Sexual Harrassment Laws

Almost everyone feels that there ought to be laws forcing private companies not to permit sexual advances by men towards women in their employ.  Most people also feel that if a company fires a woman who has filed a complaint about sexual harrassment, then that company should have to pay her a large sum as punishment for its wrongdoing.

Of course, this grants a special legal privilege to any woman who has filed a sexual harrassment complaint.  Once she has filed, she may very well be immune any consequences to her actions, because the law recognizes her “right” to be employed at a company against their wishes.

Who knows if Vivienne Dye really was the victim of assault and battery, and attempted rape as she says.  But she doesn’t seem to be pressing criminal charges against the individual men she accuses.  She is suing her former employer for possibly 20 years worth of her salary(!)

The money quote is:

“Ms Dye told of a long period of alienation, stress leave and complaints to human resources before being sacked last November.”

So she was “alienated” (depressed?), stressed out, and complaining alot before she was fired.  Was she producing during this time, or was she trying to force the company to pay others to do her work while she was in a funk?

If I had a penny for everyone in this world who feels he is just a victim of some vast malevolent corporation / racism / malevolent universe, I would have boats, and planes, and cars…

Let’s repeal knee-jerk laws like those forbidding “sexual harrassment” and other behaviors that can’t be defined, force companies to enforce political correctness, and grant special legal privileges to clever employees who know how to game the system.


4 Responses to “Sexual Harrassment Laws”

  1. Miss Taggart Says:

    Mr Danneskjold,

    I agree with your concepts in principle.

    However, you of all people should judge each case on the basis of its own individual merit. Perhaps she exists for her own sake, neither sacrificing herself to others, nor sacrificing others to herself. Perhaps she would just not subordinate herself.

    You are too quick to make assumptions about the affairs of others in order to elevate your own ideas. They are none the less good ideas, so mind you don’t damage good people with them.

  2. Miss Taggart:

    She can do whatever she wants! My objection is to her choice to sue her former employer for what I estimate amounts to 20 years of her salary. And of course to the laws, regulations, and precedents that enable this travesty.

  3. Miss Taggart Says:

    What makes you choose to assume she’s only earning $50k per year?

    Why not blame the lack of laws, the sloppy regulations and the primitive precedents in that jurisdiction? Perhaps her plan is to tighten them. If this is her intention, then why should she not profit from such a heavy task and who are we to put a value on it? That’s her prerogative.

    She sets the price of her labour.

  4. Miss Taggart:

    I just tried to re-read the article to see why I assumed her demand was for around 20 years’ salary. Unfortunately, the site says the page is not there now. I either mis-pasted it somehow, or they took it down.

    I don’t think her former salary is central to my point. She is asking for a lot of money, and there is no way that I can conceive how this is actual damage she suffered at the hands of her fomer employer. In a free market, courts would only award money to compensate for actual damages suffered. Civil courts would stay out of the business of punishments, which are the domain of criminal courts.

    Again, I note that she is not pressing criminal charges against the two men she accuses. If they did what she said, it sounds like she would have a case for assault and battery, at the least, and probably attempted rape too.

    I have a big problem with the implied doctrine of the Solvent Bystander. If these men committed a crime, then she should pursue them for punishment not her former employer.

    In any case, I don’t think the problem is the lack of either laws or more explicit regulation. I think the problem is the exact opposite.

    If she is fighting to eliminate legally privileged classes based on gender (and race and sexual preference, etc.) then it did not look that way from this article. I don’t see why her former employer should be forced at gunpoint to pay her expenses on this crusade (which I don’t believe is her goal, based on that article).

    I agree with you that she sets the price on her labor. AND the company sets the price it is willing to pay. Employment only occurs when the worker and the employer agree on the price. Otherwise you have slavery or armed robbery.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: