this seems pretty naive to the realities of a lot of industries. Women's concerns of being at a disadvantage are well-founded, and in certain industries, this requirement is downright unprofessional it's so far outside the norm.
Ravi Zacharias Ministries - interim statement & report
15,681 Views |
301 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by diehard03
Aggrad08 said:
this seems pretty naive to the realities of a lot of industries. Women's concerns of being at a disadvantage are well-founded, and in certain industries, this requirement is downright unprofessional it's so far outside the norm.
Never said it was a requirement. I think it is wise and therefore choose to follow the BGR. I also think it is naive to think there are not dangers in opposite sex private meetings.
You can choose to do differently.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Aggrad08 said:No, I told you that same-sex allegations very much do happen. A simple google search will show you plenty of evidence of that. No there isn't a supreme court case, why should that matter?dermdoc said:You gave famous same sex allegations like Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas? Where?Aggrad08 said:
I did, you also said it was PC and unnecessary so it's confusing.
And we are both on agreement on access. Do not make it hard.
If you don't treat the male employees the same as female ones how is there equal access in any practical sense?
What I've learned from my 15 year career is this simple lesson: that is not my problem.
If I am working with one of the male employees under me, I can be comfortable with the glass door open or closed. If it is a female employee, that door will always be open. Always.
My responsibility is not to aid other people, whether they are men and women, in their own career. I can choose to pay it forward and mentor others, or I can go home. At the end of the day, my responsibility is to provide for my wife and children. Thats it. Everything else is superfluous to that goal.
Solo Tetherball Champ said:Aggrad08 said:No, I told you that same-sex allegations very much do happen. A simple google search will show you plenty of evidence of that. No there isn't a supreme court case, why should that matter?dermdoc said:You gave famous same sex allegations like Kavanaugh or Clarence Thomas? Where?Aggrad08 said:
I did, you also said it was PC and unnecessary so it's confusing.
And we are both on agreement on access. Do not make it hard.
If you don't treat the male employees the same as female ones how is there equal access in any practical sense?
What I've learned from my 15 year career is this simple lesson: that is not my problem.
If I am working with one of the male employees under me, I can be comfortable with the glass door open or closed. If it is a female employee, that door will always be open. Always.
My responsibility is not to aid other people, whether they are men and women, in their own career. I can choose to pay it forward and mentor others, or I can go home. At the end of the day, my responsibility is to provide for my wife and children. Thats it. Everything else is superfluous to that goal.
Yes. I think one of the ideas at play here is that job and career are the most important thing in anyone's life. People exist to work and the only way to actualize success is to have a career and advance to an executive level. Children could interfere with a career so you must support abortion. Even if you want children you might have to take care of them so we need childcare subsidies and expanded government programs for kids. The BGR could interfere with a woman's career so it must be opposed. This is the unspoken argument.
how important someone's career is to them is a completely personal decision. Bringing abortion into this argument is just silliness. Some people just see a pay check, others a passion, others something in between.
I'm hardly going to tell people how to live their one life.
I'm hardly going to tell people how to live their one life.
sure we all have our own risk to measure. And even with my own employees, I treat more senior employees differently than brand new hires male or female. You can and should do what's right for you, I'm simply pointing out the blind "just follow the BGR it always makes more sense" argument isn't true. And there are people who can have a legitimate gripe if their boss practices it in certain industries.
Aggrad08 said:
how important someone's career is to them is a completely personal decision. Bringing abortion into this argument is just silliness. Some people just see a pay check, others a passion, others something in between.
I'm hardly going to tell people how to live their one life.
Says the guy arguing against the BGR which people are choosing to live their life by.
Against the people saying it's best always?
The BGR rule in the workplace seems like a prime example of one of those "systemic -ism" things people say don't exist.
Aggrad08 said:
Against the people saying it's best always?
So you only tell people how to live their lives when you feel justified in doing so? That's a different statement entirely.
Aggrad08 said:
sure we all have our own risk to measure. And even with my own employees, I treat more senior employees differently than brand new hires male or female. You can and should do what's right for you, I'm simply pointing out the blind "just follow the BGR it always makes more sense" argument isn't true. And there are people who can have a legitimate gripe if their boss practices it in certain industries.
