421–430 of 692 posts
HR works for the company. When you consider your moves keep in mind HR works for the company. You are not paying HR salaries. Get outside legal help and advice.
Unless there is someone at the top that takes these matter seriously on a personal level and has communicated it to his subordinates, senior management in general only pays lip service to taking such matters seriously. These are complex matters and every one wants to get on with their work, rather than deal with the problem.
Tim Cook, I would expect, would have sent the message about taking such matters seriously. It seems like someone between him and the victim decided to add his "personal expertise" to this case and mishandled it completely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unionization is not banned in any state. Your link does not agree with your dishonest comment. Right to work laws simply prohibit collusion between unions and employers to prevent non-union workers from working. They are no different than other worker protection laws, e.g. the laws prohibiting Apple and Microsoft from forming an anti-poaching agreement.
Except that this law makes the union pointless. Laws like that are a prime reason unions are dying. Why pay union dues when you get all the benefits for free? Oh sure, the union shrivels and dies and the benefits leave with it, but fuck it you saved $25 off a few paychecks.
And I will probably still be subject to retarded contract where advancement is by seniority, no benefit for doing a great job and it is basically impossible to fire people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obviously I'm not a witness, but I tend to believe that these events took place more or less as the author describes them. Why, though? Because people don't lie, exaggerate, or have strange ideas of what others are doing to them?
It's called the benefit of the doubt. You're free to believe one person is telling the truth and one person is lying, or that both people are telling what they believe happened, or whatever, but making that decision before getting both/all sides of a story is not the best way to get the facts. Just like someone shouldn't read this woman's story and say that everyone above her at Apple should be fired, you also should…
Shouldn't that benefit extend to the other sides of the stories?
What happened to the "Auditur et altera pars" (hearing the other side) before assuming anything and awarding the benefit to just the one you've heard?
Preamble: I'm not questioning or talking against the article at all, just making some notes. The problem seems to be real all around the world, which is yet another indicator that most societies are not ready for global market. The only thing I miss from the article: did she try to talk to her harassers directly before going to a manager? Maybe I misread something but it seems like this did not happen, yet this shoul…
I'm astonished this is as high as it is. > did she try to talk to her harassers directly before going to a manager? There are a huge number of reasons why you should not be expected to do this. The harasser can be in a position of authority, for example. Even separately to that (and i understand this is a reducio argument, but..) would you ask an abuse victim to speak to their abuser? No, they go straight to the poli…
When you get attacked in the street, talking is the first thing you should do. When you are harassed by a teacher in class as well. You always need to talk to the person attacking you unless it's too dangerous to do so. It may fail, but if you don't do it, you basically give up your ability to act.
> This didn't need to be said
This does need to be said. There is a high focus on making everything about gender these days, and it's very detrimental. It makes people focusing on specifics, instead of global issues. Worst, it usually focus on fighting against something instead of empowering the victims, which needs to be done for long term results.
> each complaint of any nature should be treated confidentially so reports of abuses like this can be made without fear of repercussion.
That's actually very hard to do, but it's true it would be the ideal call.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obviously I'm not a witness, but I tend to believe that these events took place more or less as the author describes them. Why, though? Because people don't lie, exaggerate, or have strange ideas of what others are doing to them?
People do lie, but that doesn't mean we should assume they're always lying. I don't believe you can prove anything. I mean to say that's my perspective on the universe: that it is physically impossible to prove anything. At the same time, you can't live your life that way. If I second guess the way my brain is interpreting light reflecting off objects all the time then I'd never leave my apartment. Of course I'm skep…
Tons of things can be reasonably proven. A videotape of an incident can pretty much settle a dispute as to what happened for example, except if very special arrangements are involved (the camera angle hides the actual act, etc).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Obviously I'm not a witness, but I tend to believe that these events took place more or less as the author describes them. Why, though? Because people don't lie, exaggerate, or have strange ideas of what others are doing to them?
In this particular case, my thinking says Author is probably telling the truth. She has really no incentive of saying anything at all, she can keep it all to herself. On other hand - never in my career, I have seen HR truly standing up for the Employee. The goal is always to deflect and maintain plausible deniability. I have never read a single story on Internet that highlights those HR heroes we deserve.
I think commenters who are reacting negatively to this story are reacting to the vocabulary rather than the story. Obviously I'm not a witness, but I tend to believe that these events took place more or less as the author describes them. At the same time, words like "sexism" and phrases like "as a minority..." are a big turn-off to some readers, myself included. This isn't because I don't believe in racism/sexism/xen…
For instance, the behavior is clearly spelled out here:
One day, one of my supervisors jumped to my defense at a team event, in an awkward display of sexism.
The group started insinuating...
They also made remarks implying...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But does it target everyone _equally_ ? LOL, wat? Each and every case is unique, there is no equal in this. I even gave an example, which has happened to me, to friends, to my wife equally...
> which has happened to me, to friends, to my wife equally... I assume your lying to try and prove a point. Unless you back this up with evidence, one should safely assume you are lying. I don't like doing this, but as someone once said: there are people out there who lie. Especially these days, with the problems of fake news, it's easy to get suspicious.
There is a mental trap I have personally fallen into I will dub the "Friendliness Trap" where you start to incorrectly think of someone you work closely with as your close friend due to the forced proximity and "friendly" interaction. This can foster inappropriate workplace behavior your brain justifies as OK. For instance friendly teasing, sometimes even started by the person themselves (e.g. "Oh, you know us [blank…