make sure to mention this when applying. a lot of hr departments will be very very interested in this detail. best of luck.
why do you have to be convinced? protections are for those who need them. you are fortunate to be in a position where you haven’t been pressured or assaulted, but don’t let that privilege and lack of empathy block protections for those who need them or have experienced this. the fact that you don’t see the need is exactly why the need is so important.
People have been fighting hard for the last 70 years for these sorts of protections in the workplace.
What’s with the "she’ or did I mis something? There’s no gendered pronouns in the article. Second guessing gender is against the rules here. And the snark at the end of the OP suggests very strongly it was a man. Which opens up a whole nother debate altogether.
Likely a mix of history, awareness, news, and google.
no. are fine where they are, and protection from sexual assault in the workplace really isn’t “a debate”…takes a certain kind of person to debate the protections afforded others because they don’t understand or agree. it isn’t about them, but they are the reason it is needed.
Corporations are fake baby world with made up consequences and threats to distract employees and customers from the many real ones of the world, many of which are created by their lame game.
I don’t believe a company is owed your private life, but I can think of a lot of situations where it would be reasonable and ethical for a person to disclose possible conflicts-of-interest, (in context, and with proper guardrails against abuse).
You could work for an airline company and in your private life, you have a relationship where you take suitcases of cash from someone who works at a rival company, and you just Netflix and think about ways to be bad at your job, theoretically.
You couldn’t reasonably say, “But that wasn’t on the clock! I did that on my own time.”
That’s first-guessing, isn’t it, not second-guessing?
It’s decidedly better to not assume gender when you don’t know, but nobody’s intentionally contradicting anybody’s stated gender at this point, which is presumably what you’re concerned about.
Thanks for assuming, but actually my privilege in my workplace is rather low, and I don’t think you really can judge my ability for empathy simply from me calling that disclosure system an organizational overreach. It’s probably my fault though, for hanging on to the absurd illusion that I could somehow be a full and responsible human being in a corporate workplace, minus being told which heap of dung to shovel where to. Everybody with at least a consciousness of their class in itself will recognize that the workplace is essentially where they prostitute themselves in order to earn their survival - so it is only consequential that the pimp will supervise and control how they socialize, and all other aspects that could possibly impact productivity down the road. Best of luck with believing such a system will work towards reducing oppression, or leveling the power balance.
i’m not assuming anything. i was saying that your words clearly express a strong lack of empathy and entitlement around workplace protections for other people. but again, none of this is about you. me, i, me, i…smdh.
so hence you think “the pimp” should have no rules?!?! This line of reasoning is revolting, glad i don’t live in that head. i have a much healthier relationship with my place of employment.
I don’t have to do anything. they are proven effective and have helped a lot. where have you been the last 70 years?
I think there’s often a conflation (sometimes deliberately) between coworkers who organically develop a mutual attraction and may act on it versus one coworker actively seeking any sort of amorous or potentially sexual relationship with another. Personally, while I do want companies to exercise common sense in evaluating these on a case-by-case basis, I also think it wise for them to err on the side of caution both for the sake of the workplace and the workers within the workplace.
And, just to reiterate my earlier point, even a consensual relationship developing between coworkers within the same lines of power is deeply problematic for many reasons, and seems to preclude a CEO entirely.
Not being alive for about half of them. So I used ye olde Google to FAQ myself on what you are talking about… “Workplace relationships”, “Workplace relationship disclosure”… Hm. It’s 99% HR fluff and litigation concerns.
Sure, have fun. Glad to hear someone ist still ahead of the curve. But when they no longer need your particular skill set, or need to squeeze more productivity out of you to meet their quarterly revenue goals, you won’t resolve that discussion by accusing them of lacking empathy, or being morally backwards. It’s a strategy that doesn’t translate well from the Internet into the real world.
you are bending to great lengths to argue against people having protections from sexual assault in the workplace. while claiming that we are all prostitutes to our work and will be used by our work and not offering any recourse or protections…
not a very good one.
no you wouldn’t when you are arguing against even this. is it too little or too much, pick a lane. smdh.
i know you aren’t disturbed by what you are saying, but damn…
No, I don’t think that’s what I am doing at all, not any more than someone arguing against any other form of state or corporate meddling would imply that criminals, abusers and embezzlers should get a free pass. I’m merely saying that I would not voluntarily enter a social contract with a corporate entity that would force me to voluntarily disclose parts of my love life, preemptively and without being prompted by any accusation or suspicion. Because I find that intolerable as an individual who is looking for work, not applying to enter a monastery. I think there’s plenty of less intrusive possibilities to protect others from myself, where that might be necessary, or perceived to be necessary. If a community will place me under that amount of suspicion right from the start, I don’t desire to be a part of it. Except for the unfortunate fact of course, that…
…that’s just my - admittedly vulgar - take on capitalism and class. Deal with it. Must of us are whores, and those who aren’t might reconsider if they really are in a good position to educate us others about privilege.
What “lane”. This is not a game of Frogger. Why is this a “for us or against us” thing to you? I’m not denying that individuals in an organization may need protection from other individuals, but I won’t let that argument be used to be shut up about the imbalance between the corporation and its employees. You seem to see corporate governance of “human resources” (the word alone makes me want to puke) on the same page with putting people in an organization on an equal footing, but that doesn’t fit my life experience, like, at all. I don’t think bureaucratic meddling with people’s most private emotions will produce responsible grownups meeting each other eye to eye, anything but. I think you are mistaking rules that are made merely to save the shareholders some money, for rules that are made to protect people.
Interesting. The consensus, like most cultural consensus, being quite local, of course.
The moral (and legal) consensus here in Central Europe seems to be that companies have no right whatsoever to make rules on the private life of their employees.
“Rules of Conduct” on this, such as seem to be common in American companies, tend to be met with bewildered head-shaking around here, or with lawsuits should an American company try to apply them to a local subsidiary. (Happened to Walmart in Germany in 2005).
This article, published in a magazine/a web page jointly run by the Austrian “Arbeiterkammer” (goverment-chartered organization representing the interests of workers/employees in Austria) and the “Gewerkschaftsbund” (confederation of trade unions), might be interesting. That is, if you can get through the Google Translate gibberish:
Can employees take bribes, go to meetings run by hate groups, or work for directly competing companies, as long as they do it on “private” time?
How far does the idea that an employer has “no right whatsoever to make rules on the private life of their employees” go in regard to protecting them from actual workplace consequences from off-time actions? Can an employee do anything?
a lot of hr departments will be very very interested in this detail. best of luck.
are fine where they are, and protection from sexual assault in the workplace really isn’t “a debate”…
takes a certain kind of person to debate the protections afforded others because they don’t understand or agree. it isn’t about them, but they are the reason it is needed.
i have a much healthier relationship with my place of employment.
while claiming that we are all prostitutes to our work and will be used by our work and not offering any recourse or protections… 
