As a hemale...

Want to pledge allegiance to the Drumpf? Clash with Caspian? Scared of the stickers on your mailbox? Let's hear it.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sno
Chief Patty Officer
Chief Patty Officer
Posts: 1096
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:55 pm
Drives: Fiiiiiiiiiiiiat

This is heavy and I'm sorry and this may have been touched on in the political threads but I woke up this morning to Matt Lauer being fired from the Today show and I want to talk about it. Zilch and I are religious Today show watchers. I can't remember the last morning we had that started without it. And frankly, I'm heartbroken.

If you haven't yet heard, I'll give you one guess as to why he was terminated. Accusations of inappropriate behavior.

I want to talk about this because as a female, I feel like I fall on the wrong side of this. I have admittedly ignored most of this rash of abuse claims and cases from the female world. The Harvey Weinsteins, Dustin Hoffmans, Al Frankens, etc. I was bummed over Kevin Spacey purely for House of Cards. But Matt Lauer hit a nerve with me this morning that has left me very confused. I will admit that it took a case and an individual I actually care about to pay attention.

I have my own versions of #metoo and as any freaking female - have been catcalled, grabbed, and made uncomfortable. My personal thoughts are that even the worst story I personally have does not warrant the man losing his job. Now, I don't know these females stories (a general blanket statement) and some of these sound serious but most of them sound like to me that a female simply got hit on. But as a female, you get hit on. My line stops with physical attention, but I am struggling with accusing these females of playing the victim. And this may be the problem, that I have never known any different. Guys just hit on females and I might be in the wrong for just ignoring it and moving on.

My biggest frustration is that I feel like these accusations are watering down rape victims. They're being grouped together and it is not the same. At all.

And the Today Show hasn't released a lot of information, the inappropriate behavior may not even be related to this. I'm looking for some additional thoughts. I'm standing as a lone wolf in female world.
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:58 pm At the risk of being sucked into your wedding planner decorative vortex, that is kind of cute.
User avatar
Sno
Chief Patty Officer
Chief Patty Officer
Posts: 1096
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:55 pm
Drives: Fiiiiiiiiiiiiat

[user not found] wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:02 am Excellent and interesting post Sno.

Oddly Zilch was in my dream last night.


To the topic at hand, in my position I am investigating this stuff at work on a fairly routine basis. In my experience the guys that get fired aren't getting fired because of one mistake, it's a pattern of behavior that often is their escalatory or at least one that doesn't stop after coaching. That's what gets someone fired, in my experience.

It's also my experience that someone that continues with inappropriate behavior even after discipline for the first incident is an increasing threat to the safety of the workforce.

Ultimately, if you can't treat everyone with the same baseline level of respect (gender, race, age, orientation, height, whatever) then you don't belong in a modern workplace. The productivity of the whole team is way more important than a single individual even if that individual is a star contributor.
I support this. Naturally, one of my first texts to Zilch this morning (he's traveling) was "there's no way." but have already come across a good point on Facebook. This is NBC and the Today show. Matt Lauer would not have been fired over winking at somebody at the water cooler.

In true DFD fashion of being off topic - what was your dream about?!
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:58 pm At the risk of being sucked into your wedding planner decorative vortex, that is kind of cute.
User avatar
Sno
Chief Patty Officer
Chief Patty Officer
Posts: 1096
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:55 pm
Drives: Fiiiiiiiiiiiiat

[user not found] wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 8:08 am
Sno wrote:
I support this. Naturally, one of my first texts to Zilch this morning (he's traveling) was "there's no way." but have already come across a good point on Facebook. This is NBC and the Today show. Matt Lauer would not have been fired over winking at somebody at the water cooler.

In true DFD fashion of being off topic - what was your dream about?!
I was at a Sheetz filling up the barge, which I never do, and then a little FiST pulls up and out jumps that young fella. So strange.


And right on the mark. This is one of the most valuable people in TV on a revenue basis, something happened. This one hits me the hardest too. I am not a huge Today show viewer but it's freaking Matt Lauer.
There seems to have been rumors that he was not the best guy. Which I'm also struggling to accept. Along with some rumblings of issues with Natalie Morales. All of which are coming in via social media so whoe knows. But all of the gentleman on that show have always felt so top knotch. Al?! Willie?!

