"It's not as if we murdered babies in their cots" - Oxfam

What's wrong with guys paying for prostitutes I thought that's what guys did?

Because it's a disgusting abuse of power at the best of times. And more so when the women and children being prostituted are a) traumatised and destitute because theyve just survived a major disaster and b) dependent on those prostituting them for the well-being and perhaps continued survival of their families.

SeniorRita Thats not made up, and its not just a hypothetical; its an example of the behaviour thats been reported. The girls were 13.

What's wrong with guys paying for prostitutes I thought that's what guys did?
When men assume that all women and children are potential prostitutes, and pass laws legalizing prostitution, then all sexual intercourse is assumed to be consensual. Conflict is dismissed as a hesaid/shesaid impossible to adjudicate so no charges filed.
Proponents even have a name for it. "Survival sex."

SeniorRita I think that to think sex wasn't traded for aid is naive.

I didn't make any comment either way.

If an aid worker turns up with supplies and then says he'd like to have sex with the teenage girl he's talking to she is unlikely to see this as optional.
He might believe that he has not raped her, but he has.

Have you seen evidence of this then, or are you just making up stories?

SeniorRita I think that to think sex wasn't traded for aid is naive.
Even if it isn't explicitly stated, there is no consensual relationship between s rich man giving food and shelter and the young women and girls from recipient families.
If an aid worker turns up with supplies and then says he'd like to have sex with the teenage girl he's talking to she is unlikely to see this as optional.
He might believe that he has not raped her, but he has.

Superhamster, what's the point of posting if you know sweet FA about what's under discussion?

SeniorRita, thanks for the clarification.

What's wrong with guys paying for prostitutes I thought that's what guys did?

What's wrong with it?

There is a power imbalance between the rich, white Oxfam dudes and the women and children living in disaster areas - women and children who are poor, desperate, and have possibly lost everything.

Oxfam were supposed to be there to help them - not to make them earn money, food, nappies, baby milk by fucking them.

What's wrong with guys paying for prostitutes I thought that's what guys did?

I don't think ALL guys do. There are certainly issues, as outlined above, where people are sent somewhere to assist in a disaster to provide aid, when they then use their power to procure services.

There are a lot of potential issues in this case. If, as has been suggested, prostitution is illegal in Haiti, then that's one thing and the easiest one to address.
If, as has also been suggested, some of the sex workers were not adults, that is also straightforward to deal with.
If both those above are true then it's bewildering why the employer did not inform the police, let alone cover up an internal investigation.

If it is not illegal and all the people involved were adults, it's harder for the employer to address. But there is more going on around it - was aid being withheld? Were other staff threatened (to ensure their involvement and to prevent them giving evidence)? Seems there was also an issue of porn on employer PCs - probably policies against that. And that sex took place on the employer premises.

The CEO and Chair are at the International Development Agency today to answer questions. Interestingly, the CEO (subject of this thread and non-murderer of babies, by his own statement) is being investigated internally for his handling of another issue.

superhamster They weren't prostitutes. They were women and underage children.

I haven't been following the Oxfam scandal. What's wrong with guys paying for prostitutes I thought that's what guys did?

@Riverside2

so there's no law about how long to keep disciplinary notes?

interesting

No, quite the opposite, you are not allowed to keep data unless it is current and relevant. (Data Protection Act)

Most disciplinary sanctions (except dismissal, obviously) only last a year (depends on policy, but using the ACAS Code) and after that they must be disregarded, the best way to disregard them is to destroy them. I am only aware of one piece of case law where old disciplinary information was taken into account and used to partly justify dismissal and was upheld in tribunal. It was a very unusual case and, while the judges decided it was acceptable, they were also very clear it cannot be translated to other situations.

There are other exceptions but all are very specific.

The report reads like a summary rather than a full investigation. There is no real analysis of the circumstances, and it does not deal with the culture within the organisation in Haiti that allowed such behaviour to go unchecked.

I’ve cancelled my DD to Oxfam and will be setting one up for our local food bank and increasing my existing one to Women’s Aid.

SeniorRita, so there's no law about how long to keep disciplinary notes?

interesting.

