> Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal?

They can fire an employee for any reason they want to in an "at will" state, so your question isn't cogent to begin with. Whether or not it should be done is contextual and I can't answer in the abstract. The way you frame your question here is designed to be a rhetorical trap though, and I don't appreciate that.

> Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10?

Remember, I'm discussing ethics not laws here. Yes, I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is a good ethical stance almost always. Your hypothetical isn't cogent here. Decisions must be contextual and your contrived example lacks context is is constructed so as to advance your (poorly concealed) agenda. Another rhetorical trap. I expect good faith discussion here and you're demonstrating bad faith.

> Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint?

Liability is a matter of the civic code and is a legal question, and remember, we're discussing ethics not law. Your contrived example here is once again lacking context so it is unanswerable as presented and yet another example of you attempting a rhetorical trap.

> Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct.

"I hope you don't think". Your constructions here are insulting to me. Nothing but leading questions, contrived examples, begging the question and other rhetorical tricks. If you have a position of your own you should state it directly and not assume I will be tricked or trapped by you.

> company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?

yes to both. an implication of harassment should result in a fair process to determine the truth bounded by the context of the situation and the interests of all the involved parties. FAIR PROCESS is the key portion of the last sentence. My objections have always been to UNFAIR PROCESSES and are not a defense of harassment.

I'm sorry you took my post as a rhetorical trap, it wasn't intended as such.

You stated that "that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made." Which to me comes across as rather absolute, your response has made it clear that that wasn't entirely true, so my apologies for misunderstanding you.

From your comments here though, it sounds to me that you consider an HR investigation an unfair process, would that correctly characterize your view?

To be clear, I do believe your stance is untenable, but that doesn't mean my statements are in bad faith, these questions are more or less the reasons that I believe that the stance that "companies shouldn't fire people before they're found guilty of a crime" is an untenable stance (and s/companies/universities or other organization/ for a broader conversation).

I don't think that an organization can hold itself to the ethical bar you think is proper without causing itself (and its constituents) a level of inconvenience that is too great. For a society or government, where membership is not voluntary, that is necessary, but for groups whose members are free to leave (for whatever definition fits the group), it doesn't work.

You can't simultaneously have a group that people will want to voluntarily join in and one that protects abusers.

I do believe that it is very unusual for an HR investigation to be a fair process. HR is primarily tasked with protecting the company from legal liability first, and with resolving employee disputes second, and with finding out the truth as a distant third (so distant as to be not-on-the-map).

I'm not an absolutist but I do have a high standard of ethics when it comes to disciplinary action that can affect a person's livelihood and reputation (and thus future employment prospects).

There is an unfortunate trend in our society right now for the justice of the mob. The loudest and most aggrieved mob tends to exert its "authority" (as such, it's illegitimate but is authority none the less) against those who stand accused of a moral transgression. This has created the atmosphere of a moral panic which leads to numerous false accusations. It's a troubling circumstance.

Given the troubling circumstances we find ourselves in I find it important to advocate for higher standards of discourse, ethics, and institutional conduct because the natural tendency otherwise becomes a race to the bottom combined with CYA behavior.

I don't think my advocacy for high standards of ethics in institutional authority is untenable though. I think we have reached a place where we need new solutions because HR isn't cutting it because it is not intended to nor should its mandate be expanded to cover this kind of stuff.

If workplace harassment is as pervasive and problematic as it seems to be (at some companies) then a separate function for handling those issues fairly would be my preference. I'm also, however, deeply concerned that we are seeing a slip into a transgressions-driven-dialogue and the moral panics and kneejerk reactions we see all over social media, and particularly on college campuses, is beginning to become normalized in the workplace as well. That would be a tragic outcome.

>This has created the atmosphere of a moral panic which leads to numerous false accusations. It's a troubling circumstance.

Why do you believe this to be the case? From my perspective, I've seen very few examples of false accusation (certainly not enough to call them "numerous") and many more examples of actions that go unpunished.

Really I think that's what defines the core of our difference in view. You seem to believe that there is some great number of false accusations flying around, and further that these false accusations are causing innocent people great harm. On the other hand, I see many instances of people who should be punished for actions that are unacceptable go completely without consequence. Can you see why, from my perspective, I don't see our current situation as tragic, and indeed see it as a vast improvement over the past (which had an even greater number of unpunished actions).

to be clear, I don't believe the moral panic has set in at private employers yet in the way it has in the university, but I see more and more steps in that direction every day and the YAG mailing list is too close for comfort, in my opinion. It's one moderator slip-up away from becoming noxious.

As a very recent graduate, my same comments apply, more or less, to universities.

as someone with more years and perspective than a very recent graduate, I would encourage you to consider your critics more seriously and reflect on why so many people are deeply disturbed by what is going on in the academy right now.

>as someone with more years and perspective

Wasn't it you who said we should speak in good faith. I prefer not to be patronized.

I asked you a question, which applied equally to universities as workplaces, that could be summed up as "As someone who has recently been at a university, and is currently in a workplace, I am aware of many more (perhaps orders of magnitude more) instances of abuse that goes unreported or unpunished as compared to instances of people being falsely accused of things. Given that, why should I take your concerns seriously, other than your wisdom and perspective?" You avoided it. Its difficult to take your concerns seriously when you avoid explaining them.

Or in other words, I have anecdotal evidence that a lot of harassment goes unreported, and similarly anecdotal evidence that relatively few accusations are false ones, and anecdotal evidence that in many cases, being forced out or punished for perceived harassment won't actually have a lasting negative impact, and certainly won't be life-ruining. Actual data tends to agree with me. If, as I believe, for every 1 false accusation of something, 10 instances of that thing go unreported, why should I stand for focussing resources on providing additional (and perhaps unnecessary) protections to the 1, when at the same time there are 10 victims, and perhaps 10 assailants, who go without justice and punishment, respectively?