I just can't wrap my head around it. Zilch is the first voice I hear in the morning and the next is Matt.
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:58 pm At the risk of being sucked into your wedding planner decorative vortex, that is kind of cute.
User avatar
goIftdibrad
Chief Master Soft Brain
Chief Master Soft Brain
Posts: 16746
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
Drives: straight past the apex

Sno wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:54 am

My biggest frustration is that I feel like these accusations are watering down rape victims. They're being grouped together and it is not the same. At all.

10000000x this.

This does not excuse habitual harassment, but god dammit if no one made a pass at anyone we would die off as a species. And sure, there are lines. And sure, there need to be boundaries both in the workplace and society as a whole. And sure, people that abuse a position of power should not be allowed to so do habitually.

But. Its. Not. Rape.

IDK, i have feels on this and will post more later. Good thread. Should go places.
brain go brrrrrr
User avatar
Melon
Trollistrator
Trollistrator
Posts: 10884
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:09 pm
Drives: Blue things, Orange thing
Location: 2' Underwater

All the things I'd say, have been said.

I'll add, false rape claims need to be prosecuted, and hopefully, we as a society, will look at anyone who makes false claims, the same as people who commit actual sexual crimes.
4zilch wrote: Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:46 am I'm a fucking failure.
User avatar
stripethree
Chief Patty Officer
Chief Patty Officer
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:01 pm
Drives: '04 R32, '90 Miata, '17 CB300F
Location: Austin, TX

I am a mixed bag on a lot of this. On one hand, I am happy that we are moving towards a place where women who are harassed and assaulted can come forward and their accusers be publicly shamed and suffer consequences in some respect. I'm sure I am not special in that I have been close friends with and in relationships with women who have been sexually, or otherwise physically, assaulted and the impacts suck. In all of those situations they did not feel they could come forward and confront their accuser or if they did, it was not taken seriously. That sucks and needs to change, and I feel like it might be happening now.

On the other hand, it feels like the dam broke and all the water is rushing out at once. It is sometimes difficult to tell which men were just "hitting on" women and which truly did something that crossed a line. Is making someone uncomfortable verbally, once or twice, a crime? No, but, who am I to say where the lines are? The cases that were close to me, the friends and partners, were very clearcut.

Louie CK is the one that hit me in a different way and made me angry. I was a big fan of the guy, saw him live multiple times. He's an unattractive older white dude making dirty jokes and observations, who also claimed to be on the side of women. I guess we should have seen the truth behind his humor? Who knows. I cannot put myself in his shoes, or anyone else's of that "era", in some respects. I don't see how it would ever be appropriate to whip my dick out and jerk it in front of a colleague or other random person.
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

Sno wrote:This is heavy and I'm sorry and this may have been touched on in the political threads but I woke up this morning to Matt Lauer being fired from the Today show and I want to talk about it. Zilch and I are religious Today show watchers. I can't remember the last morning we had that started without it. And frankly, I'm heartbroken.

If you haven't yet heard, I'll give you one guess as to why he was terminated. Accusations of inappropriate behavior.

I want to talk about this because as a female, I feel like I fall on the wrong side of this. I have admittedly ignored most of this rash of abuse claims and cases from the female world. The Harvey Weinsteins, Dustin Hoffmans, Al Frankens, etc. I was bummed over Kevin Spacey purely for House of Cards. But Matt Lauer hit a nerve with me this morning that has left me very confused. I will admit that it took a case and an individual I actually care about to pay attention.

I have my own versions of #metoo and as any freaking female - have been catcalled, grabbed, and made uncomfortable. My personal thoughts are that even the worst story I personally have does not warrant the man losing his job. Now, I don't know these females stories (a general blanket statement) and some of these sound serious but most of them sound like to me that a female simply got hit on. But as a female, you get hit on. My line stops with physical attention, but I am struggling with accusing these females of playing the victim. And this may be the problem, that I have never known any different. Guys just hit on females and I might be in the wrong for just ignoring it and moving on.

My biggest frustration is that I feel like these accusations are watering down rape victims. They're being grouped together and it is not the same. At all.

And the Today Show hasn't released a lot of information, the inappropriate behavior may not even be related to this. I'm looking for some additional thoughts. I'm standing as a lone wolf in female world.
I'm in the same boat on these things, these offenses don't seem to generally be worth destroying an entire career+life+family.

