So you think all claims should be dismissed as false and people who are actually subjected to sexual harassment and coercion at work should have no recourse.

> So you think all claims should be dismissed as false

Why would you think that?

I think the majority of claims need to go into the “not really sure” bucket where they belong.

Acknowledging this basic truth does not mean you have to then do nothing.

Which is why they merit investigation. For which there should be a process. Without an investigation process, what alternatives would you suggest for avoiding treating all claims as true or all claims as false?

> what alternatives would you suggest

There are many well tested solutions but they all carry different trade offs.

E.g.

- Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies.

Or,

- When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.

Etc.

> When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.

That's a very good way to be found liable for both later harassment by the accused and, if you move the accuser, for retaliation; and also a PR nightmare when it is discovered to have been your policy or even a common practice to move accused wrongdoers without follow-up (just ask the Catholic Church.)

> just ask the Catholic Church

If priests had been moved around for simply leering at a woman or making a suggestive sexual comment I don’t think there would have been any outrage.

I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes - or any crimes for that matter.

> I hope you don’t think I’m suggesting a company should cover up serious crimes

You are suggesting that they should shuffle people around without investigation to quiet complaints of situations against which are obligated by law to protect their employees, including potentially involuntary reassignment of the reporting party (again, without investigation of the facts) despite the legal prohibition on retaliation.

> to quiet complaints

Uh no - to protect their employees from abuse.

> despite the legal prohibition on retaliation.

Why is it retaliation to seperate the accused and accuser?

In fact if you don’t seperate them you are opening yourself up to legal liability and a PR nightmare.

> Have a zero tolerance policy on relationships between colleagues. This works well in smaller to mid-size companies.

This addresses only the tiniest subset of issues, and mostly the ones toward the consensual end of the spectrum. Groping; quid pro quo suggestions (subtle or explicit); coercive threats (subtle or explicit); lewd remarks; invitations to strip clubs; etc ad nauseum (and yes, they're nauseating) have nothing to do with actual romantic relationships.

> When you receive a complaint move the accuser and accused into different teams.

Due to the nature of company hierarchies, this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain much more than it does the one higher - both in terms of short term impacts and long term career advancement. Which often means punishing the victim, due to how the power dynamics of harassment interactions tend to work out.

It's also a pretty damn weak reaction. If your Director of X insinuates that they'll fire an engineer if the engineer won't sleep with the director, you think the only consequence for the director should be that that engineer no longer reports to them?

> This addresses only the tiniest subset of issues, and mostly the ones toward the consensual end of the spectrum.

Not at all - in practice it removes ambiguity which is where most of the issues stem.

> this almost inevitably punishes the person lower on the reporting chain

At a large company that is not true - it’s actually the opposite.

For those below director level it’s usually a privilege to be able to shift teams.

On the other hand when you are director level and up it’s usually a negative because most of your ability to operate effectively comes from the interpersonal relationships you have built up.

> It's also a pretty damn weak reaction.

It’s a weak reaction based on typically weak evidence. In fact most commonly there is no evidence at all.

What it does is it ensures any abuse is stopped.

In practice it’s one of the most effective techniques I’ve seen because it can be used to nip problems in the bud - nobody feels too bad about using the system early and often.

Your much more likely to have somewhere to reassign the lower level employee to than the higher level employee simply because there are fewer roles total at the higher level. Unless both must be reassigned, you end up punishing only the lower level employee.

It doesn’t ensure abuse is stopped. It may just expose a different set of employees to abuse. It doesn’t send a message that abuse is unacceptable or will meet with meaningful consequences. It’s only a solution to anything if the only problematic interactions are between two specific employees. If you have an employee with a boundary problem or who enjoys abusing their position or who “just can’t help themselves”, it does nothing to prevent or deter them from subjecting another report to the same unacceptable behavior. Like the molesting priests mentioned in another thread - moving them to another parish accomplishes nothing except to make it clear that they can get away with misbehavior and to expose a new set of victims to abuse.

> than the higher level employee simply because there are fewer roles total at the higher level.

Maybe at the very top - not for the majority of cases though.

> It doesn’t send a message that abuse is unacceptable or will meet with meaningful consequences.

Does sending a message that abuse is unacceptable stop abuse?

It seems to me that the only people it scares are the people who aren’t a problem in the first place.

In truth such a message seems to enable abusers although I couldn’t explain to you why.

> moving them to another parish accomplishes nothing

That might be the case when children are involved.

In a workplace context though such an approach empowers potential victims.

It empowers victims in four key ways:

1) It stops women from threatening innocent men - saying “I can make you move teams to an equivalent position” is not particularly threatening - more of a pain in the ass.

2) It limits the ability of a male manager to sexually pressure his female subordinates. Saying “you will never advance in this company unless you ...” carries a lot less weight when you can easily switch managers.

3) It empowers women to be able to voice concerns without having to worry about getting people fired.

You’d be surprised at the number of women who keep quiet about real problems because they don’t want an overzealous HR to come in and ruin people’s livelihoods.

4) It limits abuse without requiring strong evidence of abuse in a way that doesn’t result in strong backlash.

   Have a zero tolerance policy on 
   relationships between colleagues. 

Here is an interesting though experiment: Remove all humans from this planet who are the direct or indirect descendent of a couple whose relationship started at work.

Conjecture: the planet would be depopulated.