Until I had the (mis)pleasure of working with a truly toxic co-worker did my mindset completely change on the issue of bullying, intimidation, and hostility in the workplace. He was a senior guy, decent at his job. But how he was able to change the dynamic of multiple teams was very offsetting. Communication declined, as people didn't want to go near the team that had the guy that was insulting them everytime on a whim. Workplace politics were on the rise. The common denominator was this guy was involved with every issue. Management stayed quiet and attempted to push it under the rug for a bit, but eventually they had to take notice. It was so relieving to walk in one day to him cleaning out his desk. I remember locking eyes with him one last time and giving him a final unspoken send off with a stern glare. He turned the corner and I never saw him again. My co-workers and myself went out for lunch as a celebration. The amount of relief was incredible. It was like starting fresh again.

Back to the article, I still can't say I fully understand what this woman went through. But just having a taste of how off-putting 1 toxic employee can be really opened my eyes. I can't fathom having multiple employees or even a manager with that type of behavior. I won't comment on gender or racial issues.

Being stressed from work is okay. Some jobs have more stress than others, and at higher frequencies. But being stressed from the people at work is needless stress that compounds on top of the regular work stress that we all accept to some degree when entering a job or role.

If the worst you've seen at work is friendly teasing and maybe some racy language, it's easy to assume that's what happened and someone is overreacting.

If you've seen someone truly corrosive, that assumption changes. There's a world of difference between teasing and toxicity, even if the person doing it is careful enough to use language that could fall into either category. I can only imagine the frustration of writing down someone's comments and thinking "that doesn't look so bad on paper" when context made it clear (often to everyone present) that the exchange was terrible.

And on a related note, I think companies that handle these things poorly have misunderstood their incentives. Yes, avoiding lawsuits is important to them, and yes, I can even see why they wouldn't admit there was a problem. But to not take action is terrible - as your story indicates, a sufficiently toxic employee can destroy the functioning of an entire team. Burying an incident may be easy, but it's not a good business choice when you're going to lose good, valuable staff over the issue.

(I believe The Dilbert Principle suggested this was the single most important thing a manager could do: make sure this kind of hostility never, ever persisted on a team.)

I learned the difference between teasing someone and bullying in elementary school, directly via the education system (ie. the teacher).

Repeated 'joke' on/about the same subject? Bullying.

Is it mutual fun between/with different subjects, and can the subject themselves laugh about the joke? Teasing.

Telling someone to 'shape up' after they heard a joke regarding their race, sex, or something else the umptieth time is nigh annoying, and they will explode internally if they're introvert. People do notice this, and it gives bullies (ie. narcissists) fuel. The extroverts will more clearly defend their boundaries, so bullies tend to stick away from those. I don't know if the subject in this story is introvert, but I do know -and this is a generalisation- Indian women are rather courteous.

I'm the worst dresser on my team and i commonly (not daily, but monthly) get "hey nice clothes!" comments. We all laugh and move on. if the comments bothered me, i could say something, or dress like an adult. The issue only occurs if it truly bothers me and im too afraid to say anything. it's pretty easy to say "are people saying things because they dont like me or because we're friends bantering".

I think the real difference is mutual fun with the subject also being involved. The repeated subject matter shouldnt matter. If someone can't tell that the subject isn't involved, the problem isn't their bullying/teasing, it's the fact that the person is a jerk. it's all subjective and some people can read it better than others.

True, and this can occur on work, but by default it does not. See my comment hereunder on the different social rings.

There is also the argument that one needs to accept criticism, or "take some flak". People take much better criticism 1 on 1. So if your boss finds that you clothe yourself badly he could address that during a meeting. Another way is by addressing a whole group without mentioning individuals. I suppose at a small company the likelihood you're on close terms with your direct superior is higher, making a situation where a boss just casually mentions your clothing style more fitting.

> If someone can't tell that the subject isn't involved, the problem isn't their bullying/teasing, it's the fact that the person is a jerk.

I'd say a bully is a jerk (and very likely, worse, suffering from personality disorder(s)), but also there is the autism spectrum which meddles with the point you make. A normal person learns this in their childhood but there are people who simply lack the social skills to read their joke is inappropriate. Although even then, it is a spectrum, not a binary 0/1.

And I would agree with that about the spectrum. My point was more that the only issue arises when someone doesn't realize they are being offensive:

Trying to be offensive -> clear violation -> handle it.

Recipient speaks up -> clear violation -> handle it.

Trying to be playful, recipient offended but doesn't speak up -> unclear that it is in fact a violation -> may wind up unhandled resulting in issues.

Trying to be playful and everyone gets along -> no violation

If you're trying to be playful and the recipient doesn't respond well, they shouldn't have to speak up to end it. So if you cant read someone, the "dont keep pushing it" is a good default to have, but if its apparent everyone is having a good time, no biggie.

I also agree that teasing really shouldn't tread on race/sex/etc - even if it's innocently meant it can easily be a topic too raw for human, and too similar to not-at-all-innocent comments.

Which is why your last line is jarring - it's almost exactly the sort of comment that you and the original post are objecting to!

Agreed! Not sure where the theory I use is from but allow me to explain:

Ring 0: 0-5 people. Your best friends. Can be family members, too. Max 5 people, likely less. Ring 1: Your other family, and friends. (These are not your Facebook friends.) Ring 2: Everyone else you know, or think you know. Your co-workers are probably in ring 2. You barely know them, if at all, and you must stay courteous to them by default. Maybe you drink a cup of coffee with a few of them during a break, and eventually get close and get to ring 1 (or even 0, just don't dream about that).

[Note I am not sure if there is also a ring 3 to distinct further. I don't use it.]

So IOW I default co-workers in ring 2.

Those people in ring 0, you can say pretty much anything you want to them. I can make a very, very bad joke about something to people in ring 0 and they'll know I am joking. They can take the offence, and I can take offence from them as well, besides I know when they're joking and when not. It is because I know these people very well, for a longer period of time, and I love them. You don't make friends, you become friends; ie. you can't really force people to get higher in the ring. It kinda goes natural, over time.

The people in ring 2 require a professional attitude. Those are your co-workers. You don't insult them, you don't hurt them, you don't bully them, and... you don't tease them. Why not? Teasing belongs to those in ring 0, and perhaps in ring 1 provided you're careful.

> Which is why your last line is jarring - it's almost exactly the sort of comment that you and the original post are objecting to!

Oh, in such a situation I'd keep it before me, so that'd be some kind of thought crime. The reason why it matters in this context tho is because that detail makes it easy to envision how she became a victim of bullies. You see, bullies pick their victim like a leopard picks their pray. In this example they wouldn't pick a vocal woman who seems to stand up for themselves.

I look at the world today and despite an absolutely massive improvement in acceptance of diversity, many so called minorities seem to think things are even worse.

It makes me wonder if there is some sort of cultural misunderstanding in play here, whereby "people of color" (I despise that term) have finally achieved pure acceptance to the degree that people feel completely comfortable with them enough to not walk on eggshells in their speech, cultural harmony has finally been completely achieved, but then the informality of speech between close friends is mistakenly taken as an insult, the reaction is holy shit what a bitch, and we're back to where we started.

Somewhat naive, of course. Completely wrong - I doubt it.

