On #MeToo in the Sciences - And What Separates Harassment from Personal Indiscretions

I recently read an article in last months Nat Geo about how sexual harassment in the science/academic sciences workplace is taking a bit longer to root out than other fields. This is partially because grant funding often can be tied to a researcher who is a creep/harasser, and there is a worry that big funding opportunities could be lost if that person gets axed. The other issue is that the workplace in science research can be very formal (a lab on campus, for example) and very informal (a field research station in Antarctica.) 

One comment by Kathryn Clancy, however, caught my attention: Too often the story is the same: A man sexually harasses a woman, the woman reports it, and she gets told that’s just how it is. There are variations on this theme: women harassing women, people harassing those they don’t think conform to their gender well enough, women of color receiving a toxic blend of racial and gender harassment. Want a story of women being mocked when they need to urinate and being body shamed if they eat dinner? I’ve got one of those. How about a man who has a mistress that students at his field site have to keep secret from his wife and kids at home? I’ve got a few of those. 

That last one made me wonder; since when is someones personal life any business of their coworkers, or any grounds for termination? 

In this example, Clancy makes it sound like the Research Advisor/Leader might have a mistress, and this makes the students at his field sites uncomfortable. Now, provided said mistress isn't a student or a direct co-worker, and as long as this dude isn't going into graphic detail about his sexual exploits while in the workplace (which in field sites is also tricky, what defines the workplace?)  Then he shouldn't face termination for his behavior, no matter how repugnant. 

Likewise, someone shouldn't be blamed for sexual harassment for mentioning that they're gay, or that they have multiple wives (even if that's illegal) or that they are single and like dolls. If they are going into detail about their sex lives, obviously that's a problem, but is the mere act of mentioning a secret trist or perhaps an odd interest grounds for termination if others feels it's a kink? 

I have a feeling that in Clancy's case, a supervisor was going into details about his mistress, which is obviously unprofessional, but I think it illustrates the need for discussion and clarity about what constitutes "the workplace." When you're out in the middle of no-where after a long day studying rocks or ferns or microbes in a stream, sitting around a campfire drinking beers, are you working? If you're a journalist who just got back from a warzone and you're sitting around in a hotel room with coworkers drinking beers and not talking about work, are you working? 

Have we reached a point where a co-worker must remain a co-worker and never can one befriend a co-worker, even of the same sex, for fear that we classify every exchange as "on the clock?" 

Tomorrow I have to fire an employee who had a consensual sext exchange with a co-worker.  She took a pic while in the bathroom at work, so she will get fired.  Had the picture been taken somewhere that wasn't at work, she would still have her job.  

I still think a firm discussion of why their actions aren't acceptable would be a better solution.  Companies are intentionally obscure about what is allowed, and they're quick to fire instead of discipline. 

Say I'm your research leader and you are a student of mine. Since we are human, and we work closely together, you naturally meet my wife and kids over the course of regular work. You see my wife about 2x per week and she knows you well enough to know your name and have an idea who you are.

On a trip to Europe to present our research at a conference. We are at the bar hanging out and my fling comes over (who I didn't expect to see) and gives me a big fat smooch while you are standing right there. It is clear to everyone standing there that I am having relations with this person.

Later I ask you not to mention anything to my wife.

Harrassment or not? Personally I think it is. No different if boss/direct report replaces researcher/student in the story.

I know somebody kinda like this.   Odd.   

Remember Castanza asking big if it’s wrong to have sex with the cleaning lady on your desk?

This one is fairly straight forward for me. I was a manager in large and midsize enterprises for 30 years. If a person was an employee of the company, I did not became friends (ok two exceptions after many years), associated outside work very infrequently and only with groups of folks (witnesses) I felt were responsible. And yes - I was married for all those 30 years. As a new manager, I was educated by the company and experience to behave in his manner - or at least this was my interpretation of what they were pushing. And I watched what I said with some subjects not eligible for chatting.

Did some others behave differently? Of course - some briefly coupled for a shared purpose (one night stand) and others, lower in the hierarchy, appeared to do so for possible advantage in the workplace (a reverse of "me too" that seems to be accepted?).  My reaction to this was to stay away from them and keep my mouth shut if I heard some rumors. I never did directly observe something that I felt required my action. I did see one moved to a different job when it became too embarrassing for those in power.

I never had to fire someone for questionable behavior with those of the opposite or same gender. Likely I missed a few I should have dealt with.  My approach would have been the same as with other behaviors issues - investigate and if appropriate, up to and including...... Folks need to realize the risks they are taking and be ok with the consequences. However - companies have a duty to be clear on what is expected and not wimp out with mealy mouthed HR policies. And they need to communicate these clearly - not just in an on line handbook that everyone is supposed to read.

Too much of a hardass? You decide - work is work and is not associated with non-work. Todays environment appears to be even more complex. I don't need to "work" anymore but my own behavior has evolved - I don't touch or get within a foot of another person unless I am related to them. If they initiate shaking hands - great - I respond. Cold fish? I view it as adapting.

In reply to pheller :

I think Robbie's point is pretty important, here.  The if the boss thinks they can spill the beans to their underlings, and they won't tell on them- the core question is what is the reason the boss thinks they won't spill the beans-because they are friends or because he's the boss?

And that boss/friend part is pretty important when it comes to personal items that can be spread.  In theory, the manipulation of that relationship can go both ways- you can blackmail your boss for a better raise, or you can subdue the career of your underling for doing it.  Which really illustrates the risks of being friends with the people directly above and below you on a pay grade.

The same can be applied to direct co-workers, but the ability to get something out of it is different.

As it turns out, this whole "conflict of interest" is one of the (many) reasons I avoid having a lot of actual friends at work.  Especially because the friendship is more about the fact that you happen to all be together than actually having solid reasons to be friends.  I have been very uncomfortable talking non-work with many people here at work- so I very much avoid any situations like that.

On a different tangent- while I know there is harassment going on (there's no honest way to not really have it), it's been something like 15 years since I've heard any serious rumors about any harassment related items.  Which is kind of nice- it suggests that the issue of harassment has been taken pretty seriously here and that it's been pretty darned effective.  When you look around and see the make up of the workforce, it has really evolved into a far more diverse group.  Given population I taught Statics to back at Michigan in 1990-91, this is a pretty strong development in my career span.

Think about it this way: how is it possible that they even knew he had a mistress unless he was inappropriate about it? Talking inappropriately or bringing the mistress in to work or the like. Sexual talk by the boss is wildly inappropriate at work.

It sounds like the problem is the threat - either implied or direct - that anyone who lets the wife know about the mistress is in a lot of trouble at work. At least that was the first thing that jumped out at me - as alfadriver noted, there's also the potential of threats going the other way with blackmail.

To me, there are 2 separate issues going on in pheller's bolded statement in the OP:

1. The boss is behaving inappropriately by discussing / bringing his sex life into the workplace.
    
2. The boss is asking / requiring his students / employees to keep HIS secret, regardless of their own discomfort with having to do so.

The first is not automatically a fireable offense, depending upon the level of inappropriateness, but it probably is grounds for disciplinary action or at least a formal reprimand.

The second should be a fireable offense.  Although of course it happens, no boss should ever require an employee to lie (even by ommission) on his behalf.

pheller said:

Have we reached a point where a co-worker must remain a co-worker and never can one befriend a co-worker, even of the same sex, for fear that we classify every exchange as "on the clock?" 

Yes

Toebra said:

pheller said:

Have we reached a point where a co-worker must remain a co-worker and never can one befriend a co-worker, even of the same sex, for fear that we classify every exchange as "on the clock?" 

Yes

This is how I treat everything at work. I am a misanthropic introvert though. Then again, so are most of the people I work with. 

We all get visibly and audibly annoyed when the secretary is mean enough to come tell us Good Morning when we go in.

pheller said:

How about a man who has a mistress that students at his field site have to keep secret from his wife and kids at home? I’ve got a few of those. 

That last one made me wonder; since when is someones personal life any business of their coworkers, or any grounds for termination? 

Except that it's not merely someones 'personal' life, even if they chose to not keep it personal, at issue here. Sharing inappropriate details of your personal life with your coworkers, and subsequently dragging them into the middle of it too as they inherently become either secret keepers or secret teller, forces it to become 'their business'...A situation made exponentially worse when they are your subordinates.