In addition, it really bugs me that these guys are all assumed to be guilty even AFTER bring tried and not convicted (on the rare occasion that they're tried at all). An accusation is all it takes to destroy a life, proof is not required - let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.
User avatar
Sno
Chief Patty Officer
Chief Patty Officer
Posts: 1096
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:55 pm
Drives: Fiiiiiiiiiiiiat

troyguitar wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:06 am
Sno wrote:This is heavy and I'm sorry and this may have been touched on in the political threads but I woke up this morning to Matt Lauer being fired from the Today show and I want to talk about it. Zilch and I are religious Today show watchers. I can't remember the last morning we had that started without it. And frankly, I'm heartbroken.

If you haven't yet heard, I'll give you one guess as to why he was terminated. Accusations of inappropriate behavior.

I want to talk about this because as a female, I feel like I fall on the wrong side of this. I have admittedly ignored most of this rash of abuse claims and cases from the female world. The Harvey Weinsteins, Dustin Hoffmans, Al Frankens, etc. I was bummed over Kevin Spacey purely for House of Cards. But Matt Lauer hit a nerve with me this morning that has left me very confused. I will admit that it took a case and an individual I actually care about to pay attention.

I have my own versions of #metoo and as any freaking female - have been catcalled, grabbed, and made uncomfortable. My personal thoughts are that even the worst story I personally have does not warrant the man losing his job. Now, I don't know these females stories (a general blanket statement) and some of these sound serious but most of them sound like to me that a female simply got hit on. But as a female, you get hit on. My line stops with physical attention, but I am struggling with accusing these females of playing the victim. And this may be the problem, that I have never known any different. Guys just hit on females and I might be in the wrong for just ignoring it and moving on.

My biggest frustration is that I feel like these accusations are watering down rape victims. They're being grouped together and it is not the same. At all.

And the Today Show hasn't released a lot of information, the inappropriate behavior may not even be related to this. I'm looking for some additional thoughts. I'm standing as a lone wolf in female world.
I'm in the same boat on these things, these offenses don't seem to generally be worth destroying an entire career+life+family.

In addition, it really bugs me that these guys are all assumed to be guilty even AFTER bring tried and not convicted (on the rare occasion that they're tried at all). An accusation is all it takes to destroy a life, proof is not required - let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.
This! Also this! The damage is done. The life is ruined. Wether it’s even remotely true or not.
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:58 pm At the risk of being sucked into your wedding planner decorative vortex, that is kind of cute.
User avatar
stripethree
Chief Patty Officer
Chief Patty Officer
Posts: 1273
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:01 pm
Drives: '04 R32, '90 Miata, '17 CB300F
Location: Austin, TX

troyguitar wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:06 am An accusation is all it takes to destroy a life, proof is not required - let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.
:dat: Sadly it seems as though we are past the point of living in a world where truth, and the pursuit of it, rises above all else. The "story" is what is important.

That said, the people that are still denying accusations when it is 10s of people coming forward, yeah, I don't believe you when you deny, avoid, or turn it around on all your accusers. I want to know the truth, but, telling me that many people are lying about you is difficult to believe.
User avatar
Sno
Chief Patty Officer
Chief Patty Officer
Posts: 1096
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:55 pm
Drives: Fiiiiiiiiiiiiat

[user not found] wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:31 am Also, watch this:
Yeeeeah, again, as a female, and I'm FULLY prepared to accept that I might just be numb or worse, naive, I didn't find that creepy or inappropriate on Matt's part. Could the question have been phrased differently? Maybe? But only considering after someone blows it out of proportion? The tone was maybe condescending, but not threatening in my eyes.

I feel like in the same breath you have to say Anne Hathaway also loves to ring the "As a female!" bell. She's notorious for being easily offended. The girl chose to not wear underwear in a high slit dress where she knew she would be exiting a vehicle in front of hundreds of cameras. I wear small shorts under my dresses on wedding days purely because I know I will be moving in ways that could be compromising. That's not due to being worried I might get raped, it's just common decency?

Females need to take a bit of responsibility. Yes, I should be allowed to wear whatever the F I want without being worried about my safety. That includes not wearing underwear if I so please. But I am not dumb enough to leave the house in hot pants and think it won't attract attention. It's a weird place of having to be overly conservative because we have become so unconservative.
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:58 pm At the risk of being sucked into your wedding planner decorative vortex, that is kind of cute.
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote:
troyguitar wrote:I'm in the same boat on these things, these offenses don't seem to generally be worth destroying an entire career+life+family.

