Why Talking Remedies Is A Bad Idea

I get to do a TON of respectful workplace trainings, otherwise known as harassment training.  It is one of my favorite things to do.  However, a new requirement for harassment training irks me to no end.

It’s the requirement under California, Illinois, New York, and potentially more state laws that requires that we talk about the remedies available to harassment victims.  I don’t hate the remedies – victims of harassment are entitled to all the remedies out there and then some.  I just don’t like talking about them in training.

Why you ask?  Victims of harassment are already plagued with a seemingly endless list of reasons NOT to report harassment, including retaliation, exposing an embarrassing incident(s), fear of being judged about the clothes they wear, fear of not being able to pay their mortgage, rent, car payment, student loan, child care bills, etc.  Telling them about the remedies available to them, all of which could bankrupt the very organization they’re working for, adds an additional burden to a victim.  Victims of harassment don’t always want to bring down their employer – they want to bring down the harasser or at the very least, make the conduct stop.  They don’t want their friends to lose their jobs too.  Victims went to work for their employer because they believed in the mission, need the work, and want to work there.  Talking about the hundreds of thousands of dollars at play in a harassment lawsuit doesn’t provide comfort, it adds to the load.

In training, I’m doing my darndest to encourage targets of harassment to tell HR or any manager about what is happening.  Trying to reduce the burdens of reporting, encouraging co-workers to help, promising retaliation will not happen, and that HR is a safe place for them to go.  Taking a hard left to “your report could cost this organization tons of money” is halting transition without out much benefit.

The required remedies discussion was probably designed to scare harassers.  It should!  But by and large, employers are on the hook for the money, not the individual harasser.  The harasser is rarely held to account.  They may lose their jobs, but they don’t owe restitution to the victim or even the employer.  It is the organization and its employees who suffer most through the time and resources taken up by a lawsuit.  Yes, in many cases, the organization needed to do better to protect employees, but spelling out its possible demise is not going to convince a victim to raise their voice.

Employers need to do better without a doubt.  And, a good training is a great step.  Scaring victims even more is not the answer.  Dear Legislators, please understand this and let me do my job.  I really like it, and I’m pretty good at it.

End rant.  Thank you.

 

Photo by Gaelle Marcel on Unsplash

The Billy Graham Rule Discriminates

Last week, a Mississippi gubernatorial candidate refused to allow a female journalist to follow him on his campaign because he follows the Billy Graham rule.  The rule is that married men should not ever be alone with a woman to “avoid any situation that may evoke suspicion or compromise of [a] marriage.”

As a divorcee, I agree that trust is key to marriage.  However, if the trust between a man and a woman is so weak that he cannot be alone with a woman, then that isn’t really trust.  That’s fear.  As Jeremy White tweeted, the rule “presumes either: A) you can’t be trusted or B) women can’t be trusted.”

The Billy Graham rule discriminates against women.  Full-stop.  If a man cannot be alone with a woman, he cannot mentor her through a tough situation.  He cannot take her with on a business trip to a client site.  He cannot meet with her to give her a performance review.  As a result, the woman will miss out on significant business opportunities.  She’ll miss out on activities that are critical for her success and advancement.  She’ll be held back.  This is discrimination plain and simple.

As my friend, Suzanne Lucas advises, we should “flip it to test it.”  Instead of a woman, let’s say a man cannot be alone with a black man for fear that man will claim racism. No business trips, mentoring sessions, or performance reviews for the black man.  Or a Native American.  Or an Asian American.  Or a Latino.  Or a Jew.  Or a Muslim.  Or an older man.  We’d all agree that this would be discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, and age, right?  (Readers – this is where you nod.)  The Billy Graham rule perpetuates the idea that men are only safe when they are with men like them.

Instead, we need to treat each other like humans.  We see women and everyone else as humans, colleagues, partners, and equals.  We don’t withhold support, advice, and opportunities for fear of a complaint; we treat everyone with respect.  Period.

 

Photo by Joshua Ness on Unsplash