It's also not people who have office jobs, or even jobs specifically in industries where this is very common. At $workplace, managers have 1:1s with their reports basically weekly or bi-weekly, directors with their reports typically monthly, VPs quarterly if they have time. There are tons of 1:1s happening and while some dislike them for various reasons (waste of time, no power to actually change anything, inefficient to discuss a bigger topic with 1 person at a time then have to do that multiple times, etc), I've never heard anyone talk about or suspect that anyone has felt weird about a 1:1 being between two people of different gender. It's a 100% normal part of working at $company, so if we ran the same poll as in the article, I'd be very surprised if it was more than a couple % on each side in the "inappropriate" or even boarder line camp.

Fwiw, all the small rooms used for 1:1s, and all conference rooms for that matter, have at least 1 narrow (but usually wide) full-length window.

Good point on "the source of the data is 'registered voters', not people who have jobs."

In a round-about way, polling registered voters might make sense, as they have -- however indirectly -- to actually change the system.

"At least in many [white-collar office-with-glass-door easy-access-to-legal-and-HR-departments harassment-training-mandated-as-part-of-the-orientation coworkers-not-prone-to-gossip] jobs I've had."

I'm not sure I see what point you are trying to make?

It's been shown, especially recently, that HR and legal are not necessarily on the side of employees wronged by sexism in the workplace. Harassment training is an ongoing joke.

Or are you saying in other jobs men and women are less likely to work together alone, so people might think it's more inappropriate?

> It's been shown, especially recently, that HR and legal are not necessarily on the side of employees wronged by sexism in the workplace.

Nor are they on the side of employees accused of sexism. They will do whatever is in their best interest. Which can mean both ignoring sexism or wrongfully firing the employee with no proof.

The cost of ignoring sexism is a potential PR nightmare. The cost of wrongfully terminating the accused employee is maybe a low 7 figure wrongful termination suit at the worst.

Exactly, HR and legal are there to protect the business, not the employees.

They only protect the employees when it could harm the business.

I've worked in retail, in warehouses, in call centres, as a medical technician, and now in tech, and never with a half-decent HR dept. At no point in any of my jobs was there a norm for people to be wary of 1:1 meetings with the opposite gender.

I'm also surprised by such a large percentage. I suppose that the problem of having a "work meeting" is that some workplaces are very uneven - i.e., management position is only hold by men.

I think the questioning might have also been strange. How would you even phrase it?

"Do you think it's appropriate for a man and a woman to have a private work meeting?"

Sounds like a way to lead to no.

But if you asked, is it fine for two people to have a private work meeting together, and (follow up) what if they were different genders?

For the situations where the manager and the managed are of the opposite sex and one or both are aware of their own ethical and spiritual vulnerabilities maybe it'd be a good idea to have a 2:1 or 1:2 instead of a 1:1.

I hope you're joking, but if you're not, that sounds like a horrible idea to me.

Being a woman, and having had 1:1's with male managers for pretty much my entire tech career, I've never heard of this happening. I don't know what spiritual vulnerabilities you are talking about, but in terms of ethics if you can't work with a female employee, you shouldn't be a manager.

You're basically telling the person that you can't trust them enough to be alone with and honestly communicate with them when times are good. What happens when things get difficult?

It's not really about trust. It's just business and mutual protection.

I'm not sure which way to feel on the issue, but it's hard to deny that the recently reported harassment happened while both the victim and the abuser were alone together, or shared a private channel of communication. If you eliminate this aspect, you might eliminate the harassment along with it. That seems like a positive outcome.

In practice, that may not be achievable, or it might be a bad idea for other reasons. But anything that results in a positive impact seems worth considering.

If you're worried about mutual protection, it would seem that you don't trust the person.

You also seem to imply that harassment is more about having opportunities to harass, rather than a person wanting to commit harassment and waiting for the right opportunity. If someone wants to do something, I figure they could be very patient in waiting for their time.

Also, how would you know until everyone is already uncomfortable? The only way it sounds like to fix that is to trust no one, ever, and have everyone travel in groups of at least 3?

Your conclusion sounds completely absurd, but I agree with you. In fact, even walking around in groups of 3 is dangerous if you keep talking because what you said might be interpreted as offensive and all 3 people would hear it.

I guess I don't understand what you would propose as a solution...

Current situation is obviously not working.

Right now the following is happening:

1) Ladies get harassed by those with more power because it's a way to get dates. They could potentially lose their job/opportunity if they disagree to go on a date. This leads to 2.

2) Men get false accusations because women do not currently have to provide proof for low rank employee harassment cases.

3) Culture is changing in such a way that more and more things are considered offensive to say.

4) People are choosing to have fewer 1-on-1 (or at all) interactions with coworkers because of these issues. It's unfair to discriminate against just some coworkers because you might suspect they will be trouble. As a result, you might be forced to not have 1-on-1s. Might be forced to give up all non-strictly-work-related conversations with everyone at work.

At my current work, all of us are now walking as a group to lunch in silence. It is extremely awkward but it seems like this is the only possible outcome of such a system.

I guess my own current solution is to leave US/Bay Area for basically any other country. I rather not deal with these dangers since I want to have friends at work and any non-work related conversation might be considered offensive by someone in a group of 20 or so people.

Legitimately curious: if you walk to lunch in silence, why even go to lunch together? What would you talk about? Purely work? I'm sorry for you, that sounds like a really unfun workplace with bad culture if it's as bad as you say. Why stay there if it's that bad?

It takes a few months to find another gig. Also the main person complaining is about to leave.

Hoping things will go back to normal after that.

I think one aspect that makes it workable is that it's about the power imbalance, not simply being alone with someone. It's ok to date a coworker. It's not ok to express or receive interest in someone who works under you. So it's not that everyone needs to travel in groups of 3, but rather that the people who have power over you are held to a different standard.

What I say applies to the females and males mentioned in the article who indicated they are uncomfortable being in a one on one situation with the opposite sex who is not their spouse, some of whom are already managers. Being outside those organisations I am not in a place where I can demote them, and thereby I made my proposal, maybe it will get picked up by the males and female workers mentioned in the article to reduce disadvantage in not being able to have one on one time with their opposite sex manager.

I encourage you to push your opinions and beliefs within your own organisation. But I hope you don't go around outing people who are uncomfortable with being alone with the opposite sex to get them fired, before they have done anything. (And if anything IMO they ought to be commended for actively avoiding situations where they will have inappropriate thoughts about their colleagues)

That presumably puts a real damper on the sort of direct communication and private feedback 1:1s are supposed to support.

And chaperons for teenagers!

/s

And yet most public schools (all?) in the US insist on chaperones for dances, anything overnight (where this isn't banned as it was in my district after 9/11...yep, no school-sponsored overnight trips (which includes any which involve travel, and air travel was separately banned) district-wide)), ski trips, whatever. "If you're not in sight of an adult, you're going to use that time to have sex and do drugs" seemed to be the mindset of the administration.