News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Ellen Pao: My lawsuit failed. Others won’t by nitrogen on Monday August 21, 2017 @03:58PM (#15067347)
Not to defend frat culture, but who defines what topics are or are not publicly discussable, and where is this list maintained? Aren't taboos sometimes more harmful than whatever harm the taboo is supposed to prevent?
Re:Ellen Pao: My lawsuit failed. Others won’t by sushid on Monday August 21, 2017 @04:52PM (#15067778)
I'm confused. Either you're legitimately asking for a list or you are trying to say since there's no way such a list exists, we should be allowed to "publicly" discuss whatever we'd like in the company of coworkers.

You're probably better off asking your HR for a training if you can't fathom what topics may be appropriate for work or not. But most of it is common sense.

Is it sexual/racial or otherwise offensive to some within earshot? Don't say it.

Is it possibly offensive but you're not sure if they'd like to hear it? Don't say it.

You're there to work, not to push societal boundaries/ maximize discourse.

Re:Ellen Pao: My lawsuit failed. Others won’t by nitrogen on Tuesday August 22, 2017 @01:45AM (#15070017)
It's clear that I've been misunderstood, and I'm not sure how to rectify the misunderstanding. This makes it difficult to have actual discussions about this topic that don't devolve into bandwagon parades.

If we had always followed the "don't say it" default, then it would still be considered offensive to advocate for LGBT or religious or gender rights in the workplace. This is what I meant by taboos being sometimes harmful.

Everything I've seen in all the jobs I've worked shows a massive disconnect between "HR reality" and actual reality. I've seen women openly and proudly objectifying male subordinates in company meetings. I've seen men spending extensive time distracting their female coworkers with no consequences. I've seen women objectifying the "hot catering delivery boy". I've seen salesjerks harassing and flirting and getting away with it, while genuine people are slapped down for trivialities. The loudest and most prolific swearing I've ever heard was in a company with a highly religiously conservative employee demographic.

Nowhere have I seen a workplace where people robotically clock in, work silently, and clock out. Never have I seen a workplace free of non-work-related conversations.

People spend a majority of their waking time at work or on work-related matters. A sizable proportion of couples report meeting each other at work. There's simply no such thing as a work-only workplace. The HR-ification of society only facilitates the kind of abuse and discrimination that the devious get away with and the genuine get blamed for.

Re:Ellen Pao: My lawsuit failed. Others won’t by sushid on Tuesday August 22, 2017 @02:44PM (#15075270)
> If we had always followed the "don't say it" default, then it would still be considered offensive to advocate for LGBT or religious or gender rights in the workplace. This is what I meant by taboos being sometimes harmful.

Again, you're equating social progress with the ability to say controversial things at work. I would argue that most of the progress LGBT/religious/etc. groups have made have been made outside of office cubicles. More importantly, there's a clear difference between "what are we doing to encourage a more diverse group of developers" to "who do you think is the hottest engineer on our team?"

I'm still failing to see what your point is. Yes, some people can choose to violate the rules and risk getting away with it or not.

Re:Ellen Pao: My lawsuit failed. Others won’t by nitrogen on Tuesday August 22, 2017 @10:05PM (#15077985)
I'm not equating anything with anything. I'm saying there's no such thing as a realistic hard-line stance, and pretending there is makes things worse, not better.
Re:Ellen Pao: My lawsuit failed. Others won’t by xhedley on Monday August 21, 2017 @04:49PM (#15067752)
You can define it by imagining a male co-worker in a meeting with your mother/sister/daughter/other female relative/female friend. Are you comfortable with your male co-worker discussing pornography and sex work in that level of detail with her?

If not sure, ask your mother/sister/daughter/other female relative/female friend.

If you don't have a female relative or friend to ask - random HN user and Ellen Pao advise you that discussing pornography and sex work in business meetings can make women feel uncomfortable.

Re:Ellen Pao: My lawsuit failed. Others won’t by Powerofmene on Monday August 21, 2017 @10:58PM (#15069391)
At a government training, I once had a harassment trainer explain it very similarly. If you would not say it to your grandmother, mother, sister or daughter, do not say it. If you would not want someone saying, sharing explicit details or even joking about personal relations with your grandmother, mother, sister or daughter the same thing that you are saying about a coworker or even a stranger then do not say it. It is not appropriate. It is illegal and it will have a profound and negative impact on your career.
Re:Ellen Pao: My lawsuit failed. Others won’t by notyourday on Tuesday August 22, 2017 @12:18PM (#15073871)
> At a government training, I once had a harassment trainer explain it very similarly. If you would not say it to your grandmother, mother, sister or daughter, do not say it

And this is the crux of the problem. Let's pretend that I do not have any issue having this kind of a discussion ( in passing, as a single comment or even at length ) with grandmother, mother, sister or daughter?

Re:Ellen Pao: My lawsuit failed. Others won’t by Powerofmene on Monday August 21, 2017 @10:52PM (#15069374)
The law does not provide a list of subjects that you can or cannot discuss. The law assumes that you can understand the harassment law and make reasonable decisions regarding appropriate subjects and or statements. If it is necessary to make a list then it would be the responsibility of the employer to make the list and distribute it and hope that such list is all inclusive.

As far as where information is maintained, as I said, the Cod of Federal Regulation states the law for each of us to refer to. It can be found on the US EEOC website. In short, the following is the law:

Harassment Harassment is a form of employment discrimination that violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, (ADEA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, (ADA).

Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. Harassment becomes unlawful where 1) enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued employment, or 2) the conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create a work environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive. Anti-discrimination laws also prohibit harassment against individuals in retaliation for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or lawsuit under these laws; or opposing employment practices that they reasonably believe discriminate against individuals, in violation of these laws.

Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people.

Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance. Harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following:

The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, an agent of the employer, a co-worker, or a non-employee.

The victim does not have to be the person harassed, but can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.

Unlawful harassment may occur without economic injury to, or discharge of, the victim.