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

Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 115 posts

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#11

Post by wildmusings »

gpm wrote: post #9
wildmusings wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Binding arbitration and confidentiality agreements are two totally different things, that seem to be getting conflated here. There is a defensible argument for not allowing mandatory binding arbitration for certain things. But eliminating the ability of parties to agree to a confidential settlement is a huge mistake. It will result in victims getting less money. An allegation of harassment, without further evidence,…

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

It's a mutually beneficial trade. The accuser gets paid, without having to go through the rigors of a trial, where the defense counsel will impeach their character and try to convince the world that they are scheming liars or worse. The accused gets silence, instead of having their name run through the press and assumed guilty by the angry mob.

Also, where did sexual assault come into this? Sexual assault is a crime. Sexual harassment isn't a crime at all; it's a civil wrong that exists only in the context of the workplace.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#12

Post by s73ver_ »

gpm wrote: post #9
wildmusings wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Binding arbitration and confidentiality agreements are two totally different things, that seem to be getting conflated here. There is a defensible argument for not allowing mandatory binding arbitration for certain things. But eliminating the ability of parties to agree to a confidential settlement is a huge mistake. It will result in victims getting less money. An allegation of harassment, without further evidence,…

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

At the same time, having the victim's name plastered all over everywhere can't be good for them. Despite all the progress that's been made, we still live in a time where most victims would be blacklisted from the industry, despite nothing being their fault.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#13

Post by electrograv »

Very happy to see a major tech company that puts their money (and policy) where their mouth is, on such an important issue — even when it goes against the “legally safest” status quo that companies tend to take.

Other tech companies and tech culture in general should take note, and follow suit if they actually care about this issue. Executives and HR statements are nice to hear I suppose, but even better is actual change.

To the little people like us, take note from a different perspective: Watch for which companies are all talk and no action. Take action through which you choose to work for. If you don’t have a choice, do your best within a company to promote positive cultural change.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#14

Post by vvanders »

wildmusings wrote: post #11
gpm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

It's a mutually beneficial trade. The accuser gets paid, without having to go through the rigors of a trial, where the defense counsel will impeach their character and try to convince the world that they are scheming liars or worse. The accused gets silence, instead of having their name run through the press and assumed guilty by the angry mob. Also, where did sexual assault come into this? Sexual assault is a crime.…

It may be beneficial to each party but it sure as hell isn't what I want from my society.

A large portion of these events have come from men with money and power. Letting them pay their way out of this just means they get to go on perpetrating the same crime on other people. That's not an acceptable outcome for sexual harassment.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#15

Post by sverige »

gpm wrote: post #9
wildmusings wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Binding arbitration and confidentiality agreements are two totally different things, that seem to be getting conflated here. There is a defensible argument for not allowing mandatory binding arbitration for certain things. But eliminating the ability of parties to agree to a confidential settlement is a huge mistake. It will result in victims getting less money. An allegation of harassment, without further evidence,…

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

I would argue that the recent wave of "guilty until proven innocent" and "guilty when accused, and more guilty if accused by more people" is even worse for public policy. Due process does indeed exist for a good reason, one of which is to prevent a situation where mere accusations have the power to destroy lives.

Does this mean I think any or all of the recent high-profile cases are innocent? Oh shit, wait, it doesn't matter what I think unless I'm on a jury or in a position to hire or fire the person who is accused.

It's easy to feel smugly righteous about a lot of these cases, but the reality is that it does matter if innocent people are caught up in the hysteria. I'm not quite sure when the media collectively decided that it was a good idea to promote abandoning the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," but the long-term consequences of this are likely to play out in very unexpected and ugly ways that will affect most or all of us in areas that have nothing to do with sexual harassment.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#16

Post by jeffdavis »

wildmusings wrote: post #7
rectang wrote: post #2

Ending forced arbitration was number one on Susan Fowler's list of "Five Things Tech Companies Can Do Better": https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2017/5/20/five-things-tech... 1. End Forced Arbitration This is the single most important thing a company can do to prove to its employees that it is dedicated to acting ethically, legally, responsibly, and transparently. Microsoft's change of policy makes sense when you con…

Binding arbitration and confidentiality agreements are two totally different things, that seem to be getting conflated here. There is a defensible argument for not allowing mandatory binding arbitration for certain things. But eliminating the ability of parties to agree to a confidential settlement is a huge mistake. It will result in victims getting less money. An allegation of harassment, without further evidence,…

"An allegation of harassment, without further evidence, is not going to fare well in court."

Then why should it fare well in other contexts?

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#17

Post by [deleted] »

jeffdavis wrote: post #16
wildmusings wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Binding arbitration and confidentiality agreements are two totally different things, that seem to be getting conflated here. There is a defensible argument for not allowing mandatory binding arbitration for certain things. But eliminating the ability of parties to agree to a confidential settlement is a huge mistake. It will result in victims getting less money. An allegation of harassment, without further evidence,…

"An allegation of harassment, without further evidence, is not going to fare well in court." Then why should it fare well in other contexts?

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#18

Post by greglindahl »

wildmusings wrote: post #11
gpm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

It's a mutually beneficial trade. The accuser gets paid, without having to go through the rigors of a trial, where the defense counsel will impeach their character and try to convince the world that they are scheming liars or worse. The accused gets silence, instead of having their name run through the press and assumed guilty by the angry mob. Also, where did sexual assault come into this? Sexual assault is a crime.…

"Blood money" (a family forgiving a murderer in exchange for money) is a mutually beneficial trade, but is illegal in almost all countries.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#19

Post by greglindahl »

sverige wrote: post #15
gpm wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accusers getting more money isn't good for the public. Incentive to settle without a fair trial in something as serious as sexual assault is not only not good for the public, it's bad for the public. Due process exists for a damn good reason. Preventing sexual assaults is good for the public, publicizing cases of sexual assaults may well have a tendency to do that. Based on your arguments above, I would come to the c…

I would argue that the recent wave of "guilty until proven innocent" and "guilty when accused, and more guilty if accused by more people" is even worse for public policy. Due process does indeed exist for a good reason, one of which is to prevent a situation where mere accusations have the power to destroy lives. Does this mean I think any or all of the recent high-profile cases are innocent? Oh shit, wait, it doesn'…

Society has not abandoned innocent until proven guilty in court cases. That's where that standard applies.

Re: Microsoft Moves to End Secrecy in Sexual Harassment Claims

#20

Post by [deleted] »

greglindahl wrote: post #18
wildmusings wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a mutually beneficial trade. The accuser gets paid, without having to go through the rigors of a trial, where the defense counsel will impeach their character and try to convince the world that they are scheming liars or worse. The accused gets silence, instead of having their name run through the press and assumed guilty by the angry mob. Also, where did sexual assault come into this? Sexual assault is a crime.…

"Blood money" (a family forgiving a murderer in exchange for money) is a mutually beneficial trade, but is illegal in almost all countries.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN