actually, we took the position that at the very least the belt buckle was being loosened, so i said to him he needed to avoid this around others. i said if he did the zipper thing, he had to stop. therefore, i didn't take sides on the zipper issue since we know something did happen.
So, you just counseled him or "warned" him verbally about not unbuckling his buckle prior to eating, (and no reference to sexual harassment), right? Good decision.
yes, that's what we did. i did a little research on the supreme court's test as to what will rise to the level of sexual harassment and cearly this didn't meet the test. so i gave him a verbal not to do it around others (no referene made as to harassment) and wrote up the warning for his file. all seems well. thanks again for your input.
Not to belabor the point, Hatchetman, but doing it anyway, I would have a problem with an HR Manager telling me that although my behavior did not rise to the level of inappropriate conduct (harassment), I should stop it anyway. Back when I had to wear a tie to work everyday of my life, it was not uncommon for me to unbutton my collar button and snug up my tie, as the day went along. It was a comfort reprieve from the medieval tie custom. If I were to let my belt out a notch, or take it up a notch, that is simply a wardrobe adjustment, just as the collar button would be. Simply because that button is nearer to the dreaded sexual system than the collar button is by no means should draw it nearer offensive conduct.
Let's flip this one a bit. What if this employee, now a female, everyday in the cafeteria, were to innocently reach under her collar with her thumb and adjust her bra strap? Are we going to insist that she go to the restroom or a private office to make that minor comfort adjustment. I think not.
Don, I think you're overstating my position on this.
While unbuckling one's belt prior in the open to meal time is not sexual harassment or even violative of existing policy, it is a little untowrad andas Marc's situation demonstrates can be misconstrued by toers in the workplace.
I see nothing wrong with Marc discssuing the unbuckling witht he emplyee and pointing out the problems that can be -- and apparently in this situation were -- attached to doing that.
There's nothing wrong with a manager or a supervisor just pointing to an emplyhee perhaps a better appraoch to dealing with a particular trait that may be discomforting to others in the workplace. Taht's not to say the emplyee is in trouble.
That's exactly how I take Marc's final action on this matter.
I agree with you Hatchetman. In our case, the behavior was making fellow employees very uncomfortable. There was room for misinterpretation and as an wner of a business, even a manger of one, we are duty bound to address the situation. I see no value to allow such behavior to continue if the possibly exists that the behavior could escalate. Behavior need not be harassment to be a cause for concern. The fact that multiple female employees filed complaints (coincidently a protected class under title VII) and were offended, required managementto address. Again, offensive behavior should be addressed, and we did that.
I don't know about anyone else, but this isn't merely a gender issue, if a female employee had been un-buttoning her bra in front of oters, and others were offende by that and complained, I would have handled that employee the same way. In society today, the gender barrier is much less defined in the work place than in the past (the law has shown thisas well). Therefore, to assume (as some have)that treating a woman differently because she un-buttons her bra is not only ridiculous, it is anitquated and sexist. The point is, if the behavior is deemed offensive that is the issue.
Geeze, had I known this issue would have spark such continous debate, I would hve considered calling Larry KIng. I think EVRYONE has beat this one to death. Let's move on...........
Bras don't have buttons, young man, at least in my experience. And I've checked with Marc, who did studies on this in the late 60s, as well. My comparison did not include the unfastening of a bra, merely a strap shift. But perhaps it would be appropriate to have a conversation with the gentleman, although not in over reaction to some imagined Title VII fear. A 41 year old man in the breakroom would have been just as protected. It would never rise to that level of actionable import. Many younger HR folks are frightened to death by the prospect of the jack-booted EEOC stomping down their door. And many a fine employee has been sent home in total humiliation when counseled pursuant to that unfounded fear. I would treat it the same as I would the Belcher in the cafeteria we discussed some months back, or the restroom tooter. But, I don't think I would take a poll prior to simply saying, "Man, don't do that S**T! x:-)
Yes, I did extensive field studies in the late 60's. There were two major settings for the studies. One involved watching corn grow late at night and the other involved submarine races in some of the flatter parts of Kansas.
In my opinion, the 4 hook bras were the most challenging but once the challenge was overcome, the rewards were often ample.x}>
and the "younger HR folks" as you so lable, are the ones paying the price for blaise' approach taken by the oldies as it relates to title VII.
there is no harm in being safe when behavior can be misconstrued. even if looking ahread, such behavior is not actionable under an EEOC claim, no prevents an employee from filing a claim.
Comments
Let's flip this one a bit. What if this employee, now a female, everyday in the cafeteria, were to innocently reach under her collar with her thumb and adjust her bra strap? Are we going to insist that she go to the restroom or a private office to make that minor comfort adjustment. I think not.
While unbuckling one's belt prior in the open to meal time is not sexual harassment or even violative of existing policy, it is a little untowrad andas Marc's situation demonstrates can be misconstrued by toers in the workplace.
I see nothing wrong with Marc discssuing the unbuckling witht he emplyee and pointing out the problems that can be -- and apparently in this situation were -- attached to doing that.
There's nothing wrong with a manager or a supervisor just pointing to an emplyhee perhaps a better appraoch to dealing with a particular trait that may be discomforting to others in the workplace. Taht's not to say the emplyee is in trouble.
That's exactly how I take Marc's final action on this matter.
I don't know about anyone else, but this isn't merely a gender issue, if a female employee had been un-buttoning her bra in front of oters, and others were offende by that and complained, I would have handled that employee the same way. In society today, the gender barrier is much less defined in the work place than in the past (the law has shown thisas well). Therefore, to assume (as some have)that treating a woman differently because she un-buttons her bra is not only ridiculous, it is anitquated and sexist. The point is, if the behavior is deemed offensive that is the issue.
Geeze, had I known this issue would have spark such continous debate, I would hve considered calling Larry KIng. I think EVRYONE has beat this one to death. Let's move on...........
In my opinion, the 4 hook bras were the most challenging but once the challenge was overcome, the rewards were often ample.x}>
and the "younger HR folks" as you so lable, are the ones paying the price for blaise' approach taken by the oldies as it relates to title VII.
there is no harm in being safe when behavior can be misconstrued. even if looking ahread, such behavior is not actionable under an EEOC claim, no prevents an employee from filing a claim.
(I couldn't figure out the emotion shortcut!!!)