Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mz | Hacker News Reader

So, I am female. When working at a Fortune 500 company, I once emailed a colleague and copied our two bosses. I advised him to never speak that way to me again.

It went to HR. I got interviewed. I assume he got interviewed. He was not fired. He never spoke that way to me again. I eventually reestablished trust with this man and we got on well. I suspect he got sensitivity training. I was not told what went down. It was all handled very discreetly.

Please do get HR involved. Please do not listen to the people here who are advising you to nuke the man from orbit, it's the only way. Doing that will only deepen the problem. Men and women need to learn to interact at work. Promoting fear and loathing will not further that larger goal.

You get his side. You do some training. If it continues to be a problem, sure, fire him. But please do not use final solution/terrorist tactics. This only hurts women in the long run. Men need to learn better manners. Cutting their nuts off for a faux pas doesn't teach them that. It promotes a hostile environment between the genders. It doesn't create a more civil environment.

View on HN

Ding ding ding, first cogent, non-hysterical, mature comment on the page!

Edit: In the spirit of trying to actually add some worthwhile content in my comment: Harassment sucks, just like not knowing a core skill of one's job, sucks. But demanding perfection in either case is not a reasonable approach. When someone joins, and they don't meet expectations, you have to tell them they didn't meet expectations, show them the difference, let them know what the expectations are, tell or teach them what they need to know, and give them a chance to remedy it. You document this and all related conversations, in the presence of a third party if possible... usually and preferably an HR rep. If expectations are not met after this point, you are now fully able to eliminate the possibility something was inadvertent, accidental, or due to ignorance, and you have solid grounds for disciplinary action. Most times the employee will learn the lesson and it will never even reach this point.

When this woman requested a big deal not be made, she was talking about the type of panicky hyper-sensitivity on this comment thread. MY PRECIOUS GENITALS!!!!

Life is full of easy, simple snap-judgments when you haven't lived much of it yet.

Firing someone is costly, and in more than one way.

People can learn. Think of stuff you did ten years ago, that you cringe at now. You know better now. You learned.

Refusing to tolerate unwelcome, overt, and repeated workplace sexual advances isn't a demand for perfection; it's a demand for a minimal standard of professional conduct. It's right there on the list along with "don't steal, don't try to finagle kickbacks from suppliers, don't physically threaten employees" and so on.

There are better places for bizdev and sales people to learn professionalism than in depositions.

You have a pretty strong opinion in this thread considering the lack of information we have.

In this particular reply, all the 4 things you mentioned are NOT happening in the story. (At least by what we know.)

Unwelcome: We don't know if it was unwelcome. She even agreed to move to another communication medium (one which wasn't officially work related.)

Overt: It was on their own time, on a completely distinct communication medium. I don't see how more COVERT it could be.

Repeated: Again, from what we know, this was on a single weekend. He called her a milf, asked if he could tell her a secret and she refused. That's it. If he's not asking again and again, it's not repeated.

Workplace sexual advances: That's not in the workplace, nor on the company's time.

There's not much we can conclude without knowing more.

She reported it to the founder, presented evidence, and made it clear that the conduct was unwelcome. I'm done at "milf".

The 4 things you mentioned are still false.

She made it clear to the FOUNDER that the conduct was unwelcome. Did she tell it to the new employee? Did he repeatedly talk to her in the same manner after being told it was unwelcome? We don't know.

I have no problem calling a coworker an "asshole", especially on my own time while taking a beer with him. Without context, that the new employee said "milf" doesn't convey anything other than he found the lady sexually attractive. His seducing techniques might be abyssal, or she might be the kind of girl that likes a little spices.

Again, we don't have near enough information to make a judgement here.

If there wasn't anything wrong with it (in her mind) - it never would have made it to the founder.

What happens when you don't fire the guy? Say later on, for whatever reason, SHE has a bone to pick with the company. Now the FOUNDER is the guy who got a harrassment case and "didn't take it seriously". What's the founder's responsibility to protect his company? Don't see how he needs that risk.

She explicitly said that she didn't want him (the boss) to do anything about it. So (in her mind), there was nothing she couldn't handle.

In addition, the event took place outside of work. You are not responsible for the social/sexual relationship of your employees in their private life.

She explicitly brought it to the boys, which means it is impacting the work environment. You are responsible for the work environment of your employees, including for addressing known low-leveling issues before they become higher-level issues perhaps involving other employees from the ones involved in the earlier issues.

