebuff your advances. That's why there are so many protocols around identifying the behavior and asking for it to stop, or providing evidence that you felt afraid to ask for it to stop because of a reasonable fear of coercion.
I'm not. A male friend of mine in high school used to call a mutual female friend "Sugartits." He's also very obviously gay. I can tell the difference between friendly jests.
I saw in another article elsewhere that he texted her asking how many orgasms she had in x amount of days. Articles says she didn't respond to that text. Hmm. A female coworker did ask me about my frequency with Villager around my birthday. I made a joke about my birthday coming up- this was around the time of the bedbug infestation, where I wasn't getting any very much.
Matter of fact, LMNO asked me in person when the last time I got laid was, a few weeks after this. I mentioned my birthday again.
OK... so I guess I am wondering why you made the statement that "the fact is, he did break the law"? :?
I am really confused about what, exactly, you're arguing. Don't take this the wrong way, but are you drinking while you cook? (I would be, if why I ask, and you're not making a whole lot of sense.)
I'm reconsidering my position, Nigel. Hence the "Hmmm."
To answer your question directly, yes. But you're asking about inconsistency where I'm actually rethinking my position based on personal experience and perception of such. I'm not contradicting myself except in the sense that I'm possibly changing my mind.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 10:59:19 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 10:51:08 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 10:47:02 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 10:39:54 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 10:18:46 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on December 24, 2012, 10:11:35 PM
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 09:53:41 PM
Well, the fact is, he did break the law. He just wasn't sued for breaking those laws. Again, presumably out of perception of what sexual harassment entails. That's not what she was fired for.
Anyway, I'm having some difficulty thinking this one through at the moment. I keep running back and forth between here and the kitchen. Last minute bread. I'll see if I can make a case for it or have to reconsider.
But, aside from that, the government already regulates what a person can be fired for. But it's only applied to larger companies.
Nnnnnooooo... he didn't break the law in firing her. That is what this thread is about. The court upheld it as a legal termination.
She didn't feel sexually harassed, so there was no sexual harassment. That is a call for her to make, and not anyone reading the description of the conversations, because a lot of factors go into sexual harassment and only the person on the receiving end can decide whether it's harassment or not. In addition, under your ideal policy of having a talk with her about it before deciding to let her go, how could he do that without it being interpretable as sexual harassment? "Hey so, I am suddenly really sexually attracted to you, can you wear less revealing clothing to work"? It kind of sounds like that's what he DID.
Yes, the government regulates what large businesses can fire people for. I am in complete agreement with those laws. But we're not talking about large businesses, we're talking about very small businesses... people who are, essentially, self-employed with a couple of assistants. You can't claim that the FACT is that he broke the law, if the law in question doesn't apply to him. That is a false statement.
I know that he didn't break the law in firing her. He did break the law in sexually harassing her. He just lucked out she didn't see it that way. Probably because of the different ways that men and women tend to view things (e.g.- "she totally wants my junk"ism vs. "I'm being friendly and sociable with a man who is old enough to be my father")
Personally, I can't sympathize with him, but again, I'm running around right now. I'll give this more thought when I'm bouncing about less.
You seem to be under the impression that sexual innuendo, jokes, or comments in the workplace are simply illegal. Sexual harassment isn't codified as a distinct set of actions or words, it's entirely about feelings, which is one of the reasons it's so hard to quantify. Is it sexual harassment for you to kiss your wife in front of your co-worker? No, unless they feel sexually harassed. Is it illegal to hit on your employee? No, unless you are coercive about it, or unless your behavior continues after they rebuff your advances. That's why there are so many protocols around identifying the behavior and asking for it to stop, or providing evidence that you felt afraid to ask for it to stop because of a reasonable fear of coercion.
I'm not. A male friend of mine in high school used to call a mutual female friend "Sugartits." He's also very obviously gay. I can tell the difference between friendly jests.
I saw in another article elsewhere that he texted her asking how many orgasms she had in x amount of days. Articles says she didn't respond to that text. Hmm. A female coworker did ask me about my frequency with Villager around my birthday. I made a joke about my birthday coming up- this was around the time of the bedbug infestation, where I wasn't getting any very much.
Matter of fact, LMNO asked me in person when the last time I got laid was, a few weeks after this. I mentioned my birthday again.
OK... so I guess I am wondering why you made the statement that "the fact is, he did break the law"? :?
I am really confused about what, exactly, you're arguing. Don't take this the wrong way, but are you drinking while you cook? (I would be, if why I ask, and you're not making a whole lot of sense.)
I'm reconsidering my position, Nigel. Hence the "Hmmm."
For example, in context, LMNO was genuinely curious. He wasn't getting off on it. Villager started getting sick shortly after I lost the infestation. I forget why Tanya brought it up. It did make me blush, but I forget the context. Plus she and I are both in stable relationships.
Interesting side note, she and I used to be enemies, and today she gave me a Christmas hug.
Quote from: Pippa Twiddleton on December 24, 2012, 11:01:55 PM
To answer your question directly, yes. But you're asking about inconsistency where I'm actually rethinking my position based on personal experience and perception of such. I'm not contradicting myself except in the sense that I'm possibly changing my mind.
Oh, OK.
S'all good boss :)
I have to agree with Nigel. The lawsuit, in the way it was framed, was baseless. At the same time, I feel that the owner was wrong in terminating her employement. She should have tried a different angle.
At least in my company, our sexual harassment policy encompasses the entire environment, not just what happens between two people; and it also doesn't matter how the person feels about it.
In a strict interpretation, the employer's actions were harassment, even if the woman who was fired didn't feel harassed. The owner acted in a way that created a "potentially hostile environment" for everyone in the office, employees and clients alike. It would still be a tough case to make, but at least it would have a chance.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on December 26, 2012, 01:25:03 PM
I have to agree with Nigel. The lawsuit, in the way it was framed, was baseless. At the same time, I feel that the owner was wrong in terminating her employement. She should have tried a different angle.
At least in my company, our sexual harassment policy encompasses the entire environment, not just what happens between two people; and it also doesn't matter how the person feels about it.
In a strict interpretation, the employer's actions were harassment, even if the woman who was fired didn't feel harassed. The owner acted in a way that created a "potentially hostile environment" for everyone in the office, employees and clients alike. It would still be a tough case to make, but at least it would have a chance.
That's your company's policy, though. Not the law. The law doesn't presume to dictate what, exactly, constitutes sexual harassment, for a number of very valid reasons.
If she felt sexually harassed, she could have filed a sexual harassment lawsuit. Apparently, according to her, she didn't. For other people to say that she SHOULD have felt harassed is kind of... paternalistic and gross. It puts me in mind of telling an adult woman that the consensual sexual encounter she had was actually rape because YOU don't approve of it.
Yeah i see what youre saying there.