In addition, it really bugs me that these guys are all assumed to be guilty even AFTER bring tried and not convicted (on the rare occasion that they're tried at all). An accusation is all it takes to destroy a life, proof is not required - let alone beyond a reasonable doubt.
Civil versus criminal though. The amount if liability if a company doesn't act is huge. You have no protections in the workplace, essentially.
Right. Money is the most important thing in the world, and you make more money by treating people as guilty regardless of proof, therefore that is what happens. Yay Capitalism!
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote:
troyguitar wrote:Right. Money is the most important thing in the world, and you make more money by treating people as guilty regardless of proof, therefore that is what happens. Yay Capitalism!
I personally don't think that firing someone is treating them as if they are guilty. No job and prison are way different.
Why fire them if they're not guilty?

Because you care more about money than truth, perhaps?
User avatar
goIftdibrad
Chief Master Soft Brain
Chief Master Soft Brain
Posts: 16746
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
Drives: straight past the apex

Sno wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:43 am
[user not found] wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:31 am Also, watch this:
Yeeeeah, again, as a female, and I'm FULLY prepared to accept that I might just be numb or worse, naive, I didn't find that creepy or inappropriate on Matt's part. Could the question have been phrased differently? Maybe? But only considering after someone blows it out of proportion? The tone was maybe condescending, but not threatening in my eyes.

I feel like in the same breath you have to say Anne Hathaway also loves to ring the "As a female!" bell. She's notorious for being easily offended. The girl chose to not wear underwear in a high slit dress where she knew she would be exiting a vehicle in front of hundreds of cameras. I wear small shorts under my dresses on wedding days purely because I know I will be moving in ways that could be compromising. That's not due to being worried I might get raped, it's just common decency?

Females need to take a bit of responsibility. Yes, I should be allowed to wear whatever the F I want without being worried about my safety. That includes not wearing underwear if I so please. But I am not dumb enough to leave the house in hot pants and think it won't attract attention. It's a weird place of having to be overly conservative because we have become so unconservative.
look, akward moment was awkard, but they cant all be 5/7 shows guys, its a daily fucking show and you will make werid comments eventually.

RE the comment itself: it was current events stuff, its the fucking today show.

re: Sno's comments. YES, jesus h, if you wear something compromising, revealing and then are offended when people get a little more than you bargained for and act surprised about it...wtf?
brain go brrrrrr
User avatar
Sno
Chief Patty Officer
Chief Patty Officer
Posts: 1096
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:55 pm
Drives: Fiiiiiiiiiiiiat

[user not found] wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:50 am
Sno wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 9:43 am

Yeeeeah, again, as a female, and I'm FULLY prepared to accept that I might just be numb or worse, naive, I didn't find that creepy or inappropriate on Matt's part. Could the question have been phrased differently? Maybe? But only considering after someone blows it out of proportion? The tone was maybe condescending, but not threatening in my eyes.

I feel like in the same breath you have to say Anne Hathaway also loves to ring the "As a female!" bell. She's notorious for being easily offended. The girl chose to not wear underwear in a high slit dress where she knew she would be exiting a vehicle in front of hundreds of cameras. I wear small shorts under my dresses on wedding days purely because I know I will be moving in ways that could be compromising. That's not due to being worried I might get raped, it's just common decency?

Females need to take a bit of responsibility. Yes, I should be allowed to wear whatever the F I want without being worried about my safety. That includes not wearing underwear if I so please. But I am not dumb enough to leave the house in hot pants and think it won't attract attention. It's a weird place of having to be overly conservative because we have become so unconservative.
Good point.

That being said, removing ourselves from the easily-wounded Anne Hathaway... why did the topic of an upskirt even need to be brought up on morning TV?
Agreed.

I feel like I might be rushing to Lauer's defense on this one, I want to keep an open mind but timing? It happened the night before the interview. And ratings? And Lauer reports, he doesn't write. Had the same thing happened to me, my own father would have something along the lines of "what is the lesson learned?" to me.

The gentlemen on the radio station following that youtube clip accusing Lauer of being creepy are doing the exact same thing. They're discussing it for ratings. Sex sells. No matter what form it's in.

What sucks, even more, is that is just one single isolated incident. I'm sure every single one of these cases has a long line of circumstances just like Hathaway. Where yes, all lined up in a row and put in a certain light might look damning? But is the circumstantial evidence and the right lighting fair?
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:58 pm At the risk of being sucked into your wedding planner decorative vortex, that is kind of cute.
User avatar
Sno
Chief Patty Officer
Chief Patty Officer
Posts: 1096
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:55 pm
Drives: Fiiiiiiiiiiiiat

troyguitar wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:02 am
[user not found] wrote:I personally don't think that firing someone is treating them as if they are guilty. No job and prison are way different.
Why fire them if they're not guilty?

Because you care more about money than truth, perhaps?
I get it. It's the safer approach. It's them vs. the one individual and the quick actions protect them and the lawyers say it is what they should do.

Which is where I'm saying this is such bullshit.
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:58 pm At the risk of being sucked into your wedding planner decorative vortex, that is kind of cute.
User avatar
goIftdibrad
Chief Master Soft Brain
Chief Master Soft Brain
Posts: 16746
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
Drives: straight past the apex

SO, here are some of my feels on this issue. BTW I'll write this....as non gender specific.


As :melon: says, people gonna people.

We all like to look nice. We want to be noticed on some level for this by the oppisite sex. Social norms are established for things that are acceptable or not for specific enviroments.

Same thing for comments about things we wear, there re: times its ok to say something and times to not.

And we are human. Mistakes will be made. Unwelcome advances will be made. There are literally books written about how playing 'hard to get' can make you more desirable..... so no wonder there is a possible negative feedback loop there. I don't think that culture I think its nature. Sure at places like work we need to move past the nature and not make people uncomfortable at a place they spend a third of their waking hours.

This feels like a witch hunt after the clearly sleezeball Weinstein thing.

RE: louie CK someone mentioned. Apparently he asked many/all those women and they thought he was joking (he is a comedian)...idk. They also had the power to get up and leave.
And while masturbating in front of another person that does not want you to is clearly inappropriate..... ITS. NOT. RAPE. And they were free to get up and leave. Sure I get fight, Flight, or freeze is a thing..... but realize freeze is a personal / genetic flaw and make peace with it.
brain go brrrrrr
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

Sno wrote:
troyguitar wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:02 am Why fire them if they're not guilty?

Because you care more about money than truth, perhaps?
I get it. It's the safer approach. It's them vs. the one individual and the quick actions protect them and the lawyers say it is what they should do.

Which is where I'm saying this is such bullshit.
:word:

I "get it" too, just saying that the reason this happens is that we as a society (run by corporations) value money over everything no matter what. Bendercorp is in charge and that will not change.

Having morals is bad for business.
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote:
troyguitar wrote:Why fire them if they're not guilty?

Because you care more about money than truth, perhaps?
No matter what, someone is leaving their job. The accuser because they didn't get what they consider to be justice or the accused because that is what justice is.

The investigation dictates it, not me.
So do you do what is right or what makes you the most money? (or, because you seem to worship Capitalism, do you believe that what makes the most money IS the definition of what's right?)
User avatar
Sno
Chief Patty Officer
Chief Patty Officer
Posts: 1096
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:55 pm
Drives: Fiiiiiiiiiiiiat

[user not found] wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:31 am
troyguitar wrote:So do you do what is right or what makes you the most money? (or, because you seem to worship Capitalism, do you believe that what makes the most money IS the definition of what's right?)
My investigations are fully segregated with decisions uninfluenced by earnings. Period. Should I ever work at a company where earnings influenced an investigation I would quit the following day. Literally.

In this situation...
What is right, in this regard, is what makes the most money but I don't believe that what makes the most money is necessarily right.

Let's take Lauer:
Keep him - make money now. This comes out. Boycott ensues, ability to hire promising young talent dries up. Lose money long run.
Fire him - lose money now. Develop that promising young talent that feel protected and supported organizationally. Long term robust growth.

Doing the right thing is always the right business decision in the long run.
But what if it’s not right? What if a court says he’s not guilty? Do the company rules or ruling trump that? I’m asking, not stating, because I’m assuming yes? Fire at will rights and all that?
Desertbreh wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:58 pm At the risk of being sucked into your wedding planner decorative vortex, that is kind of cute.
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote:
troyguitar wrote:So do you do what is right or what makes you the most money? (or, because you seem to worship Capitalism, do you believe that what makes the most money IS the definition of what's right?)
My investigations are fully segregated with decisions uninfluenced by earnings. Period. Should I ever work at a company where earnings influenced an investigation I would quit the following day. Literally.