I don't like that you say this. For us introverted folks, that's the only way some of us meet. This is, in a way, questioning the sincerity of my friendship with my coworker... with whom I'm now connected with pretty intimately. I know I became close with this person because I was forced to be with her 7 hours a day every weekday for 3 years. No way I would have become so connected were it not for this weird scenario.

And besides, when choosing friends myself I'm probably going to find like-minded people... life is more exciting the other way... and that's more likely to happen when relationships are made without your choice.

If we could find easily-actionable answers to those two questions... sigh.

Assuming the former: It is entirely possible to misinterpret friendly ribbing or banter as something far more malicious. To assume the worst of someone who genuinely means no harm, and to suggest they should be punished, censored, and shunned. "Toughen up" is perhaps not quite the right phrasing here: It's asking people to perhaps extend the basic human dignity and respect you request of others, to others. Where, perhaps, simply asking them firmly to knock it off, explaining you are finding their jokes hurtful, and giving them the chance to change their behavior, is perhaps more appropriate than forming an internet lynch mob based on assumptions of malice. Treating the other person as a person capable of mistakes or being misunderstood, instead of a gremlin to simply assume the worst of.

Assuming the latter: Sometimes you simply can't work through the problem. They may be a toxic individual - they may simply be driven to toxic behavior at this job (perhaps they hate it) - perhaps it's simply a matter of deciding who you're going to keep between two people who simply cannot get along with each other, to the point of causing problems for the rest of the team. Assuming you can fix their issues when they can't isn't treating them with dignity or respect. Leaving the situation to fester and drag on isn't treating the rest of your team with dignity and respect. Firing one or both of them might not be treating them with dignity and respect either - but you've only so many options. But just because you're firing someone doesn't mean you can't at least strive to do so. Wish them well on their next venture, and mean it.

When two people agree that they're engaging in friendly banter with/against each other, and an unrelated third party freaks out with their own misinterpretation of the situation, is it still the people engaging in banter who are to blame? Because I've seen this.

And what about the person who cannot handle having their code reviewed - no matter how softly and kindly the reviewer attempts to approach the topic? Despite making it very clear that minor suggestions for further improvements aren't some kind of slanderous attack against one's personal character?

Look: We agree sometimes someone's just being a dick, even if they weren't intentionally malicious about it, and it's their fault and they need to change their behavior. But it does not follow that absolutely every bit of miscommunication is completely and utterly the fault of the person attempting to convey something. If I misremember the meaning of a word, that's on me. If I willfully twist and misinterpret someone's words, that's on me. If I mistakenly do so, when the other party has communicated quite clearly and in good will? That's still on me. Communication requires the effort of two parties, and completely absolving one of them from any roll in doing so successfully isn't reasonable or helpful.

If I have a habit of ascribing malice where there is none - in an ideal world, someone sits down and we have a conversation where they can successfully convey that, no, pointing out a typo in a doc comment isn't a personal attack on my character, we all make the same mistakes, we're just trying to help each other out and get more stuff done better as a team - they mean to offer me a hand up, rather than to put me down. I'd call this a long winded way of saying: "toughen up." What would you call it, instead? Or do you even agree with me that this conversation should happen? Surely we shouldn't just fire the person giving me a code review, because of my own hangups and hypersensitivities?

> Telling them to knock it off is NOT censoring.

Which is why I suggested it.

On the other hand, we see calls to disinvite people from conferences, ban their social media accounts, fire them, to 'dox' them and harass them off the internet entirely for perceived transgressions. These, perhaps, are attempts at censorship. This I suggest against.

> Because no one has ever faced retaliation for doing just this. No one, upon hearing this from a co-worker, has never ratcheted up the "friendly ribbing".

At which point, you've moved from assumptions of malice to evidence. Yes, there are assholes out there. It sucks. We should try to do something about it. "Doing something about it" should not be pretaliation based on thin assumptions, being an asshole before they can be an asshole.

People cry at weddings. Not because they are sad, but because they are happy (usually). Why cry when you're happy? Studies[1] suggest that crying lowers your defenses. Similar to how salutes and handshakes were ways of demonstrating you weren't armed, you form a lot of social bonds when you are comfortable enough to be defenseless.

Friendly banter is exactly that, on an emotional level. Sure, crying may make me physically less defended, but allowing some friendly coworker banter makes me emotionally less defended. This encourages bonding. it's the difference between laughing at and laughing with.

Targeting someone maliciously is never acceptable. But friendly banter is sometimes not acceptable. Different people have different tolerances. Calling someone a fat worthless piece of garbage. Probably not ok. saying "geez, another donut?" to a coworker may trigger a group laughter (the subject included: "I start my diet tomorrow, i swear!") or it may cause a reaction the exact same way calling them a worthless piece of garbage might. Discussing their weight might make them feel vulnerable in a bonding sort of way, or in a targeted sort of way, you really should know a person before making those kind of comments though.

I had a young colleague who quit recently. He missed our weekly developer meeting (because he was new, and forgot) and when we got back, another colleague said "Yeah, since you weren't at the meeting, we spent the whole time talking about you" in a clearly joking way, trying to include the new guy in the banter. In fact, he said it to 3 different people who missed the meeting (man, a lot of people missed the meeting that week). The guy demanded he not be a part of the "bro culture" and wanted to work remotely full time. The counter was remote 3 days a week, in office 2, and his desk could be on the opposite side of the building. He rejected that. If you were there, it was apparent that he wasn't being bullied. he had moved across the state for a job and was looking for any way to be able to move back home while keeping the job. His goal was not to get dignity and respect, his goal was to get his way. If he wanted dignity and respect (and honestly thought we spent a whole meeting talking about him behind his back), then any of the concessions offered to him should have worked. Everyone on the team tried to include this guy. Treating him with kid gloves really was kinda more segregating than a toxic individual (when its better to just not talk to someone about real problems than risk upsetting them, that's an issue too). The other guys who missed the meeting looked at the clock, said a profanity, then laughed about it.

[1]: http://www.livescience.com/7854-theory-cry.html - "Crying is a highly evolved behavior," said researcher Oren Hasson, an evolutionary biologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel. "My analysis suggests that by blurring vision, tears lower defenses and reliably function as signals of submission, a cry for help, and even in a mutual display of attachment and as a group display of cohesion."

He had been working 2-3 months at a job where it was clearly labeled as remote work is a one off privilege (Snowed in? Work remotely. Kid sick? Work remotely. In general, be in the office). Yet after the incident, his only demand was full time remote. He didn't care if people were reprimanded. He didn't care if he didn't have to see the people that offended him. Anyone who was actually bothered by the situation I feel would care more about having the situation corrected rather than just getting full time remote. "I don't like the culture in the programming area" - "we can move your desk so you aren't even within earshot of that area, and we'll make sure the programmers are more professional in their discussions" - "no, that won't do, I need to be full time remote"

We had previously invited this guy to partake in stuff on weekends with us. The one time he even said "maybe", he wound up going to visit his parents that weekend instead. This was not some sort of exclusionary tactic, and this was probably the first time he was "targeted" by something.

Also, I'm not going to say that the "bully" was in the right here. This was a person who was clearly not intending to be a friend. Keeping things limited to professional interactions only would have been just fine, I don't need to be friends with all my coworkers (though I could see being the only one in a department that isn't a friend as kind of intimidating, but again, that was by his decision, not anyone else's). This "bully" has a hard time determining when it is appropriate to make jokes or when he's pushing it too far. But this wasn't an exceptionally inappropriate comment in my mind.

I used a bit of hyperbole perhaps, but it truly did seem like a case of "straw that broke the camel's back." The incident very possibly did bother him, but it was an isolated incident, and any of the reparations offered to him should have worked. This was not a scenario of him being bullied constantly. In my mind, in any other scenario, this event could not have triggered the response it got. Quitting your job because they won't let you work remotely after someone says "we were talking about you when you weren't around" seems like an extreme response.

To that extent, I'm not assuming "the worst of him." He was a young homesick guy who was having an off day. Unfortunately, that off day was the day someone decided to include him in the office banter, and in that moment, he made a decision to go back home and made a last effort to keep his job while doing it.

Edit - point being that someone being constantly harassed for sexual, gender, religious, racial or whatever reasons, I can totally see making a "fuck this I'm out"... Maybe I'm too close to the situation to see why this guy was bothered so much, but his situation to me doesn't seem anything like the woman in the article's.

I fortunately haven't been in this position since I became a developer, but better jobs do offer more leeway in regard to this. The other question, of course, is power dynamics. Calling out a coworker has more potential to help than calling out someone who can fire all their critics without trouble.

At least from what I've seen these sorts of things are systemic issues, and it is extremely rare for such problems to be caused by a single bad apple.

Again, not trying to discount your personal experiences or lessons, but I'd just be very wary of assigning scapegoat status to a single person for what is clearly a toxic workplace in general ("Management stayed quiet and attempted to push it under the rug for a bit", "Workplace politics were on the rise", etc etc). Often times this mentality plays to the people in power who are responsible for the lack of safeguards, and when you don't fix the underlying causes you're essentially just relying on HR to filter the "bad apples" out of the hiring practice... and we all know how much of a crapshoot hiring in tech is already.

Last, I'd re-examine your impulse to go out and celebrate when this guy was fired. I obviously don't know the details here, but it definitely sounds like an "us vs him" mentality was being fostered, and that could have very well contributed to the exacerbation of this guy's toxic behavior. Often times these sorts of people are just desperate for attention or social contact, and the only way they've figured to get a consistent response from people is to piss them off. Disengaging and relying on "management" to solve these issues very often can make a problem worse. Other times these people can be simply responding to being bullied themselves, often simultaneously, by other groups within the company, or are reacting to problems in their personal lives. These explanations are not absolving them of responsibility for their actions, but it's important to realize that most assholes aren't genuinely bad people, they're just normal humans like you and I who respond to stress and stimuli in a poor way.

Going to the guy as a group and discussing his behavior, while uncomfortable, often can be very illuminating and solve issues that would have just festered until someone was forced to be fired or leave. Worst comes to worst you'll immediately realize the situation is untenable at that point, and the solution will be quite obvious.

Again, disclaimer, I don't know the specifics here and I don't want to indict the parent, but let's make sure we don't use the above example as a primer on how to deal with toxic colleagues in general.

To be frank, I was part of and witnessed a smaller role compared to others, as I prefer to keep my head down and work, and not participate in office politics. Regarding the lunch, it was something we often did when we were feeling cheerful. Most, if not all had a reason to be plenty cheerful by the time lunch hit, but I digress. It turned out to not differ from a normal outing. It was the defining topic of discussion, of course.

In this case, I think catering to the notion of trying to "fix" someone this toxic who is bringing others down in hopes of rehabilitating their work behavior is a lost cause. He had numerous chances and it was unanimously understood that work life would be easier for all without his presence. I believe you are very right in stating that this shouldn't be a primer. Thanks for your response.

The team can definitely beat this trend, self-organize, ostracize the toxic employee and distance themselves from them. This however requires a conscious effort and active participation from everyone. For some teams, that might work, and you might say "they were not just a great team in a well-managed workplace". For others, the influence might degenerate into a spiral of negativity, and you might say "well it was a toxic workplace in general".

I'm not sure it's easy to make the determination whether the workplace was "toxic in general" or not, but I know that humans are fallible. Following the pit of success mantra, you don't really want to test whether your team is really resilient and cohesive, instead, you want to make sure that in most cases they don't even have to exhibit conscious effort to work together effectively.

Of course, the pit of success takes a lot of behind-the-scenes effort from management. I would be happy to place the blame on them here, although sometimes "the problem" is not obvious and easy to solve.

You seem like a good leader. I felt more stressed after reading the original post, but I felt a lot less stressed after reading your comment.

I hope you use the way you think to lead and do good.

I think this is the problem, until one works in a toxic environment it's hard to truly sympathize with people that do. How do we broaden our understanding of this phenomenon as a society?

Obviously I'm not a witness, but I tend to believe that these events took place more or less as the author describes them.

At the same time, words like "sexism" and phrases like "as a minority..." are a big turn-off to some readers, myself included. This isn't because I don't believe in racism/sexism/xenophobia, it's because we're never going to be able to agree on definitions for those terms and so they end up being almost useless as descriptors.

I would put this in almost literary terms: I don't want events to be described, I want them to be recounted. This is also how I feel about movies and literature: I want novels/screenplays that "show rather than tell." I don't want to be told how to think about an event, I just want it to be presented to me.

I also believe that categorizing your personal experiences in terms of broader social phenomena is a mistake. In my opinion, this kind of thinking leads to generalization and tends to obscure the actual events that took place and the actors involved.

All that aside, absolute sympathy to the author here. It's incomprehensible to me that people can behave like this, but sadly they do.

For instance, the behavior is clearly spelled out here:

    One day, one of my supervisors jumped to my defense at a team event, in an awkward display of sexism.

    The group started insinuating...

    They also made remarks implying...

I'm a man an being recently made more aware of how some females friend perceive some so called "un-harmful cheesy jokes" I often advocate to my boss or college that they shouldn't make such jokes because you can never now how they are perceived.

However to escalate the problem up to the HR you need at least some ground. At some point she said than HR asked here to explain what she found was offensive. And she suggest that asking what was offensive was itself offensive. This is pretty meta.

I don't see how HR acted badly they needed to known exactly what happened in order to act. I mean you cannot pretend to be a whistleblower but kept being shy or vague about words used. And you can't say it was edited by the press, it's a blog.

So if OP is here please be clear did the manager say something like: "Guys please don't be to hard on my sweet little girl, you know she can't handle it"

And then colleges could have gone "Hey here come the boss's bitch!"

This I can understand, not vague and redacted sentences. Because unless you are precise (and sometimes graphic) sincere skeptical people will always wonder if it was your colleagues attitude or you perception that was flawed.

That is EXACTLY the root of the problem. People interpreted them differently. Especially if there are a country / cultural difference.

(i.e., a manager can and should defend an employee against sexist behavior, and such defense isn't a priori sexist behavior itself even though the defensive behavior wouldn't have ever taken place if the employee weren't of their particular gender, which would of course make it otherwise look sexist.)

Can you quote one example?

A good friend of mine just get out of an impossible job position where she was under constant oppression of her boss and one of her subordinate (that incidentally was a friend of her boss)...

She started documenting everything so that when thing escalated she had proofs to show the big boss and guess what the big boss sided with her. But she left anyway for a better work environement.

But guess what, this story involved only women (boss, big boss, subordinate). So that's why I think that no matter which "type" of discrimination you met at your job place (sexual, racial, physical, age, etc...) the common response is "document you experience". Cause you'll need this to sound credible.

PS: For people who can read french, I'll recommend reading the "comme convenu" story of the illustrator Laurel. She had documented the bad experience her family has gone trough in the form of a web comic book. They choose to co-found a startup in California but were basically hostage of a startup CEO that hold them using financial and visa menace. (The story is not yet finished) https://commeconvenu.com

The story's description of Apple's response could be from people involved in those incidents. It sounds exactly the same.

For plenty of people, the moment they see 'sexism', 'racism', etc it's over. They are either rooting for you, or mentally preparing arguments against your case, and things you say/write becomes largely irrelevant.

That's a great idea and, if applied, is going to save a lot of time in fiction writing. For example, chapter 3 of Ulysses can now be just:

  Stephen walked on the beach, sometimes with his eyes closed, and sometimes looking at the sea.

I'm okay with description, I just find that the most effective literature tells a story that implies something rather than explicitly spelling that thing out.

"Fred was very sad his cat died because it was given to him by his father."

"Fred, upon learning of the death of his cat, a gift from his father, broke down in tears."

That's in 3rd person. Even in 1st person...

"I was very sad as this was the cat given to me by my father."

"I recalled the day my father gave me that cat and it brought tears to my eyes."

(Poor Schroedinger...)

For instance friendly teasing, sometimes even started by the person themselves (e.g. "Oh, you know us [blanks], good at [blank]") can be taken way too far. People wrongly get the sense that something is OK because the person doesn't complain or laughs along and it can escalate to the point of full on harassment and your brain still thinks "[person] is my buddy, it's OK". I think it's partially human nature and wanting to fit in. The person being teased doesn't want to come off adversarial, the person teasing thinks it's "their joke".

I realized long ago simply don't tease people at work. They are not around you by choice. Don't assume people at work are friends in the way your drinking buddies are friends. You honestly have no idea how they really feel about it until it's too late, save it for your friends who are around you by choice.

There's a lot of history among these folks, with many of them at the company 5, 10, 15 years. Firing the worst offenders never happens. But it's failing the company. New hires aren't allowed to integrate, have every idea shot down, and leave after 12-18 months of frustration.

I think it's largely generational. There are only 8-10 people younger than 35 in an engineering org that is 100-105, split along {front,back}end dev, QA, and server ops lines.

We have Nerf guns and late Friday maintenance pizza parties. Our net new rollout is horrendous. We're constantly 18 months behind targets. Customers are getting wise as features keep getting cut or shipped late, and emails keep being returned to sender because the person no longer works here.

If you look at the social and emotional things happening, maybe it starts to make some sense. Smiling says, "Hi, I recognize you and you are an acquaintance/friend."

Teasing is a way of interacting- of making bonds, of feeling people out. By teasing, you are finding out about someone: How much do they care about the subject of teasing? What kind of person are they? And you are saying, "I know you so I can playfully poke at things you care about." And maybe eventually, "I know you so well, I can poke at you in a sensitive area but not go too far. We can do that to each other because we trust each other's intent and we know how to poke in a way that doesn't go too far." Strangers don't have that kind of bond and trust.

Besides that, teasing is joking. It can be simply harmless and funny and lightens the mood or improve the morale of a group.

So, yes, there are reasons.

There's no reason for a lot of human interactions that are ultimately good for a subgroup's social bonds.

Myself and my close friends curse, insult and tease each other in a manner that we find entertaining; however if I had this same type of interaction with someone I've only known for a couple of months it would be insulting and I'd avoid that person.

The sole role of Human Resources is to protect the company from liability, either through lawsuits or labor law compliance. Occasionally managers will abdicate their duty and delegate parts of hiring authority to a section of the company with no understanding of what they do and no accountability for getting it wrong, but that's not as common as you think. Most hiring just gets rubber stamped by HR, not driven by them.

That's all. They're a cost center with no authority beyond saying "this kid is gonna cost us a lot of money if we don't get rid of them"-- either by being a harasser or by being the litigious type (to HR, they're actually the same thing).

If you're expecting them to intercede on your behalf with your manager without something being obviously out of control, ie lawsuit-worthy, you're gonna have a hard time.

- Make sure to have some real friends at work. No, someone you work with everyday is not necessarily a real friend, you have to make real connections with them, so they are willing to defend and support you when things get tough.

- Be observant and empathetic, so you can notice problems when they first arise, and resolve them before they escalate. This is hard for engineers, as we focus on computers most of the time and don't get to practice the skills of empathy a lot.

- Be strong. Sometimes escalations do happen, and now you have one or more people dislike you and try to make your life hard. You need to be emotionally strong to withstand their attacks, and keep a clear mind to figure out a way to defeat them or at least reach a ceasefire.

Sadly, politics happen all the time when inter-personal interactions happen, not necessarily the result of one shady colleague with agendas. This could happen to anyone, although sadly more often to minorities, because it's harder to hide the fact that we are outsiders.

Honestly, having a third party involved has worked well. Sometimes, misunderstandings linger and fester, and then even the most innocuous things can be construed wrongly. A third party (a good manager is ideal) saying either "you're being too sensitive" or "no, they were out of line, i'll talk to them" helps. I don't know of anybody who's refused to iron out issues, and I firmly believe most people are decent enough to help.

But at the end of the day, you don't have to like everybody you work with, as long as there's respect from both parties. That's being professional. If respect isn't there, either you or your manager is going to have to make a call sooner or later. For better or worse, this is probably going to come down to team dynamics, as teams that work well together are very valuable. This might suck, but I've never seen racism or sexism being the dominant effect in a small team (<8) of people who know each other - a lot of caveats, at least there's hope.

I guess it helps if it's "just" a job to you. Normally, I'd simply start looking for a job elsewhere, but if I was at Apple, I'd want to stay there.

> Indian women being subservient

I agree that these comments don't belong in the workplace. I have seen similar ones lead to people fired on the day and escorted to the door. Thankfully it's relatively rare but some places do take it very seriously.

Apple was wrong. In Australia the law is clear and they've breached it. Take them to court and get your payout. It's annoying that the victim has to do that but it's possible.

For other parts of the article I put myself in her shoes and didn't find management's treatment of her particularly different from how I (a male) would be treated after complaining about the actions of anyone else (male or female) in the workplace - which is why I don't. HR is ineffectual and the company is against you regardless of whomever is at fault. It just wants one or the other party gone so things can go back to normal, so if it's you versus five other people it's easier to fire and rehire one than five.

> employers also have an obligation to handle the situation with empathy and integrity

And this line stood out at me as being divorced from reality especially at a big company.

I get it that we mostly want companies to be like this but I think it's also obvious that they're not. They are primarily profit motivated and we're lucky if they don't pollute the environment or commit atrocities in the process.

You can look for smaller companies that do it, you can put it in your own company, but if you really felt Apple would be like that then it's being a little naive.

I worked at one mid-size company that was acquired by a competitor who wanted to drive in the boot heel by firing the previous management in as embarrassing a way as possible. My boss was on the chopping block and had false charges levelled at him over email and summarily fired. He took it through the Australian workplace relations system to try to get some closure, until the government advised there's no law to prevent a company making anything up and firing you for it. He could have pursued defamation but that's also extremely difficult, long, and expensive, and he didn't have the money.

It was at that point I grew up in my career and decided you really can't trust any company to look out for you. That's not how it works.