They may not like it but it is not a violation of work place law to my knowledge.
So they can either accept it or get another job.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Talking about how we interact with people and what the ramifications is upon those people and ourselves is a far different cry from telling a person where their passion in life should lie. This is an obvious enough thing even a child can understand.AGC said:Aggrad08 said:
Against the people saying it's best always?
So you only tell people how to live their lives when you feel justified in doing so? That's a different statement entirely.
Aggrad08 said:Talking about how we interact with people and what the ramifications is upon those people and ourselves is a far different cry from telling a person where their passion in life should lie. This is an obvious enough thing even a child can understand.AGC said:Aggrad08 said:
Against the people saying it's best always?
So you only tell people how to live their lives when you feel justified in doing so? That's a different statement entirely.
In this discussion it's a difference without distinction. The BGR is a reflection of and manifestation of worldview and passion. Telling people not to use it is the same thing.
This is an absurd stretch. How much you decide to protect yourself from a false accusation is a manifestation of passion? And that's comparable to how someone spends their life and finds purpose? This is a weak troll attempt. Politics board stuff.AGC said:Aggrad08 said:Talking about how we interact with people and what the ramifications is upon those people and ourselves is a far different cry from telling a person where their passion in life should lie. This is an obvious enough thing even a child can understand.AGC said:Aggrad08 said:
Against the people saying it's best always?
So you only tell people how to live their lives when you feel justified in doing so? That's a different statement entirely.
In this discussion it's a difference without distinction. The BGR is a reflection of and manifestation of worldview and passion. Telling people not to use it is the same thing.
Aggrad08 said:This is an absurd stretch. How much you decide to protect yourself from a false accusation is a manifestation of passion? And that's comparable to how someone spends their life and finds purpose? This is a weak troll attempt. Politics board stuff.AGC said:Aggrad08 said:Talking about how we interact with people and what the ramifications is upon those people and ourselves is a far different cry from telling a person where their passion in life should lie. This is an obvious enough thing even a child can understand.AGC said:Aggrad08 said:
Against the people saying it's best always?
So you only tell people how to live their lives when you feel justified in doing so? That's a different statement entirely.
In this discussion it's a difference without distinction. The BGR is a reflection of and manifestation of worldview and passion. Telling people not to use it is the same thing.
Before we devolve too far into adhominem I think it worth pointing out that this thread has covered extensively the reasons for the BGR and it was not initially to protect oneself from false accusation; that is a benefit of it. It comes from something greater and Graham himself I don't think would indicate that was the reason for it at all. Without a proper understanding of it I see how you could simply conflate it with legal protection but let's not pretend that this dispute is simply for the greater good of women everywhere and the furthering of humanity as some moral imperative.
the legal protection has been the focus of the thread in case you didn't notice. And even if it wasn't the comparison is laughable.
Quote:
My responsibility is not to aid other people, whether they are men and women, in their own career. I can choose to pay it forward and mentor others, or I can go home. At the end of the day, my responsibility is to provide for my wife and children. Thats it. Everything else is superfluous to that goal.
This sounds like the conversation the Levite and priest had in their heads before passing the man who was robbed on the side of the road...
Quote:
Before we devolve too far into adhominem I think it worth pointing out that this thread has covered extensively the reasons for the BGR and it was not initially to protect oneself from false accusation; that is a benefit of it. It comes from something greater and Graham himself I don't think would indicate that was the reason for it at all. Without a proper understanding of it I see how you could simply conflate it with legal protection but let's not pretend that this dispute is simply for the greater good of women everywhere and the furthering of humanity as some moral imperative.
it's the usual case in threads like these. It' gets promoted and challenged....then starts the "yeah buts".
As the "yeah buts" get their own challenge, eventually someone tries to walk them back.
I don't think anyone is really against the "heart" behind it and we understand that it's not malicious or part of some nefarious power trip to keep women down. Are there unintended consequences though that should be considered? I think so, and others seem to too. Is there also some hypocrisy that should be challenged for our own hearts? I think so as well.
Aggrad08 said:
the legal protection has been the focus of the thread in case you didn't notice. And even if it wasn't the comparison is laughable.
