[throwawayriver]

>Why do you I think I agree with you?

"should the company do something or should it not babysit employees?"

The company is doing something by not babysitting the employees. Not baby sitting the employees is the only correct option here.

>So the company should just call the Police and wash their hands

Yes they should call the police, and it's not "washing their hands". Sexual harassment is a criminal offence. Your employer shouldn't be "handling" that like they shouldn't be "handling" rape.

>have an appropriate sexual harassment policy, train their employees on how to identify and deal with sexual harassment, have a clear procedure on how to file and deal with complaints.

The policy is the law. Adults shouldn't have their employer telling them that sexual harassment is a no no.

>Maybe you will call such things "babysitting", I say its being responsible.

The responsible thing is to involve the authorities when one of your employees is committing a crime. Simple as that.

[sumedh]

> Not baby sitting the employees is the only correct option here.

No its not. If you ever work in big companies you will know that.

> Adults shouldn't have their employer telling them that sexual harassment is a no no.

Yes they do,

Assuming you are a male, you might be unknowingly harrasing female employees just by having a boys will be boys attitude. So an employer has to give you training and explain you why its wrong.

Some people use throwaway accounts to harass other employees on social media, if your employer gave you the training you would have learnt that is wrong.

> The policy is the law.

Exactly, now you get it, the company may get into legal trouble if they dont have an official policy or they make it super difficult to report complaints.

> The responsible thing is to involve the authorities when one of your employees is committing a crime. Simple as that.

No its not simple as that, just telling the victim to go to authorities is just washing your hands, a responsible company also makes sure that victims can file a complaint with the management. Not all victims want to file a police complaint, that does not mean they the abuser should get away with harassment. The company should still investigate and fire the abuser and then file a complaint with the victim's permission.

These are some of the aspects which you will understand if you been through some training.

[LunaSea]

So the company should fire someone that hasn't been found guilty, simply based on one person's complaint?

Where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?

[dragonwriter]

> So the company should fire someone that hasn't been found guilty, simply based on one person's complaint?

No, the company should investigate and have evidence, one way or the other, beyond just the complaint before any kind of final action, though there are some interim precautionary mitigations that are might be appropriate, often.

> Where did "innocent until proven guilty" go?

“Innocent until proven guilty” is a maxim of criminal law; a company treating potential harassers as if the company were either the state enforcing criminal law or, worse, as if it could act only following the state enforcing criminal law will eventually find itself in quite deep civil liability for harassment.

[LunaSea]

> No, the company should investigate and have evidence, one way or the other, beyond just the complaint before any kind of final action, though there are some interim precautionary mitigations that are might be appropriate, often.

No, the company isn't equipped for this and this is the role of the police and judicial system.

> “Innocent until proven guilty” is a maxim of criminal law; a company treating potential harassers as if the company were either the state enforcing criminal law or, worse, as if it could act only following the state enforcing criminal law will eventually find itself in quite deep civil liability for harassment.

That's why the company isn't enforcing anything and delegating the task to the competent authorities. In this case the police.

Many people have been victim of wrongful firing and huge damages to their personal life due to rash decisions being taken by companies based on a single complaint from someone.

[dragonwriter]

> No, the company isn't equipped for this and this is the role of the police and judicial system.

It's literally not; sexual harassment is a civil, not criminal, offense. The police have no concern with it at all, except that some sexual harassment is also a crime (e.g., rape, solicitation of prostitution, etc.)

But employers have legal liability for sexual harassment, which only gets more severe as it continues and they fail to act, whether or not there is a crime involved.

They cannot delegate this responsibility to the police.

[LunaSea]

> It's literally not; sexual harassment is a civil, not criminal, offense.

That's why I included the judicial system.

> But employers have legal liability for sexual harassment, which only gets more severe as it continues and they fail to act, whether or not there is a crime involved.

It happening is required to be based on a suite or investigation. Again, a company isn't equipped to proceed with such an investigation on it's own.

[throwawayriver]

>No its not. If you ever work in big companies you will know that.

This is the logical fallacy "appeal to the majority". Just because most companies do something doesn't necessarily mean it's moral, required, logically correct, etc.

>Assuming you are a male, you might be unknowingly harrasing female employees just by having a boys will be boys attitude.

"Boys will be boys" is not the legal definition of sexual harassment, so no.

>So an employer has to give you training and explain you why its wrong.

They do that to cover their ass from "hostile work environment" legal suits. This is not baby sitting.

>Some people use throwaway accounts to harass other employees on social media, if your employer gave you the training you would have learnt that is wrong.

There's nothing a company can do in that instance, no one would even know if it is company related. If the harassment veers off into criminal territory, then police should be called.

>Exactly, now you get it, the company may get into legal trouble if they dont have an official policy or they make it super difficult to report complaints.

Apparently you still don't get it. Companies shouldn't babysit employees if they're committing such crimes. Employers shouldn't be babysitting employees when it comes to crimes such as sexual harassment, rape, etc. These should be directed to the police. QED.

>No its not simple as that, just telling the victim to go to authorities is just washing your hands

It's by definition not "washing their hands" because these crimes are not something the company should be babysitting employees over.

>a responsible company also makes sure that victims can file a complaint with the management.

No responsible company would make or direct a victim to "file an internal complaint" if they are victims of a crime. That is by definition irresponsible.

>Not all victims want to file a police complaint, that does not mean they the abuser should get away with harassment.

That's on them. If you're being victimized, reporting the crime should be the only legal recourse. Companies are not in the business of handling justice, period.

>The company should still investigate and fire the abuser and then file a complaint with the victim's permission.

The last thing we need are companies replacing the role that police, laws, the judicial system, etc. provide.

If an employee is being victimized, the employer should 100% work with authorities to ensure justice is met.

>These are some of the aspects which you will understand if you been through some training.

I understand companies not wanting workspaces to be unfriendly, but "unfriendly" isn't illegal. Period.

[sumedh]

> That's on them.

Apparently you still don't get it.

[throwawayriver]

>Apparently you still don't get it.

I do. Stop projecting about "not getting it".

I fully explained the position, and why your original example falls through.

QED.

[sumedh]

No you dont get it, its not a projection. Some people dont want to deal with police complaint. If you dont understand that you will never get it.

[throwawayriver]

>No you dont get it, its not a projection.

It's IMAX-level projection.

>Some people dont want to deal with police complaint.

And if they don't want to, it's not the companies place to babysit and play judge and jury.

>If you dont understand that you will never get it.

If you don't understand that it's not the company's place to play the judicial branch (and may be illegal for them to), then you'll never get it.

It is by definition the wrong thing to do.

QED.