I do not disagree that this is true, but I would suggest that this also is not an acceptable status quo. Complacency doesn't help it, and the unfortunate reality is that most companies just want to get into a battle of wills with those who are targets of harassment rather than take the time to address the issue as they should be.

You are right that this seems to happen once you breach a certain threshold - I assume at that point legal gets more pre-emptive in its protection of the company and tries to divorce itself from the goings-on in Human Resource areas. Plus, as I said elsewhere in this discussion, finding and/or training managers to handle these issues in a fair way is not easy, nor is it easy to be the manager dealing with this situation.

But I don't think that complacency is the answer, and she's not wrong that in many countries, the employer does have an obligation to handle the events. Attributing the sensations to it I'm not sure I fully agree with, but many countries do require investigative procedures, which according to the article weren't really performed well by management at Apple.

The fix is probably to check glassdoor etc. as much as you can before working for a potentially unethical company. But then you'll be restricted to working for only a small handful of companies.

The other fix is to only work as a contractor, so you're isolated from the effects of being practically a serf to a company entity.

Why on earth would any company want to do that? Not doubting your story, looking for legitimate answers.

Indeed they don't, but then neither does preferential treatment due to cuteness, which I routinely observe. How society has become so fond of denying objective reality is very strange, especially when it doesn't seem to achieve much.

Is the OP in Australia?

My concern is people seem to think it only happens in previously (and still) male dominated fields. It happens everywhere.

I think the woman that voice their concerns and challenges are more abundant in the tech industry probably because the industry is more progressive and generally more educated.

Where I have seen ultra sexism has been in sales and finance. Extremely disturbing in your face sexism. Anecdotally the sexism in tech is sort of passive aggressive but the sexism in other industries is disturbingly direct (one could argue the subtle one being worse). My point is it is everywhere.

I hope the tech industry fixes it and becomes the leader.

They contracted a specialize company to investigate, collect the facts and present their conclusions. The conclusions would be sent at the same time to the alleged victim, the HR and the manager.

In this case the conclusion was that there was no harassment according to legal definition. These argumented conclusions would have been presented to a trial as reference if any party would want to contest them.

The company performing the audit is specialized in it. So they can recognize a real harassment from an abusive claim. They also have no interest in the company. It is in the interest of the company to call them to get a leverage to apply whatever measure they would find appropriate. If the victim is an employee, and he/she would consider the reaction inappropriate and abusive, he/she could complain to a tribunal.

Today, a company that is not reacting like that (diligent an investigation by an independent party) to a harassment complain would be considered a priori suspect or would be consider to have failed complying to its duty because it is their responsibility to do so.

I had friends at a company with serious security breach. There was a hullabaloo, all sort of important people in the company upset and questioning whether they should fire the head of tech. To calm the waters, the head of finance hired an outside firm to investigate. All good, right?

Here, the head of finance liked the head of tech and trusted him. The outside firm, knowing who buttered their bread, fished around for clues on how the report was supposed to land. And as expected, the report was, "some flaws, a couple of dumb mistakes, but basically sound." From the same facts, a hostile auditor could have come to the opposite conclusion, that the dumb mistakes were indicative of deep flaws and the whole company was put needlessly at risk.

Specialized audit companies have to get paid. They claim to be neutral parties, but they have an inherent conflict of interest. If you choose the right one, you can get a better result than an internal investigation. But you can also choose one that serves the interests of whoever's paying the bills.

Independent investigation is great, but you're right to observe that "outside" is not necessarily "independent". I suppose there are a few solutions to that: you could break the financial link (in the bond case, get consumers or the government to pay raters), or you could establish a culture where inaccurate results destroy reputation.

I'm sure there are auditors who do objective work for the people paying them simply because they value being known as reliable (and who are hired because the auditee wants a result people will trust). Without some precedent, we probably shouldn't assume that rosy case is happening.

When one company is making a sale to another company, not always, but sometimes, the sale is made by exploiting an inside political conflict. Sometimes the purchase is a prize in a proxy battle between two factions. Sometimes, it is to get some independence for one group from another. Sometimes, software is used to enforce the will of one group on another.

The outside firm, knowing who buttered their bread, fished around for clues on how the report was supposed to land.

The market has spoken.

Is that really true? Presumably they're being paid by the company. And, in a large enough company, these kinds of things would come up decently often. If the auditor has a few investigations in a row where they find against the company, wouldn't the company start looking for another auditor?

- does not put blame for handling it on any single person or function.

- illustrates systemic dysfunction. Normal incentives work against handling the abuse claim - HR tries to protect company, managers caught in conflict of interest

- points out the result of management not acting clearly. The person bullied feels taking on more responsibility of navigating the mess. As the person has no effective control this add more distress.

- shows the manager dilemma when supporting minority (in whatever sense) in a naive way. The person standing out stands out even more. Dammed if you do and probably dammed if you don't.

- even in an environment where the bullied person is receiving widespread support from others at times (scene at the table where other were speaking up) long running and extreme stress does damage.

- few understand that the problems often only show up months later as it is typical for PTSD

It is very difficult to say what can be done to prevent this. It is obvious that management is making the wrong decisions but why? I believe the author is on something with the conflict of interest. I would add avoidance of conflict - they are empowered to handle it but shy away. Then there is inability to handle bullies by a lot of them - trying to be even handed since this is the normal mode when one side is obviously overstepping (similar to press-Trump relationship).

What could be done by companies? Specialized people/services dealing with that sort of behavior may be one. Making sure management is well grounded in values and knows how to decide in these conflict of interest cases may help a little too.

What can one do to be prepared? Not being weak is probably the best preparation. Ability to fight and win or to pack and run is key to be able to force a resolution.

What to do when caught in it? These days I think getting external help early. Covering two sides: The psychological one (therapist with first hand experience of psychopathic people and stress management, possibly PTSD) and legal advice.

Full disclosure: Could tell a similar sad tale.

"I approached my management when the situation escalated, who directed me to HR. Instead of helping me, HR embarked on a defensive and confrontational script. I felt cornered, unsafe and unsure of what to do next."

It's HR's job to mitigate the risk to the company. They are not your friend, they are there to save the company from harm.

You can disagree but just pointing out that this not the current situation is either missing the point of the article or begging the question.

I wonder if things would have played out differently if she had immediately addressed her supervisor's unnecessary defense. While this seems like the starting point for the harassment, my guess is that it was ingrained in the team all along and would have come out at one point or another. Not that that makes it any better.

Truly horrible experience for anyone to go through and I hope she finds a better place to work in and can perhaps put this bitter experience to help others.

It's also quite hard to be public about this (I know someone who recently left Apple for similar reasons but won't discuss it publicly).

Personally, I consider that a problem, because it leaves each employee to fight their own fight. But IT folks somehow tend to believe that they don't need any help (and then subsequently sign contracts with unlimited unpaid overtime because they don't know it's illegal).

If a contract has an illegal non-compete, it's easy for an employee to sign and then ignore it. After all, the employer would have to find the violation, sue them, and risk summary dismissal. The employee wins just by having everyone give up.

If a contract features unpaid overtime, though, the employee is working time and not getting paid. They can refuse the work, get fired, and then sue, or they can do the work and then sue for nonpayment. In either case, they need to win to come out ahead, which is a lengthy and uncertain process.

Ignoring unenforceable provisions is only easy for someone who doesn't need a court decision to get a good outcome.

The parent was talking about Germany in particular.

Employee protection is fairly strong, so an employer will think twice before firing someone over non-compliance with an illegal contract, as they will get their ass handed to them in court.

In California, all managers are required by law to take three hours of sexual harassment training every other year. One thing that stood out to me is that there is no need to make a formal harassment claim: when anyone mentions they have experienced harassment to a manager, even in a private conversation, the manager is required to report it and investigate. If the employee says they want to keep the conversation in confidence, the manager is supposed to say they can't do that. If a manager doesn't follow up, they can be personally liable.

Several companies I've been at also have a mandatory "managers and the law" training class. I didn't talk to anyone for several days after taking it. :)

IANAL, but my understanding is that one job of HR is to protect the company. One reason they investigate is to produce evidence that could be used in the event of a lawsuit to prove they took the allegation seriously. Trying to argue with the employee that it didn't happen would put them in a really bad position if they were sued, because it could be used to demonstrate a hostile work environment.

I've seen complaints happen a few times in my career (not involving me directly), and, in those cases, HR took it gravely seriously. They talked to everyone involved and documented the crap out of it. Most of the people I've met in HR seem to genuinely care. I disagree with advice that HR should not be trusted, but my advice for someone who is in a situation where they are uncomfortable is to document everything. Keep emails of all interactions with your manager and HR and send follow up email to summarize conversations you had in person.

I agree that when events occur, people should make their own records.

My comment on HR people caring was a more general statement on my interactions with HR in a variety of situations. As a manager, I often see both sides of HR/employee interactions.

What I do next is that I make sure I communicate clearly those two points to whoever I think should get me what I want. For example, in that case, I would go see my manager and say: "Jack told me this and that and I consider this is inappropriate. I never want to be told that again in this company. If it happens again, I quit. Have you understood? (wait for his answer) What will you do to make sure it doesn't happen anymore?" (it is important to ask if he has understood, it forces him to go right in the middle of the circle you just draw on the floor, that put him in your territory, right under your guns).

Sometimes, you will have to apply 2). For example in this case, your manager would have to tell you something substantial about what he gonna do to stop that. If what he tells you is not substantial, tell him you are not satisfied and ask him again the same question: "what can you do to make sure it will stop?". Don't quit on that. Keep asking. Only apply 2) if he don't answer anymore. It's typically a situation where "you don't leave the shop until...". If your manager tells you to go see the HR department, tell him clearly again 2): "if I don't get what I want I will leave. Do you still want me to go see the HR department? Are you sure?". Apply pressure, at every step.

Do not have a discussion. Don't discuss the problem with your manager. Don't talk. Ask your question and wait for an answer. If he want to discuss, make him understand you won't.

It's crucial to apply 2) right away when you don't get what you want. I've found it's rarely the occasion to make a deal and make a compromise not so much because the deal is bad but because by doing so, they will start kidding you again.

I'm super happy so far with the result of this method. I get fantastic results from my family, employers, friends, from everybody. At first, you will feel like a freak. Then you will notice the others won't think so much that you are a freak but will think you are a strong person they should not kid with. You end up being respected.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/park-ser...

  Do not fear mistakes.
  Fear instead those who hide them.
  They will consume you.

In my experience in the tech industry, these sorts of victim-blaming people are very vocal but also are a minority, and I am embarrassed that this comment section is full of them.

It's a common pattern that shallow, knee-jerk reactions show up first (because some people's reflexive defenses get triggered quickly) while thoughtful, meaningful responses take longer to appear—for one thing because they simply take longer to write. This sometimes leads to a perception gap about the community. The majority of users here, probably the vast majority, are fair and considerate. But it takes a while for that to reveal itself—longer, unfortunately, than the time it takes the rapid internet readership to move on. Not sure what we can do about this.

This comment rang some bells for me. Have a friend from the Netherlands who was in undergrad with me, and one day in confidence he told me one of the things he didn't understand most in America is how someone can harbor, and actively maintain, such a passionate hatred for someone they aren't intimately involved with.

While this hatred is most definitely present in other first world nations, I can't avoid the fact that he is correct and far more pervasive in America. It doesn't make much sense to me.

Most countries are still relatively homogenous. Any country where you see some mixing, you'll see the same hate. The Middle East is too easy of an example. Germany, France, etc have a lot of overt hate. The hate in Ireland between the Protestants and the Catholics was very real and they're the same race and culture.

Despite this naivete though, I would be wary of circumstance before making the declaration "mixing of any kind = hate"

In American English, pauses are almost always mechanically/syntactically determined and carry no meaning, but increasing the volume for a given word shows emphasis. This EASILY leads to extreme and sudden misunderstandings in both directions, as each side sees very obvious sarcasm and emphasis where none was intended. They're both sure they're right and that they are speaking the same language, but outside of print, these are two separate languages.

Since it's more recent, the Northern Indian English vocabulary has a cleaner logic, so personally if I had to chose just one, I'd go with that, but that's neither here nor there.

Long years ago, I attended a lecture by, I believe, the first scholar to experimentally demonstrate this and publish it; and the recorded examples of ordinary real-life interactions (not staged) taking place in British businesses that he used to illustrate the lecture were extremely striking; in fact very explosive.

In case this seems like something anyone would notice - in fact it's beneath notice. Similarly, the semantic use of tones in Chinese was denied by scholars there for something like hundreds of years, before finally being acknowledged. Language is handled unconsciously for the most part.

Will I judge that Apple has a culture of Harassment and Tech Industry has a culture of harassment from this medium article? Definitely No. I would be foolish to judge so from hearing the arguments from a single party.

I like that she points out the conflicts of interest, wherein the legal structures in which companies are embedded so clearly work against a good solution to the problem.

However I think when she says:

"corrective actions for any violations have to be significant enough to be a deterrent to such behaviors in the future. There also needs to be some accountability for these actions"

She is taking on the same position as these legal structures - I.e. that retribution or punishment is an important part of the equation, and I think this is counter to the rest of her argument.

Men raised in a sexist society can't be individually held responsible for acting in the way they have seen people acting around them as though these are intentional crimes against women.

Massive career damage needs to be taken off the table as the first consequence for all sides of this.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be a great deal of accountability - but it needs to be something closer to restorative justice - where those involved can understand each other rather than remain embattled.

Unless there is someone at the top that takes these matter seriously on a personal level and has communicated it to his subordinates, senior management in general only pays lip service to taking such matters seriously. These are complex matters and every one wants to get on with their work, rather than deal with the problem.

Tim Cook, I would expect, would have sent the message about taking such matters seriously. It seems like someone between him and the victim decided to add his "personal expertise" to this case and mishandled it completely.

For better or worse, HR is there to protect the company, not the employee. This is why many times they report in through legal. It's not fair, but it's the way companies work.

For example:

"One day, one of my supervisors jumped to my defense at a team event, in an awkward display of sexism."

I'm sure there's a way that a supervisor jumping to your defense could be sexist, but this isn't showing that, at all.

"At a lunch with several other coworkers, one of these men ordered me to summon the waiter and pay the bill, in the tone of a command to someone inferior and subservient."

Certainly odd behavior, but I'm not sure I would call it sexist. Arrogant for sure, but surely there's more context?

To be clear, I'm not saying she's wrong, just that this story isn't helping me understand what she went through, or that it was particularly sexist, versus just hostile.