Which is why you need to consult an employment lawyer and/or your internal HR expert.

"the boys"?

Typo, should have been "boss". Didn't see it while the edit window was open.

The problem here is that in a workplace you are thinking about whether his seduction technique is abysmal or whether she "likes a little spices". THAT'S THE PROBLEM. By definition, things have gotten dreadfully unprofessional -- especially from your end.

"Well, I just figured I'd grope you because you might like it, and it is after 5 pm..."

Of course things were unprofessional, it happened on the weekend on Snapchat. What did you expect?

"Subject: possible sexual intercourse --- Good morning Miss, We met earlier today at Acme corp. I wanted to bring to your attention my desire to meet you in the goal to have intercourse. Please answer before 5pm. You can reach me on my cellphone.

Regards, Mr. X"

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the boss has no responsibility. He might want to intervene if the relationship is influencing their work performance, but that's all.

And that's a clear moment when the behavior needs to stop, with any future misbehavior grounds for termination

Where did you get repeated from? The whole point was that it is a single incident, try fixing it rather than jumping straight to firing. If it becomes repeated, then do the firing.

The harassment of the magnitude described here is not up there with supplier kickbacks and physical violence, anymore than it is up there with embezzlement!

Says you. Actually: the kickbacks are less likely to seriously harm your company.

Money accidentally miscounted at the till, and explicitly stealing money from the till might cause the business an equal loss, but both are not equally as bad.

Good job on that situation. This one seems a bit different as I'm with some guys that almost everyone, even frat boys, knows what she claimed is something that can annoy people. I differ from most on a few points.

1. It happened on the weekend on personal time on WhatApp chat she agreed to. That's personal and has nothing to do with work. I don't think it's a work issue until it impacts work by happening at work or being a recurring problem of harassment with its obvious effects on teams.

2. Building on that, I'd like to hear both sides of the story and address it. There could be details on her end we don't know. On his, it could be a one-off thing that's correctable and not as bad as we think. Although, odds of that are low given she said "as friends in a work context" then got MILF and I'll tell you a secret as a response.

So, I'm not all for kicking someone to the curb after hearing a claim like this. I understand the legal risks people are bringing up. Someone might choose to eliminate it from their company given people are effectively disposable in terms of IT new hires. Same with the guy with no social skills. Yet, I'd at least investigate it from his perspective and weigh in on whether I'd consider it a work issue at all if it stayed one-time outside of work.

Thoughts?

You need to decide what kind of environment you want at work. Is it an environment that builds bridges and helps people work together? Or is it an environment that promotes fear of speaking with members of the opposite sex at all?

I don't believe making people scared to talk to women at all does anything good for diversity. Companies with good diversity financially outperform companies that lack it. So trying to find a way to help diverse people work together is in the best interest of the company. It is not some do-gooder, pie in the sky thing. It is a practical approach to trying to build a successful company.

The histrionic responses here by people terrified to talk to a woman, terrified of offending a woman, etc are rooted in the current unhealthy culture. Your employees will come from that culture. You are unlikely to get any employees at all that are entirely unmarred by the larger culture.

Thus, male or female, your employees are likely to be in need of some education as to how to work effectively with members of the opposite sex.

I do not entirely agree that "It happened away from work, so it is not work related." But I have work of my own to do today and this discussion has already taken far more of my time than I expected it to.

I applaud you for this comment and how you handled your situation. Hopefully the man in your story also apologized to you.

People are people and in a moment of idiocy can make stupid comments. Every single person has said something stupid at some point. It is how we handle things afterwards that matter.

No, he did not apologize. Nor did I expect him too. I expected him to treat me with respect, not kiss my ass, curry favor or fear me. I spent some time making sure he understood that I was not a threat to him, not out to get him and that I was also going to do all in my power to respect him. This is how I won his trust.

He was a very good looking man in a female majority department. Eventually, he seemed to take a few cues from me and quit letting women there verbally feel him up.

I am entirely satisfied with how it all went down.

I'm glad that you exist.

From what I get reading these threads on this post, many people with power to fire and hire people know a big glossy nothing about human interaction and psychology. Not even one person gives a thought to whether the guy knows what MILF actually is. Not a single consideration was given to his age, his background, his experience. No chance to make a single mistake. Is it mostly like this in the US?

And after all, if the woman thought that she was sexually harassed, I don't understand why she didn't tell that to the guy himself first, or didn't go to police, before telling it to her boss. We're talking about a bunch of adult, employed people here, why does the boss have to act like a primary school teacher overseeing interactions between adults?

