Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 692 posts

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#381

Post by yummyfajitas »

lmm wrote: post #290
coredog64 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I worked at Boeing, membership in SPEEA was optional. They offered benefits to paying members, but the benefits I received as a "free rider" were pretty minimal.

The real benefits will be things like a decent contract with e.g. proper treatment of overtime, sensible safety policies and so on. Which you absolutely get to free-ride on.

There is no reason Boeing can't offer a non-decent contract without overtime or safety to non-union workers.

This is like saying Joe 401k is free-riding on Goldman Sachs because Goldman tries to find the right price while Joe 401k just takes whatever price is available.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#382

Post by iaw »

Humdeee wrote: post #187

If I was back at the start of my career, I would of dismissed this article and told the author to "toughen up". After all, what's a bit of ribbing among co-workers? Surely she's just being overly-sensitive. Until I had the (mis)pleasure of working with a truly toxic co-worker did my mindset completely change on the issue of bullying, intimidation, and hostility in the workplace. He was a senior guy, decent at his job…

> If I was back at the start of my career, I would of dismissed this article and told the author to "toughen up".

I think this is the problem, until one works in a toxic environment it's hard to truly sympathize with people that do. How do we broaden our understanding of this phenomenon as a society?

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#383

Post by st3v3r »

chmike wrote: post #132

My brother, as a manager of a big team in Belgium, had once to face a complain to the HR about he harassing a secretary. The reaction of the company was immediate, and in my opinion the right one. They contracted a specialize company to investigate, collect the facts and present their conclusions. The conclusions would be sent at the same time to the alleged victim, the HR and the manager. In this case the conclusion…

"They also have no interest in the company."

Is that really true? Presumably they're being paid by the company. And, in a large enough company, these kinds of things would come up decently often. If the auditor has a few investigations in a row where they find against the company, wouldn't the company start looking for another auditor?

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#384

Post by burkaman »

kutkloon7 wrote: post #255

Very well put. I find it very annoying when people declare something to be racist. Racism is the idea that some races are superior or inferior. Unless you literally declare that some races are superior or inferior, what you say is not racist. I do agree that some things might imply that you think some races are inferior, but by declaring something racist, you state that the author has that specific idea and is trying…

What word would you prefer? How would you describe the comment "Black people eat a lot of chicken"?

Also, FYI, most (all?) dictionaries disagree with you on the definition of racism.

> the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#385

Post by webtechgal »

stcredzero wrote: post #337
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the op, but female as well. Guy is a general term most times, but I've known a few women that get offended by it because they aren't male. Dude is also used for both, but a lot of folks don't want to use that in the office. Alternatively, just use person and be safe.

"Folks"?

Yes!! :-)

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#386

Post by st3v3r »

kefka wrote: post #305
Jtsummers wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A note: Constantly referring to women as girls is a part of the problem. There are certainly women that I know and would use that term to refer to them, for various reason. Familiarity, primarily, as in: "Hey, what are the girls doing tonight?" as a question posed to a female friend about our common group of female friends. But you use girl not just for the specific person (Julie Horvath) but for all women ("If a gir…

And this is a great example of derailing a conversation by attacking the specific language used. This tactic is used to great effect by SJW's. I only need look down the thread to see how much you caused. Many a times, this type of harassment is mainly what women claim against men. But what exactly is harassment? Well, there's no real good definition. There's a point where any sane individual would agree... But I've a…

The guy's entire post was dripping with disdain and contempt for women. Calling them girls was just an example. That is used out of disrespect. I guarantee you that guy would not use the term "boys" to refer to men.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#387

Post by st3v3r »

geoka9 wrote: post #219
Jtsummers wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A note: Constantly referring to women as girls is a part of the problem. There are certainly women that I know and would use that term to refer to them, for various reason. Familiarity, primarily, as in: "Hey, what are the girls doing tonight?" as a question posed to a female friend about our common group of female friends. But you use girl not just for the specific person (Julie Horvath) but for all women ("If a gir…

Honest question: what would be the equivalent of "guy" in your opinion when referring to a female in a professional environment (assuming that referring to males as "guys" is acceptable)?

Lady.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#388

Post by st3v3r »

actsasbuffoon wrote: post #318
geoka9 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: what would be the equivalent of "guy" in your opinion when referring to a female in a professional environment (assuming that referring to males as "guys" is acceptable)?

I tend to informally address mixed gender groups as "you guys," and I know that bugs some people. Unfortunately I can't think of any better gender neutral terms that maintain the informal feeling. Sometimes I wish I was southern so I could get away with "y'all." It's such a useful term, but it sounds so wrong coming from my north eastern accent.

Folks. People. Both perfectly fine terms.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#389

Post by FreedomToCreate »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #263
geoka9 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: what would be the equivalent of "guy" in your opinion when referring to a female in a professional environment (assuming that referring to males as "guys" is acceptable)?

Not the op, but female as well. Guy is a general term most times, but I've known a few women that get offended by it because they aren't male. Dude is also used for both, but a lot of folks don't want to use that in the office. Alternatively, just use person and be safe.

Be safe!!!!!! From what? Being scared of offending someone over the word dude or guys. I can't even imagine the anxiety you must suffer from if you are trying to avoid offending anyone.

Hey I'm offended you used the word op. When I was a kid, these kids used to bully me by calling me an Op. Can you refrain was using that word.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#390

Post by edblarney »

edblarney wrote: post #181

"there was no harassment according to legal definition. " He's extremely lucky. In Canada, and in a growing number of jurisdictions - there is 'harassment' so long as the victim feels as if there was. If a girl feels harassed - then that's it. Guilty. It's a deep breach of our fundamental rights, in that crimes should be determined objectively, and not subject to the whims and feelings of a victim. Obviously, this is…

For context, I looked up a summary of the US law (and it's complicated, there's a lot of dense material) but here is a succinct definition:

"Although harassing conduct must be objectively viewed as creating a hostile work environment to be unlawful, the subjective perception of the particular harassed employee is still significant. If the employee does not perceive the work environment to be hostile because of that conduct, the conduct is not unlawful harassment." from [1]

So, at least in the US (I don't know how this works given state laws) - harassment must objectively be so - but it's clearly also in the eyes of the beholder.

They give an example of 'blonde jokes'.

Telling a 'blonde joke' constitutes harassment if someone is offended by it. Otherwise, it's not.

Which is definitely interesting - 'Blonde jokes' are effectively considered to be 'objectively harassing' - but it's a crime (or not) depending on whether a person perceives it to be offensive.

[1] http://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/sbg/office-hr/managing-the...

Post reply on HN