It's not curious at all. She's being careful not to identify specific individuals.

For example, the supervisor jumping to her defense. What did he say, exactly? Or failing that, what was the situation, how did he defend her? All we get is that he defended her, and she interpreted it as being sexist...sometime later.

It's pointless to make a pretence of scrutinising the article when it's obviously impossible for her to prove beyond all doubt that her recollection of events is accurate. Just believe it or don't. Don't go asking "where's the proof??", as if you are expecting her to have videotape evidence for all of this.

But, there's several stories in there where a direct quote of what was said to her would be more enlightening than her interpretation as to the motive behind what was said. Or failing a direct quote...how about just the basis of his "defense" of her. Did he call out the high quality of her work (seems fine), or did he say to lay off because she was fragile (seems not fine), or what?

Her supervisor is a real person too, and I don't see why it's okay to post a public accusation without some detail other than just interpretation...what you think his intention was.

Edit: You keep saying I don't believe her. Didn't say that. It is, however, a post of public accusations, almost all based on something that was said....without a single direct quote of what was said, or even enough detail to understand why she interpreted them the way she did. That's odd to me, whether I believe her or not.

There's a big difference between "excruciating detail" and "almost no detail, and not a single direct quote".

That sounds like you're saying the supervisor didn't do anything wrong, but rather that your coworkers took a reasonable gesture the wrong way? If so, that doesn't really jive with "One day, one of my supervisors jumped to my defense at a team event, in an awkward display of sexism"

I'm really not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand. Is it that the "jumped to defense" thing was clearly sexist? Not asking for a direct quote, but what was the basis of the defense...something gender related, or the high quality of your work, or something else?

But the way you talk about him totally is. You shouldn't defend people who give you undeserved favors at the cost of others, if this is what he did. And you absolutely shouldn't be surprised by the consequences, if you do.

Your coworkers may have felt equally threatened by this supervisor as you did by them. Associating yourself with people like him will do you no good.

> I feel like you are totally missing why I wrote this piece by focusing on one sentence.

No doubt. People have their own agendas to play, not everybody will support yours.

that's called "blaming the victim". how do you not "associate" yourself with your own supervisor ??

And maybe my yesterday post was too harsh. I take your word that you don't want favors. But be careful with how you present this guy - I doubt that he was exactly awkward, sexist, equal and fair all at the same time :) And you wouldn't want to give appearance of rationalizing somebody who actually happens to be unfair to others, that's what I wanted to say.

Personally, I don't just take someone at their word. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, in this case you seem reluctant to give any evidence. Can't you see how that might make some people a little suspicious, especially if they've observed this sort of thing before?

Providing detail would actually advance the cause of fighting harassment. It would better help everyone identify its specific forms even at companies that have diversity programs in place. In light of that, absence of detail should absolutely warrant inquiry.

I disagree, and that's not what I intended with my use of the word "just". It seemed to me like the poster was saying "look, no sexism here in this sub-incident" and I meant that your post wasn't just about sexism, it was about harassment.

> One day, one of my supervisors jumped to my defense at a team event, in an awkward display of sexism.

He was treating you with respect and you think it was sexist? As a male manager of female employees, what am I even supposed to do?

Extracting information from self-contradictory accounts is a bit of a black art, but this being said my guess is that he actually did something to deserve these labels just the OP isn't comfortable discussing it in detail. So calm down :)

I have to say, if the OP is comfortable in making these very grave accusations but not comfortable enough to explain what happened but just to give her assessment of the situation; it doesn't do her credibility any good.

There are a number of red flags noted throughout the comments, and much of this criticism has been met with "omg so horrible you have to believe the victim". This is a very worrying trend that will only lead to polarizing individuals into either of the hate camps; where those that rush to sympathize will create fertile grounds for false accusations and those who feel are being deceived are going to be desbelieving of actual victims.

It seems to me that the OP deliberately avoids naming concrete people and publishing whatever paper trail she has. Which is probably a good thing, after some known cases of one-sided accounts published completely with details and real names resulting in lynch mobs against the accused and sometimes also against the victim. Discussion forums are not a court, which is where you submit this kind of papers to "prove" things to one another in slightly more civilized and controlled conditions.

If you read the previous comments, she brought it up as proof that her statements were sincere.

And this is very much the "court of public opinion", which is why the author wrote this post and chose to publish it here. People will make their own judgment with direct consequences. For an accusation of this level when the story has many holes and all we have is one side, some proof is needed. If anyone's reputation can be trashed forever with an improbable accusation, any civility you speak of is doomed.

I see nothing odd in her leaving out direct quotations. She's telling us about a problem. She's not submitting evidence to a tribunal. However much detail she gives, you'll just say that it's not enough according to some arbitrary standard.

"One day, foldr jumped to my defense at a team event, in an awkward display of sexism."

You don't feel like there should have been a quote of what you said? Or lacking that, a little more detail as to why jumping to her defense was sexist? Like, that you defended her by saying the team should lay off because she's female? What if you defended her by calling out her high quality work? Is jumping to someone's defense somehow automatically an awful thing to do?

Edit: For what it's worth, I do believe that she was treated in a sexist way by some people there. I think, however, she may be projecting that onto other people that did not. I might feel differently if there were enough detail.

The background assumptions behind this sort of comment strike me as weird. It's as if you think that women themselves aren't able to tell whether or not they're being harassed, and this can only be determined by an online panel of (mostly) male nerds who have no direct knowledge of the relevant events. I.e., please tell us more details so we can figure out for you if you're actually being harassed or if you're just a crazy female.

It is the difference, though, between accepting a conclusion, and seeing the path that led there.

"This guy is incompetent because he writes insecure code"

vs

"He often wrote code that would allow untrusted input, of undetermined size, into a fixed size buffer. This behavior caused me to question his competence."

vs

"<the actual code, dumped here>. He was constantly checking in code like this, or worse. I question his competence."

The first requires you take the author's conclusion at face value. The second and/or third give you a better idea of why they got there, which makes it more credible.

And, while no names were named, there's enough contextual clues that I'm sure many at Apple know who's being talked about. So, it's less about "you're a crazy female" and more about "lots of people are being called sexist here (one supervisor, several coworkers), would be more comfortable with that if there were more detail".

I think she made a convincing case, but maybe you dont think so. But adding a direct quote would hardly do much.

I personally wonder if using a voice recorder would be appropriate in these cases. It's legally complex, because I dont think you can always legally record someone without their permission. But just having that kind of evidence, to play back to HR, to an attorney, a court, or even youtube, could be quite powerful.

Feeling she was discriminated against but not knowing why and therefore speculating would be another possible explanation, I'm sure there are others.

This isn't about sexism, racism, etc. This is about a ringleader selecting a victim to prey upon for the sole purpose of causing pain.

If she'd gone to HR with recordings and they brushed aside her concerns then she'd have a much stronger case.

Well as she said, a distressed mind doesn't think properly.

For the sake of argument, assuming that this took place in California, that's a "two-party" consent state for recordings, which at least means you don't have a unilateral right to record anything you want. Exactly how that would interact with taking place on corporate property in a corporate setting is something you'd have to ask a lawyer about.

It takes an absolutely insane amount of energy to fight a huge company like this and even if you do everything right the chances are pretty good they'll wear you out first.