She did the correct thing. She went to her boss. That is where she should seek remedy before going to the police.

It is typically dangerous for a woman to try to assert herself directly with a man she feels is harassing her. I am particularly savvy and I confronted him and also copied our two bosses and I was well aware I was taking a serious risk. But I also was 100% clear that if I did not take a firm stand with the first incident, it would only get harder.

This is a problem space I have studied for a lot of years. I am unusually well equipped to deal with it. Please don't start talking like the guy must be innocent. That is as bad, or worse, than the people ready to hang him high with zero due process.

"She did the correct thing. She went to her boss. That is where she should seek remedy before going to the police. It is typically dangerous for a woman to try to assert herself directly with a man she feels is harassing her."

Understood. I'm a male from a different culture and maybe miss the cultural context of the incident.

"This is a problem space I have studied for a lot of years. I am unusually well equipped to deal with it. Please don't start talking like the guy must be innocent. That is as bad, or worse, than the people ready to hang him high with zero due process."

I don't think I implied that he is/must be innocent. What I wanted to say --sorry if not clear-- was that accusing someone with sexual harassment is a big thing and should be done with the due care and consideration. Once labelled, there's no recovery.

Thank you for clarifying.

Why would you go to the police?! This is an employment matter, not a criminal matter. And she needs to tell the boss, because she wants to head off retaliation in the workplace.

I get tired of hearing these excuses about age, background, I didn't know what the word meant, in my old workplace I got to harass ladies all the time and it was fine. Just act like a professional. I'd even give the guy a pass if he said, "Look, I'm interested in you and I'd like to go on a date. If you're not interested, just say so and I won't mention it again." At least that's polite, instead of all this textbook boundary testing.

> Why would you go to the police?! This is an employment matter, not a criminal matter.

When you call it sexual harassment it's criminal. Otherwise you're basically saying that sexual harassment is not a crime. With regards to going to the boss, I'm perplexed with the role of the boss and the company in an interaction between two adults. Maybe that's a cultural issue, but I think it's the court's job to decide if an action was a sexual harassment or not, not some boss', neither a lawyers (If lawyers were to decide on cases, oh dear god...).

> I get tired of hearing these excuses about age, background, I didn't know what the word meant [...]

Well you can get tired of many things, but at the end of the day people need to be educated somehow, nobody is born a polite, educated, pleasurable person, one becomes so. And remember, we're not talking about a rape here, a stupid interaction instead.

> [...] in my old workplace I got to harass ladies all the time and it was fine.

Oh you're so funny. But the topic is serious: calling a person a sexual offender.

> When you call it sexual harassment it's criminal.

No. Sexual harassment is not always a criminal offence.

> With regards to going to the boss, I'm perplexed with the role of the boss and the company in an interaction between two adults.

Those two adults met at work, and this meeting was a work related meeting - she had said that. The employer has a duty of care to the employees, so that's why its gone to the boss.

> Maybe that's a cultural issue, but I think it's the court's job to decide if an action was a sexual harassment or not

If the boss doesn't do anything it might go to court. Or if the boss does something like fire the man, and he disagrees, it might go to court.

> neither a lawyers (If lawyers were to decide on cases, oh dear god...).

Well, if it goes to court everyone is going to have lawyers, right?

Where I am judges decide and lawyers defend. I didn't say lawyers are unnecessary, just they can't make the ultimate decision. For the rest of your comment my answer is my parent comment, I don't think I can elaborate further.

When you call it sexual harassment it's criminal.

IANAL, but if/when this is eventually made criminal, urban construction will basically cease when they haul all the construction workers off to prison for catcalling. The reason the employer is involved is that the employer wants to avoid getting sued. On the street, there is no employer, and no one to care if remarks are made, so long as those remarks don't constitute assault.

> Not even one person gives a thought to whether the guy knows what MILF actually is.

How could he possibly not know what it means? The acronym doesn't work for "Mom I'd Like to Have Coffee With."

It's easy enough to hear slang and not know exactly what the etymology is. That's why Urban Dictionary exists at all, and some people think LOL means "lots of love", or that unicode Winking Tongue emoji means vomitously ill.

> [letting women] verbally feel him up

Could you explain what you mean by this phrase?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11687362

I really get what you're saying. But don't you think the fact his guy is already acting like a cowboy a little while into his job raises some red flags? Sure, if he'd been there a while and was carrying on like this then some sensitivity training might be the best option. But this BDM is acting like a loose cannon somewhere that he has just been employed. Seems like a bad hire all-round, regardless of the SH stuff.

