Comment by stale2002

What I am saying is that if someone is genuinely harassing other people, then there will be lots of complaints.

If there is one complaint, then it will be easy to find a dozen of them.

And what I am saying is, a company should only punish someone if they find a dozen of them.

It is not he said she said. It is instead he said and a dozen people said otherwise.

This is what the investigation is for. I am saying that there is nothing wrong with a company punishing the outstandingly obvious cases, which is almost all cases, and then giving the benefit of the doubt to the rest of them.

IE, nobody should ever be punished for a single anonymous complaint. Instead that single anonymous complaint should be used to talk with other people, and to determine if there are instead a dozen of them.

Let the edge cases go unpunished, and target the obvious harrassers, which is almost all of them.

Let's give a similar example. Imagine someone was going into meetings and just yelling slurs at other employees. And they did this mutiple times. Do we need to police to be called to fire this guy? No. We don't.

Do we have to worry about false accusations of this guy yelling slurs at meetings? No. We don't. There will be a dozen people who will easily be able to verify that yes this guy did this thing, mutiple times, and there is no danger in firing him.

And you should also notice that this isn't necessarily even illegal, therefore it makes no sense to call the police.