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

References - companies are worried about ex employees sueing if there is a "bad reference".

Most companies will only give very plain facts for this reason

• Dates worked to and from
• Job title
• Not much else? Time off sick could go against disability rules

So this is normal. The agency have said it would have been a hint to others if they only gave basic info - this is not really true as it's quite standard in many industries I don't think charity sector would be different.

I beleve that prostituion is illegal in Haiti.

Not read all posts but wanted to put that while it was in my mind.

SeniorRita - I've even been employed in one place that felt the need to say we weren't allowed on the roof in any circumstances. No one actually knew how to get there, but anyway...

something else I'm not clear on - re references and so on. I've often been puzzled by this "employers can't give you a bad reference" that seems to be commonly referenced.

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?

but I'm still recovering from the idea that it's become necessary to say it. - yes, quite!

And I have seen a LOT of employee handbooks, some full of all sorts of rubbish.

frankly speaking my opinion of men is pretty much unpublishable right now. - same :(

There definitely needs to be an international "blacklist" of people who should never be employed in disaster zones.

I don't think any UK based charities would have an issue with sharing information with each other, assuming there were checks and balances to stop people being put on the blacklist for no reasons. However, in order to make it effective you would need EVERY country to get behind it and guarantee that they would allow their citizens to be included on a register. That's not a quick and easy thing to do.

SenioRita "I am really surprised an employee handbook mentioned it, it shows they knew there was an issue which is very worrying."

that's my point. I totally understand what you are saying that it could be none of the company's business if someone uses prostitutes - but that's partly why it's so odd that it's in the manual at all. They knew what was going on and I would be interested to know what other aid agencies say, if anything, in their official paperwork.

I would expect someone to be dismissed for using a prostitute as payment for giving "aid" for sure. But in general, I think that if your job is to give aid, you need to follow a certain code while working in that place, and I'd like to see part of that code as "don't use prostitutes".

but I'm still recovering from the idea that it's become necessary to say it.

Honestly I know someone will always come out with NAMALT but frankly speaking my opinion of men is pretty much unpublishable right now. Even my dad is freaking out and wondering if most men are like this!

Reports on world vision in Haiti are that they were selling aid and we're taking money or sex. Can't find the article now though.

Sadly, it's not just overseas aid agencies that have these blind spots when it comes to sexual impropriety with client groups. There's at least one sexual abuse survivors charity in the UK that has had to recently change it's rules to say that the workers were no longer allowed to have sexual relationships with the clients.

I know from far too many women in third sector fields the levels of misogyny they are expected to suck up everyday. Sadly, very little surprises me any more.

You can only bring your employer into disrepute if the information becomes public, which visiting a prostitute generally would not.

Is it not more to do with the fact that women prostituting themselves for money are likely to be precisely the vulnerable people the charity are supposed to be helping

Potentially, but that's a different issue than 'using prostitutes'.

And that making women trade aid for sex gives the aid worker an 'out' as they can just claim it's a separate transaction

'Trade aid for sex'? You mean, tell the sex worker that if they 'do' them, they'll get the aid? Again, yes, but it' a different issue. I hadn't heard that they had done that, it's appalling and, of course, a total breach of trust and confidence for the employer which is dismissable.

Employment laws are different in different countries though, as are the laws around prostitution and age of consent etc.

If using prostitutes is not illegal (as it is not in the UK, nor in many countries) then why is it an employer's business if an employee does that at all?

While, in theory, I agree that it's not an employers business what their staff get up to in their own time, it becomes far more of a grey area when the employee is sponsored by, and living at the expense of, their employer in a foreign country.

Aid/humanitarian workers are "invited guests", representing the charities they work for, in the countries where they are deployed.

And just like invited guests in other people's homes, there is a level of courtesy and general good manners which it is not unreasonable to expect.

Is it not more to do with the fact that women prostituting themselves for money are likely to be precisely the vulnerable people the charity are supposed to be helping

And that making women trade aid for sex gives the aid worker an 'out' as they can just claim it's a separate transaction

Isn't it about bringing your employer into disrepute? Lots of jobs have those sorts of expectations, such as teachers, police and so on.

on Question Time, a section of their manual was read out. it was written in 2006. i don't have a verbatim quote but it said something about the use of prostitutes being discouraged.

If the actual manual for staff behaviour said that, there's no hope.

Essentially I'd think of that two ways - one, I'm surprised it mentions it all because I'd assume it was gross misconduct of the type that doesn't need to be listed.

If using prostitutes is not illegal (as it is not in the UK, nor in many countries) then why is it an employer's business if an employee does that at all? I would have no idea if any of my co-workers used prostitutes but if they did I would not expect them to be dismissed for it.

If it's illegal where they are then yes, that's a potentially dismissable action, depending on the contract terms.

The Oxfam issue seems to be a lot deeper though, there were underage 'prostitutes' (they're not really prostitutes if they are underage are they, just kids, being sold), porn on computers, sex on the Oxfam premises, threats to co worker witnesses and a massive cover-up. That is the issue.

Now, don't start suggesting I agree with prostitution, I don't but it is not illegal and, as such, nothing to do with your employer. I am really surprised an employee handbook mentioned it, it shows they knew there was an issue which is very worrying.

Gets worse - turns out three of them were also found to have intimidated witnesses. Yet they were still allowed to resign and have their names redacted from the report.

I also agree he should resign immediately after that comment.

apparently, on Question Time, a section of their manual was read out. it was written in 2006. i don't have a verbatim quote but it said something about the use of prostitutes being discouraged.

If the actual manual for staff behaviour said that, there's no hope.

Essentially I'd think of that two ways - one, I'm surprised it mentions it all because I'd assume it was gross misconduct of the type that doesn't need to be listed.

or I'd expect it to say that anyone found to be using a prostitute would be sacked and reported according to whatever jurisdiction they are in.

so that wording is quite something.

I think they don't really think about where the money has come from, they feel they are put there to do a job and apart from that they can do what they like.

Predators o where the prey is. That is why they are found signing up as volunteers. They need to be screened but rarely are. That is why the pedophiles offends 200 times before they are caught.

This behaviour is endemic in charity workers. Humanitarianism and aid are built on colonialism and so we have a lads club of men who go abroad magnanimously saving people and reaping their rewards.
I have heard of this with other charities before this scandal broke.

Just saw this on twitter and it felt relevant

Haven't RTFT, but I was a bit uncomfortable about Oxfam a long time ago, when I heard one of the employees from very high echelons (who I knew informally) say of course she always flew first class, if she flew economy with the amount of flying she had to do, she would have died 🙄

"We never murdered babies in their cots".

Jimmy Savile and Rolf Harris didn't murder any babies in their cots either. In fact, like Oxfam they both raised £££millions for charities, and they both brought joy to many unsuspecting fans for 40 years of public life too.

But Mark Goldring needs to realise, making many positive contributions in your public life does not entitle you to a free reserve of depravity to even out the scale. Prick.

That article was co-authored by Pauline Oosterhoff.

It is perhaps little wonder the CEO of Oxfam thinks aid workers using prostitutes is not as bad as murdering babies in their cots if some one with her credentials seems to agree accessing prostitutes is just part of the package.

www.ids.ac.uk/person/pauline-oosterhoff

That article is disgusting. Sex is not a human right.

No aid workers should be exploiting locals. Just unbelievable (but at the same time very believable) #peakmen