As an HR professional in a Fortune 300 company, I will not have a closed-door 1-2-1 with ANYONE. Period.
One of these is discriminatory and would never be written into corporate policy in 2019 and the other is completely acceptable and widely practiced. But here I am pages deep waiting for someone to show me all of these widespread policies based on gender.
It's generally regarded as a good idea to maintain silence and be thought an idiot, than to speak out and remove any doubt. That was one of the silliest posts that I have ever seen on the BBS.
I'm not, akshully. The doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on an increasingly illogical position as I read on in the thread was slightly surprising. Most people would have had the good sense to just hush...
Not sure if you are troll baiting or an idiot. Actually I am pretty sure but giving you the benefit of doubt. Why would anyone have a closed door meeting with anyone who could fuck their career out of spite with just a few words. Reap what you sow #ibelieveher....
No, fruit loop, it’s not discriminatory. Gonna need a new shovel soon, that one’s gotta be about worn out
Sounds as if he is working on the assumption that this is one way. Female executives are just as likely to follow this,policy or not, as males.
Yup, there was an interview of Shannon Bream and she made it her rule after a couple meetings with Roger Ayres.
What I have definitely said repeatedly and for the last time here: this is not gender based and cannot be gender based in 2019 as an official policy. You are absolutely correct, females are not immune to being harassers/abusers and dudes like Kevin Spacey also need to be accounted for. The only debatable thing I've discussed is whether or not a stance like Pence's is disrespectful from the jump - since it is based on gender. I say yes, most here disagree.
Since no one assumes or owns their own ill intent, any policy to protect yourself from another individual shows a level of skepticism or distrust. To apply this policy to EVERYONE and never have any one on one meetings is very cautious and protectionist. Having this policy only for females (remember we all trust ourselves) signals that women are more likely to claim Pence acted inappropriately or give fuel to anyone who would claim the woman was there for something other than business (avoiding the look of impropriety). That's my opinion and one reason I believe some women may not be as stoked about this admin as the dungeon is.
Skepticism and distrust is, sadly, the order of the day. It didn't start with Trump and it won't end with Trump. Our entire society is working to protect itself from the lowest common denominator. This is just one aspect.
I have never been falsely accused of sexual misconduct/rape by a man. Does that help you out? When and if I ever do then I probably won't have any one to one meetings with a dude either from that point onward.
It’s absolutely gender based. No one on one opposite sex meetings behind closed doors without a stand in. In fact you can face punishment for entering into an opposite sex room in certain conditions ie; deployment, training, medical etc
The lack of logic here is stunning. I guess putting a lock on your door is disrespectful to criminals. Or eating properly is disrespectful to fast food. We fixed the "unfair" to one gender problem. We allow ZERO one on one meetings, regardless of gender. There must be three whether internal or with a client. The policy is a result of false accusations, real accusations, and the erasing of gender. Welcome to 2019.