In this situation...
What is right, in this regard, is what makes the most money but I don't believe that what makes the most money is necessarily right.

Let's take Lauer:
Keep him - make money now. This comes out. Boycott ensues, ability to hire promising young talent dries up. Lose money long run.
Fire him - lose money now. Develop that promising young talent that feel protected and supported organizationally. Long term robust growth.

Doing the right thing is always the right business decision in the long run.
If you don't think about profit, then why take anything besides guilt or innocence into account at all?

The guy hasn't been proven guilty of anything AFAIK.
User avatar
goIftdibrad
Chief Master Soft Brain
Chief Master Soft Brain
Posts: 16746
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
Drives: straight past the apex

Sno wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:38 am
[user not found] wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:31 am

My investigations are fully segregated with decisions uninfluenced by earnings. Period. Should I ever work at a company where earnings influenced an investigation I would quit the following day. Literally.

In this situation...
What is right, in this regard, is what makes the most money but I don't believe that what makes the most money is necessarily right.

Let's take Lauer:
Keep him - make money now. This comes out. Boycott ensues, ability to hire promising young talent dries up. Lose money long run.
Fire him - lose money now. Develop that promising young talent that feel protected and supported organizationally. Long term robust growth.

Doing the right thing is always the right business decision in the long run.
But what if it’s not right? What if a court says he’s not guilty? Do the company rules or ruling trump that? I’m asking, not stating, because I’m assuming yes? Fire at will rights and all that?
troyguitar wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:38 am If you don't think about profit, then why take anything besides guilt or innocence into account at all?

The guy hasn't been proven guilty of anything AFAIK.
Work is NOT in the same legal space as your citizenry and "your rights"

At work you don't have the right to a trial, hearing, fair review, etc. If they don't like what you did, or how you act, you are gone.
brain go brrrrrr
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote:
troyguitar wrote:If you don't think about profit, then why take anything besides guilt or innocence into account at all?

The guy hasn't been proven guilty of anything AFAIK.
Guilt as judged by a civil organization is different than it is in a court in that company policies drive this, not law.

I am not judging if the law was violated, I'm judging if company policy was. If law WAS violated then law enforcement is called for their investigation.
So you only fire people who have been proven guilty?
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

Big Brain Bradley wrote:
Sno wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:38 am But what if it’s not right? What if a court says he’s not guilty? Do the company rules or ruling trump that? I’m asking, not stating, because I’m assuming yes? Fire at will rights and all that?
troyguitar wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:38 am If you don't think about profit, then why take anything besides guilt or innocence into account at all?

The guy hasn't been proven guilty of anything AFAIK.
Work is NOT in the same legal space as your citizenry and "your rights"

At work you don't have the right to a trial, hearing, fair review, etc. If they don't like what you did, or how you act, you are gone.
Right, because money is more important than the truth.
User avatar
goIftdibrad
Chief Master Soft Brain
Chief Master Soft Brain
Posts: 16746
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
Drives: straight past the apex

troyguitar wrote: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:47 am
Big Brain Bradley wrote:


Work is NOT in the same legal space as your citizenry and "your rights"

At work you don't have the right to a trial, hearing, fair review, etc. If they don't like what you did, or how you act, you are gone.
Right, because money is more important than the truth.
That is not what I said. If an individuals' actions don't line up with the workplace values, the workplace can get terminate your employment.

Taken to extremes: Say the workplace is a satanist temple, and your Agnostic self gets hired as a janitor and you are all like "yea hail satan, i need the job". Now one of the requirements in the manual is to say 'hail satan' upon entry into the temple....they catch you not doing it and an investigation reveals you are agnostic... they are well within right to fire your ass.
brain go brrrrrr
User avatar
troyguitar
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Command Chief Master Sirloin
Posts: 20088
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 11:15 pm
Drives: Trek Domane
Location: Swamp

[user not found] wrote:
troyguitar wrote:So you only fire people who have been proven guilty?
The only people let go for investigative reasons are ones that have been proven to have violated company policy.
Is company policy sufficiently vague/broad and accuser-supporting that one can be found to be in violation without any proven wrongdoing, perhaps?
Post Reply