Your sexual harassment policy cannot be written for one specific instance. And if you write it with a "Guilty until proven innocent" (or just hey, hang 'em high on her word alone) framing, this is going to cause serious problems.

I am aware that people like to get on their high horse concerning perceived injustice, but the comments here are a) passing judgement on third hand information -- she told her boss, who came here and repeated it presumably in his own words and b) reacting to only one side of the story.

I get that actually determining what actually happened is a pain in the ass, but if this man is fired out of hand based on a) the female employee's remarks and b) histrionic discussion on an overwhelmingly male forum where many of the men here have no idea how to interact effectively with female colleagues and if this becomes the precedent for the company policy, I think that is very problematic.

Would you want to work for a company with a known track record of firing someone out of hand based on the remarks of another employee, without so much as asking for both sides of the story? Never mind issues like this going to court, how are you going to attract good talent if people are terrified that the women in the office can say something to the boss and get them canned the next day without any attempt whatsoever to hear both sides?

Agree. I would definitely not want to work at the kind of place you mention (it actually sounds a little bit like modern academia in the liberal arts). But third-hand information aside, I can't imagine a context in which someone would feel it's okay to act like this at a brand new workplace.

I wouldn't call the discussion here histrionic either. I think it's a progressive dialogue of really differing opinions, which I find are illuminating issues I hadn't thought of. Also most people here are pretty intelligent and would be treating it like a thought experiment, as we know we do not have all the information at hand.

An awful lot of people here are ready to fire the guy without due process. And you cannot say "third hand information aside." You cannot set that fact aside. It is all we have to go on.

A lot of what has been written here does look histrionic to me.

Late to this party, sorry. Just saw your blog post, commenting here.

I agree with you that the female in this story handled the situation optimally. I recently made a sexual harassment claim at a megacorp. It was handled much as you described. I was pleased by the whole process and outcome. Much improved, very different from how these things were handled in the 90s.

I agree with patio11's advice that the founder should lawyer up. Being a startup, they probably don't have mature processes. Lawyer + HR can instruct founder how to handle this situation legally, professionally.

I disagree that the new hire should be summarily fired for a first offense. But as a dude I predict this guy will eventually be fired; it's best to start that documentation now.

If you assume at the outset that he is on track to be fired, that has a tendency to be self fulfilling prophecy.

Why will firing him worsen the problem? I would fire this guy immediately.

> Men and women need to learn to interact at work.

Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work.

Consider the case of a small startup with only one or two female employees. If OP does in fact fire him and provide training to staff it wouldn't take much deductive reasoning for the rest of the employees to figure out who was involved with the incident. Maybe the accused was favored in the office and some employees take his side. Maybe some employees have a bias that is set off by what they deem to be necessary sexual harassment training.

Just to be clear I think he should be fired, but it's a shitty situation to be in with a small office and a small number of, presumably close, employees.

This is a fair point. Thanks.

> Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work.

I know it feels good to take zero tolerance policies, and we all do it (why do you think we have so many people in prison in this country).

But..maybe he is some kid in his early- or mid-20's and has very little workplace experience outside of small startups working mostly with other males his age. He may have never had the opportunity to understand why this kind of behavior makes a workplace uncomfortable for those on the receiving end (and others as well).

Firing him is obviously one way to teach that lesson, and will not only lose him this job but possibly make it difficult to find another. Giving him an opportunity to learn it through training is another.

I do, though, think it's probably unfair to make an outcast of every young male who isn't born with a deep understanding of why you need to keep your attraction to women restrained once you start a grown-up job, just because you were born that way. At that point in your life (if I'm remembering correctly, it's been quite a while ;), most of your energy and focus has been in trying to attract whatever you are attracted to, and there are often no blunt cues indicating "hey, this situation is different from what you are used to".

As patio11 said, though, lawyer first if you want to keep the business alive.

I have no sympathy for the "boys will be boys" side of this argument. I am a male in my early 20's so am familiar with the mindset. Sure maybe zero tolerance is a bit far, but every woman I know has a story like this. Every one has had to deflect some strange workplace advance or some uncomfortable proposition by a superior. The problem is magnified 10 fold when the workplace is so heavily skewed male (as it is in tech). Retroactive sensitivity training isn't going to fix this problem.

> Men should not need sensitivity training to interact with women at work.