In this example, Clancy makes it sound like the Research Advisor/Leader might have a mistress, and this makes the students at his field sites uncomfortable. Now, provided said mistress isn't a student or a direct co-worker, and as long as this dude isn't going into graphic detail about his sexual exploits while in the workplace (which in field sites is also tricky, what defines the workplace?)  Then he shouldn't face termination for his behavior, no matter how repugnant. 

Pressuring subordinates (or any other coworkers) to cover for your indiscretions that you have even more inappropriately chosen to share with them is most certainly NOT merely 'uncomfortable' for them, and IS terminable behavior.

If they are going into detail about their sex lives, obviously that's a problem, but is the mere act of mentioning a secret trist or perhaps an odd interest grounds for termination if others feels it's a kink? 

The 'mere act of mentioning' it is not the limit of what was described.  It is not your subordinates (or any other coworkers) job to keep your secrets, and it is terminable to (directly or indirectly) leverage your professional relationship with them to 'encourage' them to do so.

When you're out in the middle of no-where after a long day studying rocks or ferns or microbes in a stream, sitting around a campfire drinking beers, are you working? If you're a journalist who just got back from a warzone and you're sitting around in a hotel room with coworkers drinking beers and not talking about work, are you working? 

Time spent with friendly coworkers outside of work does not mean you are 'friends' and you cannot assume that your relationship with them is that of friends, or has changed in any way simply as the result of being outside the confines of the work day. Just because you're off-the-clock doesn't mean that it's suddenly a free-for-all where anything goes with anybody regardless of how they might feel about it.

Have we reached a point where a co-worker must remain a co-worker and never can one befriend a co-worker, even of the same sex, for fear that we classify every exchange as "on the clock?" 

A coworker can still befriend a coworker, but one must always make sure the complete nature and extent of that relationship is both mutual and reciprocal. Not all so-called 'friendships' are created equal, regardless of who they're with. Just because you are spending time with a coworker that you are on friendly terms with outside of work does not inherently mean they are your 'friend' equal to any you have outside of work, nor that you can inherently treat them as such. Having a beer with a friendly coworker is not the same as having a beer with a close personal friend and confidante that you also happen to work with.  Yes, you must now always classify every exchange with any non-close-personal-friend-and-confidante 'coworker' outside of work as 'on the clock'...Exactly the same as you always should have done.

Don't wear this.

Or do.  

Probably depends how high up the food chain you are. 

z31maniac said:

Toebra said:

pheller said:

Have we reached a point where a co-worker must remain a co-worker and never can one befriend a co-worker, even of the same sex, for fear that we classify every exchange as "on the clock?" 

Yes

This is how I treat everything at work. I am a misanthropic introvert though. Then again, so are most of the people I work with. 

We all get visibly and audibly annoyed when the secretary is mean enough to come tell us Good Morning when we go in.

Let me guess, you're an engineer of some sort.

Relationships are much more nuanced than most workplaces recognize.   30% of all relationships start at work. 

Blanket policies that do not consider this are problematic. 

In reply to SVreX :

that may be true, but how do you write company policy that prevents other harassment?  

Do we sacrifice part of the possibility that long term relationships happen so that we can avoid harassment that causes problems at work?

I think I'd rather have policies that stop harassment.  Makes for a better working environment.  

SVreX wrote:

Relationships are much more nuanced than most workplaces recognize.   30% of all relationships start at work. 

Blanket policies that do not consider this are problematic. 

 

Yet, "Don't dip your pen in company ink" has been good advice for as long as there have been companies, pens, and ink... 

In reply to SVreX :

What percentage of relationships that started in the workplace, end there as well?...That is a much more important number.  It is problematic to not account for the former, but it is disasterous to not account for the latter.

A company or employer can be held at fault for failure to act to stop harrassment/assault. Thus most companies would rather set up policy to allow them to fire anyone in any relationship with a co-worker. The application of such policies is hard to do without bias. It is still perceived to be easier than asking someone in management to be a third participant in a relationship in order to confirm it is or isn't harrassment/assault.

The science world seems similar to the entertainment business. Scientists really need people to like them in order to get funded. So like actors, getting personal (not necessarily sexual) is a part of the career. Thus knowing a guy has a mistress puts not only their personal and professional life at risk but it puts their staff's integrity at risk as well. 

The outside logic would be, if they lied about the top science director's mistress, how factual is their science?

