Reading the comments here, have brought up one of the major issues I've always had with the technical community -- its inability to empathize.
And worse, when it comes to sexual harassment and assault, it's almost as if there's a disincentive to empathize with the victim, resulting in straight-up, outlandish comments that are on par with those of extreme, right-wing talk radio hosts.
The line about what is or isn't normal things that Americans do at conferences is just bullshit. You put 500 people with a shared interest in the same room, you'd be surprised at what quickly becomes "normal" or justified. It's actually called herd mentality.
At this age and point in your life, with all the media coverage and information surrounding you about sexual assault, and to use your Girls Gone Wild example: the girls who have claimed, and successfully proven in a court of law that they were exploited by GGW; how can you use the excuse that he didn't know he crossed a line?
Has he been participating in a self-imposed media blackout for the last 10 years? Has he never thought of the day he might have to discuss the issue of sexual predators with his three daughters, and how they potentially come in all shapes and sizes?
And to top it off, you're shocked that she said the touching was common behavior for coworkers. What does that tell you?
That she was really trusting and naive, or there's a culture of predatory behavior in her workplace, or BOTH.
As a manager, you yourself have an obligation to not make unwanted advances across the personal boundaries of your subordinates, and ensure to the best of your ability, that your subordinates are also safe from unwanted advances within the company. There is absolutely no question about that.
In fact, if you do indeed choose to start a relationship with a subordinate, you absolutely need an a CLEAR line of communication that establishes that, yes, your subordinate does indeed want to engage in relations with you, and understands it has no bearing in your career/position or their career/position.
This even extrapolates to hooking up casually -- you need a clear signal that both parties are okay with this. Sometimes, it's reciprocated, non-verbal communication, and yes, other times it can be a BLUNT question that is purposely meant to remove any ambiguity from the situation, and end in one of two clear results: yes or no.
You cannot assert that no man has ever asked first. You can only assert that you've never asked first.
And then you've flip-flopped on your own logic regarding vilification.
You give him the benefit of a doubt of making a mistake influenced by alcohol, that "is stupid, juvenile behavior on his part, which he would not have done sober."
But later you reverse your position regarding her DUI, and insinuate that this may not be her first time, and she may have even developed a habit of driving under the influence.
What if this isn't Joe O'Brien's first time? What if he developed a habit of it? What if that's the reason he's checked himself into a 6-week mental health program as you stated in other comments? Do you check yourself into a mental health facility, after a single "juvenile" mistake?
EDIT: What if this occurred with such frequency, that he did indeed have an "agreement" in place with his wife, as he so creepily stated?
as technical folks, i don't think we fully understand the different types of lawyers there are.
you know that eye twitch you develop, when someone asks if you can fix their computer because you "work with computers"? it's similar for lawyers.
in my first two businesses, i didn't do enough [serious] transactions to need lawyers.
in my third business, i reviewed and wrote our initial contracts, which were eventually reviewed by other lawyers, but that took a ginormous amount of my time and sanity.
(for fellow people who suffer from impostor syndrome -- can you imagine walking into every meeting with a client and thinking "is this day i'm revealed as an incompetent contract writer?")
for the next set of contracts, i decided i needed a lawyer and got a recommendation from a friend of a friend. this lawyer turned out to specialize in immigration, not business; but assured me that they could get it done.
inevitably, in my first deal involving them, i landed in the back-and-forth lawyering described in pud's article (and so many comments here). i really needed the revenue in the company bank account sooner rather than later, so after 4 weeks, i gave in, and signed the contract, but 3 months later got burned.
this cost me time, money (both from the customer, AND the law firm), and many nights of sleep.
then i had the fortune of becoming friends with a lawyer that specializes in contract litigation. i begged him to draft my contracts, and he refused. he then explained his specialization was in tearing contracts apart, finding points of leverage for his client, and to a lesser extent, being involved in settlement negotiation (but not leading it).
to you and i, this sounds like the perfect person to draft a contract. to him, it's an unneeded source of liability that can increase his malpractice insurance rates. he did however, take a look at my originally-blessed contract and tell me to make a few changes, especially rip out the arbitration clauses in my contracts, because arbitration is hella expensive (it really is).
so today, i have a business contracts lawyer, an employment lawyer, and when needed, a lawyer experienced in business contract litigation.
and for those of you wondering about the cost, it's not that expensive.
i do a quick review of contracts i receive and clearly explain any industry-specific terms and practices to my lawyers, and have them do the final signoff.
i don't do retainers, in fact, my business and employment lawyers refused a retainer agreement. due to the new custodial laws on how lawyers must account for client money (after a few high-profile cases of attorney-client theft), they don't feel it's worth it for the limited amount of business i do. pay as you go.
Reading the comments here, have brought up one of the major issues I've always had with the technical community -- its inability to empathize.
And worse, when it comes to sexual harassment and assault, it's almost as if there's a disincentive to empathize with the victim, resulting in straight-up, outlandish comments that are on par with those of extreme, right-wing talk radio hosts.
The line about what is or isn't normal things that Americans do at conferences is just bullshit. You put 500 people with a shared interest in the same room, you'd be surprised at what quickly becomes "normal" or justified. It's actually called herd mentality.
At this age and point in your life, with all the media coverage and information surrounding you about sexual assault, and to use your Girls Gone Wild example: the girls who have claimed, and successfully proven in a court of law that they were exploited by GGW; how can you use the excuse that he didn't know he crossed a line?
Has he been participating in a self-imposed media blackout for the last 10 years? Has he never thought of the day he might have to discuss the issue of sexual predators with his three daughters, and how they potentially come in all shapes and sizes?
And to top it off, you're shocked that she said the touching was common behavior for coworkers. What does that tell you?
That she was really trusting and naive, or there's a culture of predatory behavior in her workplace, or BOTH.
As a manager, you yourself have an obligation to not make unwanted advances across the personal boundaries of your subordinates, and ensure to the best of your ability, that your subordinates are also safe from unwanted advances within the company. There is absolutely no question about that.
In fact, if you do indeed choose to start a relationship with a subordinate, you absolutely need an a CLEAR line of communication that establishes that, yes, your subordinate does indeed want to engage in relations with you, and understands it has no bearing in your career/position or their career/position.
This even extrapolates to hooking up casually -- you need a clear signal that both parties are okay with this. Sometimes, it's reciprocated, non-verbal communication, and yes, other times it can be a BLUNT question that is purposely meant to remove any ambiguity from the situation, and end in one of two clear results: yes or no.
You cannot assert that no man has ever asked first. You can only assert that you've never asked first.
And then you've flip-flopped on your own logic regarding vilification.
You give him the benefit of a doubt of making a mistake influenced by alcohol, that "is stupid, juvenile behavior on his part, which he would not have done sober."
But later you reverse your position regarding her DUI, and insinuate that this may not be her first time, and she may have even developed a habit of driving under the influence.
What if this isn't Joe O'Brien's first time? What if he developed a habit of it? What if that's the reason he's checked himself into a 6-week mental health program as you stated in other comments? Do you check yourself into a mental health facility, after a single "juvenile" mistake?
EDIT: What if this occurred with such frequency, that he did indeed have an "agreement" in place with his wife, as he so creepily stated?