Discipline stuff.

@SeniorRita - thank you for explaining that.

When you say "disc stuff" what is that please?

sorry if it's been said already but the other thing is the guy's choice of words. I get that he might have been up for 72 hours talking to the press and just lost it but even so.....! I'm picturing an Eli Gold figure in the background, ripping out all their hair....!

But what I don't understand is why? As I said in my post, if it's in the HR records that Jim admitted harassment or whatever, he knows it's on his record, why is it a problem to pass on that information? What grounds would the employee have to sue?

Because 'harassment' is a criminal offence and unless admitted in court, admitting it means nothing and they could claim all sorts of reasons they 'admitted' it. And internal disciplinary procedures are all different and the burden of proof is not the same as that in criminal court, and it's not 'fact' - it's a decision someone made on some facts that are not put before the person who is reading the reference.

The employer could say "left after a process during which he said " (back in the day when we used to do fuller references I always told my teams to only use words that had been used in the dismissal letter, so nothing the employee had not already seen) - but most employers just don't. It is a resourcing issue as much as anything. It's far easier to keep a very short list of data about an individual and do references on the dates of employment only. That way, it takes about 2 minutes. Looking through someone's file to find all the documents about a disciplinary issue takes a lot longer.

As it is, I destroy all disc stuff when someone leaves.

I expect this person went under an agreement anyway and within that it would have an 'agreed' reference which would be the minimum.

Well he's a good, well meaning pillar of society isn't he?
Jesus wept.

Charitable support will go through the floor, or rather it would if the masses would actually read it and would care rather than just shrugging their shoulders.

I don't think they put time off sick in references either for disabiltiy discrimination reasons.

This isn't my expert field or anything, just what I've seen.

Yeah, no idea either.

certainly in my industry it's normal just to say employment dates and job title, has been for years. Essentially confirming that yes they were employed there and aren't making it up, the dates are right and they aren't lying about their job and that's that.

@UpABitLate

I have always been told that companies are worried about being sued. But what I don't understand is why? As I said in my post, if it's in the HR records that Jim admitted harassment or whatever, he knows it's on his record, why is it a problem to pass on that information? What grounds would the employee have to sue?

One thing I've talked about with my boss is the use of language around these things. She is on grievance panels and so on and has agreed with me that the language is bizarre - like saying "it's difficult to get rid of this person" when legally the path is actually quite clear and what they mean is, the people employed to do the tough stuff don't want to do it.

Also I really wonder how much of it is old boys' network - let's just cover up everything because one day it might be a mate who needs a cover up.

If the facts of my dates of employment and things like dates of being off sick etc are considered fine as a reference, then surely if I harassed or bullied someone or generally behaved unprofessionally, and that fact is in my HR file by mutual agreement, there's no legal prevent passing it on?

actually this is turning into a workplace rant now so I'll stop there, but with aid workers who are working with particularly vulnerable people, you'd think there'd be extra safeguards in place.

Surely an employer can state facts about a former member of staff? So if, for example, the staff member admitted harassment, and it's on the record, why can't it be stated on a reference?

In teaching, anything that's recorded on a Personnel file can be included in references - which means formal warnings, and other recorded disciplinary action can be shared with other schools.

The agency have said it would have been a hint to others if they only gave basic info

yes I think this is what happened in this case - one of the perpetrators, the Roland guy with the Dutch surname asked Oxfam for a reference for a job with a French charity. Oxfam supplied the "we can confirm X was employed between X and Y date" and expected the French HR people to read between the lines or pick up the phone and call - obviously that didn't happen.

Men who are sent to provide aid to disaster regions should be explicitely barred from having any kind of sexual interactions with the "locals" due to massive power imbalances, and the risk of harm which in these situations is high.

In other situations (don't know about this one) there have been children involved, adults and children raped, people including children told they can have their aid in exchange for sex acts.

In order to avoid abuse, and quite frankly to avoid the aid workers looking like seedy bastards, there needs to be a ban on it full stop. I can't see why this wouldn't already be in place.

Note - not my area and not sure who or how they are scared of being sued or whatever but I know that references are very basic hardly any info and have been for years, at least in my industry.