I agree. The idea that this policy is detrimental to society given how workspaces are currently laid out and the overwhelming unconfidential nature of most discussions with bosses certainly makes it laughable.
Aggrad08 said:
sure we all have our own risk to measure. And even with my own employees, I treat more senior employees differently than brand new hires male or female. You can and should do what's right for you, I'm simply pointing out the blind "just follow the BGR it always makes more sense" argument isn't true. And there are people who can have a legitimate gripe if their boss practices it in certain industries.
Here is some more to the story.
About 12 years ago, I worked at a business in a sales role. I was not a good sales rep. Three months after my start date I was put on a PIP plan; two months later I was dismissed when I showed no improvement. Turns out sales is not my forte. Luckily, in my next sales-ish role I learned that I was pretty good at marketing and I've created a fairly successfully career for myself in it.
A year and a half ago, I saw there was an open position at that same company in their marketing department. I thought I'd apply - what have I got to lose if they say no? I began my application, but it turned out to the very annoying sort where you submit your cover letter and resume yet then have to manually enter all that same information in their application portal. I figured I could complete it later, but rather than save it I accidentally submitted my incomplete application. I decided to call and ask about it, once again thinking the worst they could tell me is no.
When I called, the woman I spoke to in HR was understanding and forgiving "Oh, this happens". When I told her I worked there nearly a decade ago in a different capacity, she looked up my information. Then her tone changed, and said that I wasn't eligible for rehire due to the nature of my dismissal. I asked are they really going to hold
Needless to say, she would not share any more information with me. I don't know what I did, when I did it, or whom I apparently harassed. But opportunities there are closed off to me forever.
So that's my experience: All it takes an accusation. It doesn't matter if it is provable or not. It is a far easier matter to remove the accused without even notifying them than it is to investigate it.
But I don't have a blind spot. I'm well aware of the implications here, and how that could affect the women I work with. I'm simply saying that the most important thing to me is the security of my family. Keeping my career safe and secure is a means to that end.
Very similar to mine. The woman who accused me did it in the process of her exit interview, naming me and another manager specifically. It was entered into my "record" with HR and used in evaluating me for future positions and was part of the reason I was terminated. I never even knew I had been accused they told me on my way out the door.
Zobel said:
Very similar to mine. The woman who accused me did it in the process of her exit interview, naming me and another manager specifically. It was entered into my "record" with HR and used in evaluating me for future positions and was part of the reason I was terminated. I never even knew I had been accused they told me on my way out the door.
Yeah.
There is absolutely no recourse to this. So the only logical conclusion is protect yourself. I don't care what the odds are.
I tell my wife the same thing. She generally doesn't pump gas herself, least of all at night. The odds of someone assaulting her are statistically low, but the fact of the matter is that she is 5'1 105. She's an easy target.
There are bad actors out there, who don't care about the harm they do to others in pursuit of what they want or in your case, spite.
And that's totally understandable. I think some people here do/did have that blind spot, some actually persist as you can see above. If you weigh the cost benefit and decide, that's all good.Quote:
But I don't have a blind spot. I'm well aware of the implications here, and how that could affect the women I work with. I'm simply saying that the most important thing to me is the security of my family. Keeping my career safe and secure is a means to that end.
And also, I don't think a witness would have helped you one bit based on what you describe, or K2 for that matter. As you were never even given the opportunity to defend yourself or know the details of the accusation to attempt to refute it.
A witness is useful for legal reasons sure, where evidence must be provided. But you got hosed, and I don't see what you could have done about it.
It's funny, virtually everyone on this thread has conceded this is something worthy of consideration whether or not they still think BGR is a good practice. But you go on thinking it's nothing.AGC said:Aggrad08 said:
the legal protection has been the focus of the thread in case you didn't notice. And even if it wasn't the comparison is laughable.
I agree. The idea that this policy is detrimental to society given how workspaces are currently laid out and the overwhelming unconfidential nature of most discussions with bosses certainly makes it laughable.
Quote:
Here is some more to the story.
About 12 years ago, I worked at a business in a sales role. I was not a good sales rep. Three months after my start date I was put on a PIP plan; two months later I was dismissed when I showed no improvement. Turns out sales is not my forte. Luckily, in my next sales-ish role I learned that I was pretty good at marketing and I've created a fairly successfully career for myself in it.
