Talking Past Each Other on #metoo

--by Sebastian

I wonder if some of the reason we are talking past each other on sexual harassment in employment is colored by true experiences that people we personally know have had with companies that dealt with things very differently.

I used to work in employment law in California (an employee friendly state). I’ve thankfully gotten out of an area of law that makes me want to wring people’s necks but I obtained some practical experience before that. In my experience there are three basic approaches to sexual harassment claims. (Please note this is 2000-2015 experience. The #metoo movement is obviously shaking things up, but not particularly in a ‘measured investigation’ way at present). There is a cover-up/deny approach which repeatedly dismisses the accuser and ends up enabling the abuser. There is a zero tolerance approach which in practice ends up meaning that if you get accused, you get fired. There is a measured approach where things get thoroughly investigated and you get fired if you’ve shown repeated abuse. I’ve seen the first two approaches quite a bit (I’d thumbnail the cover-up approach at about 45% and the zero tolerance approach at about 45%). The well investigated/measured approach would seem to be about 10% of my experience.

The reason the cover-up approach is so prevalent is pretty obvious. It boils down to the fact that harassment can be pretty common, and often has a local (or larger) culture willing to protect it. (See basically all the clear #metoo cases)

The reason the “you’re accused you’re out” approach is so prevalent is pretty obvious, especially if a company has gotten burned for having a previous cover up approach. In a state where you can be fired for any legal reason, “being accused of an instance of sexual harassment” is a hassle where if the company investigates but wrongly doesn’t find sexual harassment, they could get slammed for a cover up. So the incentives to not worry good investigation and over-fire are pretty high. This is made a bit complicated by the presence of other protected classes. Firing someone because they are a protected class is not a legal reason to fire someone, so if you are in a protected class your chances of getting a fairer investigation (as someone who is accused) is higher. This plays in to the whole ‘minorities have it easier’ complex, which while clearly untrue holistically, can obviously feel more true if you are low on the totem pole such that you will get zero-tolerance treatment.

This is made even more complicated because it plays out with HUGE class dimensions. In practice, a company often has an ‘accused and you’re out’ policy for its low level workers, a ‘measured’ approach for some people in the middle, and a ‘cover up’ approach for its executives. (Which is an interesting case of focusing on [usually] race over class. If class were attended to, it would be easier to point out that it is the executives who get the special investigative treatment.)

So when I hear that a woman was sexually harassed in some awful way and the company covered up, I have no trouble believing that.

Also, when I hear that someone was fired on the force of a single accusation of behavior which even if true might not strike most people as a fire-able offense, I have no trouble believing that.

If I hear that both happened at the same company, I used to have trouble believing that, but I don’t any more.

If I hear that heterosexual male was treated under the zero tolerance method, but a homosexual male was given a fuller investigation, that isn’t surprising either.

The current set of legal incentives as they intersect with the nastiness of the rape culture make all of the above VERY likely.

Further, as we start dealing with lower level offenses (things NOT like rape or threatening harassed person’s livelihood if he or she doesn’t give in) the question doesn’t just turn on whether the accuser is lying. A sexually abusive ‘compliment’ has a threat behind it. Some women (because they’ve experienced the dangers of such threats) are hyper cautious about compliments because they are afraid of the threat. Some of them may be so wounded by their experiences that they will occasionally see a threat when there really isn’t one. But very few women seem to be against clearly non-threatening compliments. In fact one of the especially nasty things about exposure to too many abusers is that it poisons the abuse victims’ perception of lots of the wonderful day to day interactions that non-abusers and non-abuse victims enjoy.

This also speaks to the burden of proof problem. One of the long term ways that abuse damages people is that (for totally understandable reasons) they become hyper vigilant about potential signs of abuse. This can happen to the point that they see signs of abuse even when they aren’t really there. This fucks them up because they have trouble maintaining relationships even with non-abusers because they can become triggered by normal day to day interactions that their abusers used against them. (This can become a nasty cycle because a lot of abusers are great at picking up on it somehow and then causing them to question themselves).

I think that we all want it to skew toward “well investigated”, but currently there is very little incentive for that.

Comments

[wonkie]

I think you have presented a very good analysis of the current state of affairs in regard to sexual harassment in employment situations. IN political situations the same dynamics exist along with some other dynamics: partisan politics, respect for (or disrespect for) processes such as elections and procedures already in place in the House and Senate,

And a significant further complication is that Harassment is on a continuum that includes behavior which should probably not be considered harassment but in an overheated environment gets lumped in with the real thing.

I think the "well investigated" is essential for use to find a way out. Otherwise we will as a society oscillate between periods of unfairness oand overreaction (and false accusations, especially in the area of politics) and periods of suppression of the victims.

But I also think that just the fact that this is a matter of discussion will help move us forward.

[bob mcmanus]

Peons are sites for the enjoyable exercise of power; middle managers are competitors for resources and advancement; bosses grant privilege power and opportunity. The replacement of your boss will not necessarily be to your advantage, especially if he hired you.

I suppose the middle is interesting, because here people seeking to move up will often need or desire the support of their peers and an emphasis on process and fairness could be advantageous.

There are also fiefdoms. Being able to get somebody else's peon fired would demonstrate power and reflect badly on your mid-level competition.

In politics, well Franken is no longer competition for Gillibrand or Harris, if he ever was, nor is he any longer competition for Booker as VP material.

[joel hanes]

The reason the “you’re accused you’re out” approach is so prevalent

Another reason, in addition to liability, is that zero tolerance relieves those in charge of any responsibility for making or explaining any kind of judgement call whatsoever. Chickenshit school administrators love zero-tolerance policies for the same reason, even when they hurt the kids : the ass of the person who must enforce the policy is covered from both directions.

[cleek]

absent mind-reading or perfect universal surveillance, we're going to have to have a mixture of both. we can't trust personal testimony absolutely (either as accusation of defense), but we also can't discount it completely (because it's all we have).

[Marty]

"Chickenshit school administrators love zero-tolerance policies for the same reason, even when they hurt the kids :"

Worst policy ever. What's worse is it let's the administrators decide who to apply it to. Zero tolerance only means I can have zero tolerance. Kids deserve chances, period.

[Sebastian H]

I just stumbled across a statistical point that is worth mentioning.

False accusations of rape are estimated at 2-6%. Now those are ones that are *provably* false so it wouldn't surprise me if accusations of harassment (a lesser charge) might get in the 5-10% once you add those that are false but difficult to prove as false.

The exact numbers on these things are hard to come by, but lets look at a set of stylized facts that I don't have good cites for, but seem probably true.

1) Many of the bad actors are also repeat actors.

2) Repeat actors in a corporate culture which is permissive could harass dozens and given time potentially a hundred or more people. This creates a situation where both these things could be true:

A) That most women tell the truth. (Only 5-10% are mistaken/overreacting/lying)

AND

B) 1/2 or 1/3 of the men you know of who have faced accusations aren't guilty/shouldn't be fired.

So when you hear men say things like "I've worked here 15 years and seen three people fired. One of them definitely didn't do anything wrong at all, one of them was guilty as sin, and one of them was inappropriate but shouldn't have been fired" they aren't necessarily saying something that should be translated as 1/3 to 1/2 of female accusers are liars.

[Mooseking]

Thanks for a grounded post Sebastian. What you're saying makes perfect sense

Not understanding who gets zero tolerance and who gets an actual investigation goes a long way to explaining how people will perceive their workplace as being contradictory or biased. It seems particularly likely to be misunderstood if it's not evenly applied, as your class conditions example lays out well.

Thanks for giving me a tool to better interpret these things.