Sexism should already be over, but it isn't, and is more complicated than people who think they are not sexist declaring zero tolerance policies.

Not sure where you're getting the "think they are not sexist" from. Everyone has unconscious biases (men and women). Some are more aware of them than others. This problem is not sexist in and of itself. It would be equally inappropriate for a woman to put a man in this position in the work place or for a man to put another man in this position, or woman to put another woman etc.

Have you studied sexism at all?

It's significantly more complicated than your simple explanation implies, which is mostly my point.

Hint: I don't disagree with that it would be equally inappropriate for a woman to put a man in this position, but that doesn't mean it isn't sexist.

I don't understand why you're calling out "people who think they aren't sexist". Why is that point important? (Besides to belittle me?) I'm not claiming to be free from bias here. Everyone has biases both conscious and unconscious.

And can you please explain how it is sexist? (I have not studied sexism..and am curious to learn.) Your hint gives no justification except your assertion again that it is sexist without explanation.

I'm not calling anyone out or belittling anyone. I am saying that if you acknowledge that you are sexist (as everyone of both genders is), then a zero tolerance policy doesn't do anything to solve the problem.

If you haven't studied sexism, how do you get to claim that the situation isn't sexist? Therein lies the problem.

For some reason you think it's fine for you to declare things as not sexist despite both your acknowledged bias, and your acknowledged ignorance about what sexism is. Only people with relative social advantage can rely on support when they make pronouncements from bias and ignorance. Marginalized groups have an altogether different experience when they state what is just as obvious to them.

Ask yourself why you haven't had to learn anything about sexism, and who does need to know about it?

Thank you! People need to be allowed to make mistakes and have a decent chance at improving themselves. For all we know, the person in question might just have arrived from some super sexist workplace where such behaviour is the norm.

> arrived from some super sexist workplace

Sexual harassment is not necessarily sexist and in this case OPs dilemma does not deal with sexism.

Going by the definition of sexism "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex."

Unless we dilute the word sexism to mean any sexual encounter, hitting on someone does not fit that definition. If it did, nearly every relationship and every person would be considered sexist.

Have to say that makes sense. Had the same experience, except creepy behavior from a female colleague. Talked to HR, they talked to her, she apologized through HR (my preference). Work was awkward after that, but you deal with it. She eventually left.

I did not think what she did justified firing, although I would have preferred she were gone right away, of course.

People do learn boundaries. One should not overreact.

There is certain conduct that is so beyond the pale that it doesn't matter if it is the first time or not. Calling someone a MILF at work is one of those things.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate the nuanced tone of your reply, as well as the nuance present in your responses to those that disagree with you and also those that seem just slightly too eager to agree. Every individual has a personal anecdote that validates their "side" of the debate, and these anecdotes tend to drive the cadence of our reasoning into a direction that offers little consideration for outcomes that push us forward as a society in favor of those that capitulate to a sense of indignation that demands unequivocal satisfaction.

Thanks.

I think if the guy in question had been a long time or otherwise indispensable employee, this would be the right course of action. However, OP said he was just hired. In that case, it's probably easier just to fire him.

Easier and right are often not the same thing.

Interesting, did you first explain your complaints to that colleague (without CC-ing others) and got no result?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11687362

Not a native English speaker and maybe I'm missing something between lines - I don't understand your story.

So your "I advised him to never speak that way to me again" was about "gushing"? I had too look up the word, but couldn't find offensive example atm. And as I understood you've never asked him to not to "gush" you (whatever that means) before CC-ing others, right?

No, sorry. I never asked him to not gush at me, nor did I find that offensive. Nor did i need to ask that. The detail that you are missing is that he turned something I said into sexual innuendo, something he had never done before. In other words, he took a non sexual comment by me and replied to it in a sexually suggestive manner. This was not something he had ever done before and I was very clear it was malicious behavior. He did not like the fact that I was replying to him in a more low key manner and he was upping the stakes.

Oh, got it, now it completely makes sense to me, thanks. Just minor note regarding the prose - that innuendo is mentioned once in the middle, and kind of "by the way" I think, while you mention a lot of "gushing" before and after that, and it grabs the attention, so I thought that must be something bad.. :) but probably because of my "non-native-speakerness".

Yeah, with answering your question, I realized I could stand to make that clearer. I hope to get to that today. So I appreciate you asking. Thanks.

Excellent advice AND an Aliens reference. Wish I could upvote more than once.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com