Best of luck with your recovery! It's been a really tough few years for me and I can't think of much to say except that I empathize with you and perhaps recommend this book [1] which looking back lists a lot of things that helped me get over it.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/18693771-the-body-keeps-...

If you find a way to keep feeling safe, like I imagine having a good pro-bono legal advisor could have done for me, then by all means go ahead. If not, then there's also no shame in just moving on.

I thought the same; but like you was mistaken in that. Looking back I've come to realize that, even though it shouldn't be, as soon as you get HR involved it's become a legal issue.

But yeah; my point was that if solid legal backing could prevent you from developing the anxiety and depression, like I think it would have for me, then it could be worth going through with it...

What do you suppose she do in this case apart from recording the meeting?

The only thing I miss from the article: did she try to talk to her harassers directly before going to a manager? Maybe I misread something but it seems like this did not happen, yet this should always be the first step.

My additional notes:

    > Instead of helping me, HR embarked on a defensive and confrontational script.

    > It is not reasonable to expect the victim to have the presence of mind to know how to tackle this problem.

    > Until the investigation was completed, even my honesty was at stake.

    > harassment is one of the most brutal experiences women encounter in the workplace [...] Companies need to do far more than what they are doing right now to prevent women from eventually quitting. [...] The company needs to support and empower women to take a stand in these situations. [...] This includes considering women in these situations as people, rather than as pawns in the greater agenda of protecting the company’s legal liabilities.

Harassment get target _anyone_, it comes in all flavours. Please don't make harassment part of the gender wars. You can get harassed for having a foreign accent in the UK. ( In a country where English pronunciation differs from village to village. )

> did she try to talk to her harassers directly before going to a manager?

There are a huge number of reasons why you should not be expected to do this. The harasser can be in a position of authority, for example. Even separately to that (and i understand this is a reducio argument, but..) would you ask an abuse victim to speak to their abuser? No, they go straight to the police.

> HR is not your friend; it's one of the stakeholders' defense lines.

This is a problem that needs fixing, rather than a status quo that needs defending.

> When you have weeks, months, in some cases, I think it is all right to expect decisions from anyone.

I report an assault. Do I suggest to the police how they should investigate and prosecute this assault? No. The victim reports the behaviour, but other parties should determine how to investigate and proceed with that report.

> This is embarrassing - but there are people out there who lie. Especially these days, with the problems of fake news, it's easy to get suspicious.

Sometimes, yes, people do lie, but each complaint of any nature should be treated confidentially so reports of abuses like this can be made without fear of repercussion.

In the (very unlikely) event of the victim being untruthful, the matter should be dropped, not blow back on the reporter -- or nobody will report real problems for fear of being unfairly punished themselves.

> s/women/people

This didn't need to be said. The author is talking about her experiences of harassment as a woman in technology. Yes, there are other problems that also need solving. This isn't the hill on which to make this point.

When you get attacked in the street, talking is the first thing you should do. When you are harassed by a teacher in class as well. You always need to talk to the person attacking you unless it's too dangerous to do so. It may fail, but if you don't do it, you basically give up your ability to act.

> This didn't need to be said

This does need to be said. There is a high focus on making everything about gender these days, and it's very detrimental. It makes people focusing on specifics, instead of global issues. Worst, it usually focus on fighting against something instead of empowering the victims, which needs to be done for long term results.

> each complaint of any nature should be treated confidentially so reports of abuses like this can be made without fear of repercussion.

That's actually very hard to do, but it's true it would be the ideal call.

What? Apparently, being untruthful about reporting harassment could result in the untruthful reporter being _unfairly_ punished?

Sounds like an all-win situation. Report harassment, true or not. If it helps your lot in life/work, great. If not, even if proven false, it gets dropped, non-consequentially. After all, it would be unfair to punish you...

This is not a problem that can realistically be fixed. An organization that's going to work for the best interests of employees cannot be paid by the company, nor can it report to the company or someone with whom the company has significant influence. That means unions.

I did learn the hard way how to deal with it, which I think is mostly about attitude. I think part of your ordeal was that you had certain expectations from the people around you, and a lot of the grief was having those broken. So first of all, I guess you get a little more realistic (or disillusioned...) about workplace relationships, leadership and company policies. Sad as it may sound, loss of innocence and thicker skin will help the next time.

Second thing is to nip things in the bud and not let anything fester. At this point I will straight up confront anyone if I feel treated unfairly and not let it rest. More often than not this solves the situation. If not, I will move on. Life is too short to stick around and being miserable somewhere, as long as you have the freedom not to.

It sounds from your writing like you've already learned these lessons, but I just wanted to share my experiences.

I would guess a double digit percentage of jobs globally are abusive. A big chunk of which wouldn't even qualify as consensual employment - either through unpaid slave labor or misleading information about wages and work conditions.

There needs to be more transparency about employment and the people involved in them. I think we will eventually see something like LinkedIn but which provides both positive and negative feedback about people and doesn't require a user to sign up for a profile to exist.

There is a hard question as to where to draw the dividing line. Without robots, some jobs are just abusive - period. Many jobs lower the life expectancy of the workers, and I suppose the alternative would be (without robots) that no one does them. In the West we kind of get to firewall ourselves off from this, and we get to use, sell, or consume the product after all of the dirty work is done. At the minimum, reducing non-consensual employment will help push the true economic costs of produced goods closer to reality and eliminate the market forces which benefit non-consensual labor (basically cheating.)

In terms of adversarial work environments, which if not addressed can easily become mutually abusive, no matter what the policies of a company are, the fired workers are going to end up working somewhere else. A big company like Apple may be capable of implementing ideal processes and eliminate those workers, but what happens at the next company they show up in? Should an employment blacklist exist at the federal level, or should employers only allow known abusive employees just to work in isolation?

BTW, good article, kudos for publishing it, and you are correct to have those feelings.

I understand where you're coming from. But... there should be no need for one adult to educate another that bad behavior is unacceptable.

Hi! I know you enjoy punching me from behind when I'm doing my work, but could you please stop?

The larger issue is that (like most companies) actually doing anything is secondary to management politics. Protecting the bureaucracy is the #1 goal.

There are huge public awareness campaigns around all of these issues.

Everything I see in the media is that there are not only huge awareness campaigns, but that when something does happen, there are also huge outcries about it.

I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, as sexism is undoubtedly a real issue in our society and our industry, but every other comment I read of yours makes it ever closer to a textbook case of a baseless accusation made to get back at someone you didn't like, and I'm ready to be conclusive about this. Do you realize how much this impacts all future cries for help from women being grossly mistreated because of their gender? My SO is going into engineering and it boils my blood to think how much people are willing to abuse the system until she can no longer be protected by it and we're back to the 1950's.

In a perfect world, where each and every one of us is aware of each and every culture around the world, this is true. Right now, we are in the middle of a process, where we encounter with culture we never dealt with before.

In some societies the boundaries for certain acts - such as personal space, physical contact, etc - is completely different to others.

Therefore I do believe talking could solve a small percentage of situations, which one considers harassment. ( Not the one in the article. )

The fact that you led with "No actually" instead, and ended by imputing a strawman ("everyone needs to automatically assume") gives your comment an absence-of-good-faith quality that we should all be striving to avoid on HN—particularly when the topic is divisive.

I tried to make sure I wasn't attacking anyone, but rather the ideas presented. I'll keep your guidance in mind if I find myself making such comments again.