Please tread lightly on this 4.5 year old thread which was revived by spam.

Don't get sex where you get checks. 

Relationships at work:

Fortunately we're a small company so we can deal with instances case by case. And I'm very happily in a long term relationship, so it doesn't affect me personally.

Depends on multiple factors. Mostly just shouldn't be a relationship where one party has power or authority over what happens to the other professionally.

Depends if there is a power and/or nepotism dynamic. Generally, should not get into a relationship where one party has the direct power to hire/fire/promote, or to exercise favoritism or retribution. So... are they different levels of authority in the company? Are they on the same or different teams? Are they in the same or different departments?

Using our company as an example:

A low level brewing assistant and a bartender getting together would be no problem. Different departments and low authority.

Two bartenders getting together - it's the service industry, and there is no way we're going to try to stop that as long as they remain professional while they're on the clock, and comport themselves responsibly when at the bar off the clock. Same department, but low authority.

The bar manager having a relationship with a bartender, or me as brewmaster having a relationship with a lower brewer would be inappropriate. Same with the owner having a relationship with anyone on staff.

Bar manager in a relationship with an assistant brewer or head brewer in a relationship with a bartender... That's tricky. Different levels of authority, but not really in a position to exercise it. It would probably be wrong for me to get into a relationship with a bartender because I'm a "founder" and have broader operations responsibility than a regular "head brewer".

Bar manager and head of brewing in a relationship... also probably fine. Both have authority, but over different departments.

There's a lot of gender bias on this subject. 
 

When this thread was running 4 years ago, I was working in a medical environment. 90% women, but most of the authority roles were men. 
 

I had reported to senior management that I was being treated inappropriately by several of the female staff. No authority conflicts, but lots of inappropriate talk, cornered in a closet, groped in an elevator. I was really confused and didn't know how to handle it. I reported it to my boss, and was told to "man up" and not worry about it. 
 

2 months later, I was fired without warning because of unfounded accusations. A legal investigation showed absolutely no basis for the firing (and ended in a large financial settlement in my favor for wrongful termination). But I still lost my job. 
 

My suspicion is that a low level female staffer was upset by my rebuffing her advances, and fabricated a false accusation of sexual misconduct to senior management.  They cut me fast, without any review. I was escorted off the property the same day.
 

So, my report of actual misconduct was ignored, but a female staffer's lie was acted on swiftly and ended in my termination without any discussion. 

I am well aware that the genders are usually reversed, and that women are the victims the vast majority of the time. But it DOES happen in reverse. 

The issue for me is that if the person with the mistress is in a position of power and is using that position to force others to lie for him. I am not your friend, you are not confiding in me because we have a trust relationship, you are my boss and you are asking me not to say anything, which is a veiled threat that you will terminate me if I do. Not cool. 

Other than that, its only a problem when it crosses a line. I could care less about heteronormative employees being uncomfortable around LGBTQ coworkers, that's their problem. But if talk of a sexual nature, any talk in any direction, becomes excessive or graphic to the point where it is making others uncomfortable, then I have an issue. I would take steps to address the problem, and if it did not stop, then I might have grounds for termination. Your sexual choices are your own, but creating a toxic workplace is an issue. 

If it was talk about sex that was non consensual or with minors, then the police would be involved and you'd be terminated. If I found out you were in a relationship with a doll or other inanimate object, I would have to see how it was affecting your work. If you are leaving early to see your doll, or if your co-workers refused to work with you and I couldn't find a role for you to do alone, then I might have to let you go. Not because of the doll thing, but based on your work alone. 

I don't think there is any one answer that is going to be the magic bullet to solve the problems of men and women working together. Some men are shiny happy people as are some women. 

A small company is going to deal with it differently than a large company. My thoughts are it should be managed much as the military does. Keep it out of the chain of command as Beer Baron said. Different departments, no problem, same department, someone has to quit or transfer if possible. Management above a certain level and anyone below them is a problem, someone has to go. 

The main issue is I don't see how the company can control behavior when the employees are off the clock. As long as the relationship stays out of the workplace, it's none of the company's business. 

As to professors and students or understudies, there should be zero tolerance. Immediate termination of the teacher/professor should be the norm. But that won't happen because schools are more interested in the money than they are in the teaching.