> And this line stood out at me as being divorced from reality especially at a big company. I get it that we mostly want companies to be like this but I think it's also obvious that they're not. They are primarily profit motivated and we're lucky if they don't pollute the environment or commit atrocities in the process. You can look for smaller companies that do it, you can put it in your own company, but if you really felt Apple would be like that then it's being a little naive.

I do not disagree that this is true, but I would suggest that this also is not an acceptable status quo. Complacency doesn't help it, and the unfortunate reality is that most companies just want to get into a battle of wills with those who are targets of harassment rather than take the time to address the issue as they should be.

You are right that this seems to happen once you breach a certain threshold - I assume at that point legal gets more pre-emptive in its protection of the company and tries to divorce itself from the goings-on in Human Resource areas. Plus, as I said elsewhere in this discussion, finding and/or training managers to handle these issues in a fair way is not easy, nor is it easy to be the manager dealing with this situation.

But I don't think that complacency is the answer, and she's not wrong that in many countries, the employer does have an obligation to handle the events. Attributing the sensations to it I'm not sure I fully agree with, but many countries do require investigative procedures, which according to the article weren't really performed well by management at Apple.