A year and a half ago, I saw there was an open position at that same company in their marketing department. I thought I'd apply - what have I got to lose if they say no? I began my application, but it turned out to the very annoying sort where you submit your cover letter and resume yet then have to manually enter all that same information in their application portal. I figured I could complete it later, but rather than save it I accidentally submitted my incomplete application. I decided to call and ask about it, once again thinking the worst they could tell me is no.
When I called, the woman I spoke to in HR was understanding and forgiving "Oh, this happens". When I told her I worked there nearly a decade ago in a different capacity, she looked up my information. Then her tone changed, and said that I wasn't eligible for rehire due to the nature of my dismissal. I asked are they really going to holdpoornonexistent sales numbers against me ten years later? No, she said apparently I had been accused of harassment. I was absolutely shocked. I could not remember the face, let alone name of a single female coworker. I don't think I hardly spoke to anyone there as I was so miserable in that sales role (outbound telesales - joys of graduating in the 08-09 meltdown).
Needless to say, she would not share any more information with me. I don't know what I did, when I did it, or whom I apparently harassed. But opportunities there are closed off to me forever.
So that's my experience: All it takes an accusation. It doesn't matter if it is provable or not. It is a far easier matter to remove the accused without even notifying them than it is to investigate it.
But I don't have a blind spot. I'm well aware of the implications here, and how that could affect the women I work with. I'm simply saying that the most important thing to me is the security of my family. Keeping my career safe and secure is a means to that end.
So, here's the thing: I believe your story 100%.
At the same time, I can also see an equal plausible one: You get fired for a PIP and escorted out as per the point of a PIP - to fire you. After the fact, someone makes a complaint of harassment. The incident that could of brought this on might have been nothing more than a misunderstanding - a comment taken out of context or whatever. However, being that you're fired, there's no incentive for the company to worry about it. Set a flag and move on.
A complaint of harassment doesn't mean you tried to seduce someone.
So, it sucks...but i can see a situation that has everything to do with corporate attitudes towards fired employees rather than the wrath of a woman scorned.
As it's said, don't attribute malice when incompetence will suffice.
Also, a policy of not having mixed gender private meetings would have prevented 0 of the anecdotal stories so far
Quad Dog said:
Also, a policy of not having mixed gender private meetings would have prevented 0 of the anecdotal stories so far
Maybe.
But it certainly highlights that all it can take is an accusation of harassment and your ass is on thin ice.
When the rules are that slanted against you, can you hardly blame someone for not willing to take the risk?
You're not exactly wrong. But a little Devil's Advocate says that it is going to happen regardless, so you might as well do the right thing and treat all your employees the same.
The right thing?
Zobel said:
The right thing?
Yep. Not me. I can do the BGR and handle my employees equally.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Fair, that is a little subjective. But I'd say having the same policy for everyone regardless of gender or sex falls under the category of "right thing."
Quad Dog said:
Fair, that is a little subjective. But I'd say having the same policy for everyone regardless of gender or sex falls under the category of "right thing."
You can have the "same policy" and still treat people differently.
You can not legislate this stuff. Or enforce it. Bad dudes and false witnesses can only be stopped for the most part by having witnesses.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Quad Dog said:
Fair, that is a little subjective. But I'd say having the same policy for everyone regardless of gender or sex falls under the category of "right thing."
And I disagree that is the "right thing".
For who? Obviously not the boss if he/she thinks differently.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Quote:
Maybe.
But it certainly highlights that all it can take is an accusation of harassment and your ass is on thin ice.
When the rules are that slanted against you, can you hardly blame someone for not willing to take the risk?
But you don't know that your view is the "correct" one. What makes you so sure that this was a vindictive attack against, your words, a bad employee already out the door anyway?
The only word you got was "harassment"...which covers a wide range of issues. How are you so sure it wasn't a case of miscommunication?
The problem is an inane policy of believing all women. If we are going to start talking about treating men and women the same, that is as good a place to start as any.
AgCzar
A&M hasn't had a QB finish Top 25 in QBR since Kenny Hill
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
63
rca21978
In memory of Clarence Sasser - Aggie Medal of Honor winner
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
53