Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by throwawayriver 2035 days ago
>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.

1 comments

> That's on them.

Apparently you still don't get it.

>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.

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.
>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.

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

It's absolutely the companies enforceable legal obligation to effectively prevent (including terminating ongoing) sexual harassment even if there is no crime, crime report, or criminal law enforcement action.

Sexual harassment overlaps with a variety of crimes, but it doesn't require a crime, and the employer is civilly liable for it no matter if the individual causing the problem has committed or been investigated for a crime or not.

> it's not the companies place to babysit and play judge and jury.

yes it, why do you support people who abuse, why should they still be kept in the company if the evidence is credible?

So does it mean now you understood why some people dont want file a police complaint?

>yes it, why do you support people who abuse

I don't, and neither should the company, which is why they should call the police.

>why should they still be kept in the company if the evidence is credible?

Company is free to fire criminals if they want, no issues there. Many don't hire criminals to begin with, since your criminal history is public.

>So does it mean now you understood why some people dont want file a police complaint?

This is non-sense. If you're the victim of a crime, report the crime to the police.