Comment by sunir
7 years ago
I think it is poor judgment to create an organization that does nothing to secure its people from sexual harassment. Not sure why you would disagree but if that is what you intended I do not want to work for you.
7 years ago
I think it is poor judgment to create an organization that does nothing to secure its people from sexual harassment. Not sure why you would disagree but if that is what you intended I do not want to work for you.
Youre being incredibly unfair: That's not at all what I said, and your post I responded to also made no claim along these lines. You're misrepresenting my and your past statements.
What we were talking about is ending forced arbitration (the "process" referred to by the person you responded to) so that the law can be used to protect victims. That doesn't mean protections at work suddenly go away. It also doesn't mean suddenly employers will let sexual harassment run rampant either. It's not a binary either-or choice at all. So why not all protections.
The post I replied to implied that the criminal justice system is the only solution to these problems:
"employees should be able to sue, that's the process,sexual harassment is a crime, they can't sue because Google force them into arbitration,"
Notwithstanding the unbelievable confusion of law in that post is a whole other conversation.
I argued that companies should also have a plan in place to prevent sexual harassment at work by using an analogy to robbery, also a crime, that we use preventative measures to stop despite there being a criminal system punishing robbery.
Your response was claiming I was expressing poor judgment for arguing that companies are responsible for not creating environments rife for sexual harassment.
"Comparing sexual assault to a store robbery in a tone of sarcasm is at best a poor judgement call."
I don't agree. I think it's a reasonable demonstration of the absurdity of the position I'm replying to.
I don't know what else you wrote, but that's what I replied to.
Re-read his post: people should be able to sue in lieu of forced arbitration, they're never advocating for "create an environment for sexual assaults". Nowhere and no one is arguing for creating an environment for sexual assaults in this thread. The reason it seems like an absurdity is because you're setting it up to be one when no one is advocating it, which is the definition of a strawman.
Sorry, but if you're still going to stick on this point then this'll be the last thing I say on the matter.
2 replies →