On Fri, 2004-08-06 at 21:56 -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote: > --On Saturday, August 07, 2004 12:03 AM -0400 Aaron Gaudio > <prothonotar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > If you think these type of people do not exist in your workplace, you > > are probably mistaken. There are people who will be genuinely offended > > by things like this (probably due to their own insecurities) and there > > will be people who are simply looking for a reason to get you into > > trouble. > > And that is exactly why these laws are fundamentally wrong. You suffer > legal penalties for what happens entirely inside someone else's head. There > is no objective standard. I agree, but I also think the absence of any protection is also unfair to those who experience true harassment. There must be a balance. At any rate, it is corporate policy that dictates most of these restrictions, not laws, and that was my point. > > > And I don't think maintaining some joke put into a > > screensaver for the sake of sticking to the PC police is worth someone > > losing their job over. There are better battles to fight. > > I'm not suggesting that those jokes are effective at fighting this battle. > Rather, those who enjoy them are victims of it. I've been in a corporation > where everyone's looking over their shoulder for this kind of attack. It's > not fun. In smaller companies, people are being silently evaluated for the > likelihood of being too easily offended or being lawsuit hungry and are > being sent to the resume slush file. Larger companies simply move as much > labor as possible off shore to countries without the legal landmines. > > > This is ridiculous. Understand, in most cases the issue is not the > > government saying what is and is not permitted. > > In fact, the issue is the government NOT saying what is and is not > permitted. It's all up to the victim. It's the subjective nature of the law > that's the problem. A good lawyer can make "hostile work environment" mean > anything he wants, if it can net him and his client some cash. I believe as long as the company acts quickly to resolve the issue (usually resulting in either a formal reprimand, forced counciling [aka PC re-education camp], or firing), they are not liable. Usually it is not the promise of money that lures the complaints, it's the promise of getting someone you don't like very much into trouble. But you're right it is the subjectivity; on the other hand, you can't expect the law to spell out every possible scenario (it would just as easily be spelling out the loopholes in it). -- Aaron Gaudio <prothonotar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
