When the lies start flowing from the top down, maybe it's time to worry.
I'm amazed at the lack of knowledge of some of some folks I work with.
I'm sitting there today listening to a perfectly amiable fellow telling me that I've been to one of these informative presentations every year. I've been with the company 10 years. I have never been to a presentation specifically geared toward sexual misconduct.
Now, I might have signed off on the "Federally mandated" sexual discrimination policy, given that it's in the employee handbook, and we've been asked to glance at a few pamphlets now and again and then sign off on everything from fire and HAZMAT safety to lifting properly.
But he's telling me I have.
All right.
Now he's telling me part of his job in HR is to write company statements of our position - statements to the effect of what "we" did or didn't do was the proper course of action regarding accusations of sexual harassment or misconduct in the workplace.
At this point let me clue you in on who the audience was: my peers. Nobody was a manager, just a few of us were salaried.
I won't go into the botched attempt and defining the differentiation in the company's eyes between "salaried managers" and hourly and regular salaried employees. There were no salaried managers in the room. What I gleaned from his attempt was the fact that salaried managers were bound to tell about someone's complaint of sexual harassment - even in passing at a non-company event, like a child's caretaker is bound to report any wrongdoing to CPS.
Anyway, what we have is a fellow speaking to the people he'd be writing against, literally, in case one of us brought a charge of sexual harassment in the workplace against our employer.
Last time I checked, most quid pro quo involved managers and their directs. "General" harassment occurs across the board, certainly, but it's certainly not mostly the lesbian new-hires harassing their female executive VPs ... if you follow me.
The fellow mentioned that we have a no tolerance policy towards discrimination of any kind.
When I asked him if the fellow that cost the company a few hundred grand for "allegedly" dropping his pants in front of another female employee was still working for the company, he asked the room if they knew what I was talking about (most of them groaned no) but the nice man said, yes the pants dropper was.
He went on to explain that the company feared retaliation from the man, should he be fired, now, two years after the fact.
Of course, "We" moved him to a different - better - shift to get him away from the woman he had his problem with.
The nice man in the front of the room failed to mention to the rest of the group the other important aspect of the case: A litany of other women came forward stating they had faced similar harassment from him: remarks, leers, tongue waggling, bragging about his sexual prowess.
So "We" moved him and gave him a whole new pot of women to pick on. Great. No wonder the judge ruled against "us."
The nice man at the front of the room said, in his opinion, not our company's, the judge ruled to heavily against "us." I got the distinct feeling that somehow because the harassed woman received perhaps an extraordinary settlement from the judicial trial and that "We" would be appealing the decision, that somehow this - not absolved - but emboldened the harasser’s case ...
Because "We" would never make it a habit of keeping or promoting people who behaved in such a matter, would we? Ah, but we have ... But that's a topic for another time, when I'm out of this joint ...
I feel "we're" setting a dangerous precedent here.
I love this company, really. I don't want to see it's image sullied and it's nose bloodied from cockamamie decisions. If "we" have managers in place who's best course of action is to separate the kids in the playroom - remember out "no tolerance" policy - then we've got a few more lawsuits coming before somebody starts rolling some heads at the managerial level, because THEY are the ones who ultimately are responsible for their employee's performance and conduct, are they not? Because we obviously can't expect the kiddies to play nice in the room together, can we?
I mean, that's why "we" pay 'em so well, right?
Enough of the rhetorical questions. We ALL can do better. Especially yours truly.
