When Will Sexual Harassment Be BAD, Not Just Bad for Business?

If asked directly, few people will say, out loud, that sexual harassment isn't a bad thing. However we've seen from recent events, that a lot of rationalizing goes on in the minds of people who sexually harass others. The rationalizing is done not only by individuals, but by corporations, even those that have clear sexual harassment policies. Why do many companies have written polices stating a zero tolerance for sexual harassment? Because it's wrong? Perhaps for some, but for many it's simply because allowing sexual harassment at work will get them sued. You simply have to look at how a lot of the high profile cases are handled: the offenders are kept on while the accusers are payed off; since there's no lawsuit, the offender stays on. In the case of companies like Fox News, it's only when advertisers start to go away that the offender is finally fired.

And lest you think that this kind of negotiable outrage only happens at huge corporations, I witnessed this syndrome at a company for which I worked.

I was an assistant manager at a locally-owned grocery store. A technician for our HVAC company was regularly making lewd comments to a sixteen year old employee. She went to the store manager and the complaint made its way to the technician's employer, which immediately fired him. But this wasn't the end of the story. Shortly thereafter, the fired technician started his own HVAC company. An assistant manager at one of the stores, friends with this man, provided him with a quantity of bills from his old company, which he used to underbid his old company for a contract with the grocery chain. (Yes, that's some unethical stuff, but not the subject of this blog). Despite the executive committee of the grocery chain knowing about this man's history, they contracted with him to be the main HVAC company for half the company's stores. At least two of us within the company regularly pointed out to the company's leaders the hypocrisy of claiming to have a zero tolerance policy with regards to sexual harassment, yet doing business with this man, yet he continued to receive the company's business until a completely unrelated series of incidents ended his contract. A consultant with whom the company did regular business made sexually explicit comments to female employees on several occasions, but was never confronted. Why were these men given business despite actions that would have resulted in termination if they had been employees? Because there was no legal liability to the grocery company for the words or actions of contractors. There was no chance that it would cost the company money, so it wasn't a problem for them.

Therein lies the problem: whether it's Fox News, or a local grocery chain, businesses take action when it costs them more money to maintain the status quo than to take action. Fox News didn't see it as a problem until advertisers started leaving en masse. My old company didn't see it as a problem at all. The people who run businesses in this country have to decide that sexual harassment is wrong and take action, not because their action prevents a lawsuit, but because it's wrong. Until then, nothing really changes.