To be extremely disappointed in my colleague?

[TheAggrievedBoss]

NC, as this may be outing if someone recognises the basic facts.

Recently, a bunch of managers were fired from my workplace. It caused quite a stir as the people affected were quite prominent within the firm. And obviously, questions were asked.

Due to circumstances I won't go into, I happen to be privy to the events that led to the firing. In a nutshell, they involved an alcohol soaked occasion involving possible graduate hires - in other words: university students - some reckless and dangerous behaviour and, worst of all, allegedly grown-arse married managers deliberately making student girls pliable with alcohol in order to have sex with them. In other words: rape in my opinion. In other words yet: these men getting the sack was more than deserved and probably a lot less than what they actually would have deserved.

So, the other day one of the men working for me asked me about the background of the firings - and since I'm not explicitly forbidden from disclosing what happened and happen to think it's a good idea for my employees to give some thought to why behaviour matters, I gave him a rough explanation. Not much more detail than I've given here.

He thinks it's unfair and that the student girls targeted were as guilty as the grown executives deliberately getting them drunk and luring them with the prospects of a job. That they could've just said no. That I'm wrong about group pressure. He wasn't there and he sure as hell doesn't get female socialisation, the urge to be polite, power imbalances in a job search situation, the sheer malice of these (thankfully ex-)colleagues deliberately targetting young women effectively under their care at the time ... just the whole horrendousness of the situation.

And I'm horribly disappointed. To me, not getting this just smacks of ... well, misogyny and a fundamental misunderstanding of what sexism looks like in practice.

I get that as his boss I don't get to determine his opinions. But AIBU to be horribly disappointed that a normal, intelligent, otherwise pleasant and progressive man would hold such an attitude?

what company is this?!to hire a whole group of men with this in them.

They must have gone searching high and low to find so many men with this aberrant attitude. And then for them to act as a pack! Unheard of.

It's disappointing he cannot see the lack of professionalism and how irresponsible these men were but (as a parent of a university student dd) I would not automatically discount the students not being complicit, whilst my dd isn't actually interested in relationships she has friends that throw themselves at everyone in trousers, (and i include women if it suits them!) The men needed to not take advantage of course but saying rape is wrong I suspect, they were consenting

You shouldn’t be discussing the reasons for the dismissal with anyone defo not a colleague and certainly not here on mumsnet.

Do you do appraisals for this man? If so, you need to keep a close eye on his working relationships, particularly with women, and if necessary bring this issue up at his appraisal.

Due to circumstances I won't go into, I happen to be privy to the events that led to the firing

That a) sounds very dodgy and b) indicates that you weren't supposed to know, and certainly shouldn't be telling anyone else. You sound massively unprofessional, and this is going to turn into a nasty case of Chinese Whispers, if it hasn't already.

I'm sorry chillaxing, I still do not believe this was an acceptable way to try and get a job by these women. I won't ever accept it was.

But ultimately they've got their comeuppance too haven't they? I doubt any will be employed by this company.

I think it shows staggering naivety about the ways of the world - the idea that a manager married or not would want a graduate recruit wandering round the office he'd had a drunken shag with..... erm now let me think for a minute.

unless the women were too drunk to consent then I don't consider it rape.

Thankfully, the law sees it differently and it doesn’t really matter what you consider it to be. Otherwise we would be the kind of society which allows teachers to have sex with their students, police officers to have sex with criminals and social workers to have sex with the teenagers they are supposed to be protecting,

I would also bear it in mind when deciding who to put in positions of responsibility via promotions, business travel, mentorship, etc. At least you know this guy is a misogynist now rather than him being a secret one like so many.

Be aware, OP, that if you single out your direct report in the future, based on a verbal exchange you had, you could be in danger of unconscious bias and an allegation of sex discrimination. You would be personally implicated.

You could arrange for equality training for your whole team which gets everyone onto the same level of understanding and reinforces your employer's acceptable behaviour and attitudes code of practice.

You can't force people to think progressively but you can give them a clear message about the basics of what's acceptable at work.

I've had diversity training and unconscious bias thinking, and the men on the course mostly seemed to think it was only relevant if you were recruiting someone new. What would probably be more useful in this situation is the sexual harassment training we all had to have when I was in a previous job (I assume something had happened that had triggered HR to think it was necessary training.) It was made clear what would count a consent and as harassment and particularly how power imbalances work, and that with seniority came higher expectations of knowing and doing the right thing. It was actually useful training.

In the sort of situation as in the OP, it would be the managers who were expected to set a good example of proper behaviour and even if the students has been coming on to them, they should have been able to recognise that and manage the situation accordingly, which would be that no one got too drunk and everyone gets home safely and no one is in a position to be taken advantage of. I'm not naive enough to think every work do will happen like that, but it did make things much clearer to everyone and what the expectations were.

I also don't think it's bad if the reason why the men were sacked got round - it sends a clear message about unacceptable behaviour. I think a lot of men think as long as they aren't actively groping a female colleague in the office, then the work culture must be fine and they don't need to make any effort, and if it's outside the office, then it doesn't count, even if it's a work do.

You shouldn’t be discussing the reasons for the dismissal with anyone defo not a colleague

I would agree to this. These men have a right to privacy irrelevant of how they behaved, it is not acceptable to openly discuss their reasons for dismissal like this.

If you also don't officially know, but know because someone told you who shouldn't have, then you are simply gossiping. If you do officially know you're breaching confidentially.

We will use employee dismissal reasons for training purposes, but we are a large global corporation and we keep it anonymous.

There is a right to data privacy and you have breached this.

Tea, I totally agree with you, but the ops question was that her colleague was unreasonable to think these women were guilty/complicit. I disagree with her and partly agree with the colleague. I won't go as far as to say they were as guilty as the men but I believe they also bear a responsibility for their own poor behaviour. Again I am assuming consent, and wish to stress that. If there was no consent or they were unable to consent that is very different.

We are not pathetic little things who are socially conditioned

We are all socially conditioned, one way or another.

I think you are infantilising grown women.

Of course they can say “no” to an extra drink, decide to make one last all evening or leave if they felt uncomfortable. You are talking about university students in 2019, not the under parlour maid in 1900.

I was a lawyer at a Magic Circle firm for 10 years. I knew (both as a student and as a lawyer) that when we went out drink would be flowing, and to remain professional I would need to watch how much I drank.

I think the men were rightly sacked for inappropriate behaviour. But until women stop propagating the idea that they are vulnerable flowers because of (a) their sex and (b) social conditioning, it will be self fulfilling.

You're falling into generalisation judgement as much as he is. Some of the women might have been victim of social pressure, some have been jumping on the opportunity knowing what they were doing and Happy to do so.

This event should not subject to discussion, especially if the outcome is for you to pass judgement on your staff for their view of the matter.

I've had diversity training and unconscious bias thinking, and the men on the course mostly seemed to think it was only relevant if you were recruiting someone new. What would probably be more useful in this situation is the sexual harassment training we all had to have when I was in a previous job (I assume something had happened that had triggered HR to think it was necessary training.) It was made clear what would count a consent and as harassment and particularly how power imbalances work, and that with seniority came higher expectations of knowing and doing the right thing. It was actually useful training.

Agreed.

I’m not quite sure why you were divulging the info to this colleague OP, but as he doesn’t appear to get the issue, it sounds like he needs the above training.

Bluntness - in the case I'm familiar with, these women have been sexually assaulted. Propositioned.

That's it.

They haven't had sex.

They've been put in a compromising situation by people men in a position of power over them - drinks plied, etc - and then sexually assaulted.

You're assuming it's some sort of reciprocal arrangement.

If you're 21, and a partner in a firm you want to work for propositions you, and you turn him down. Do you think a job offer is going to be forthcoming?

So. You say no. And you lose the job opportunity you've been studying towards for years and years.

You seem to be coming from the position that the (young, very drunk) women are consenting to sexual relations with established, senior men. This isn't necessarily the case - at all.

They're being assaulted, and then ditched.

That's not OK.

He is a pig, just like the ones who got fired. I am disgusted for you! Well done for speaking up for the girls, Many people would have turned a blind eye.

Of course they can say “no” to an extra drink, decide to make one last all evening or leave if they felt uncomfortable.

Of course they can, but that is irrelevant. It’s the motivation behind the guy’s behaviour that could bring the firm into disrepute.

Why is it the women’s responsibility to ‘leave’ a situation in which they are employed, or in this case potentially employed - rather than men’s to behave themselves? Women have to lose money and opportunities because we can’t expect men to control themselves sexually?

So. You say no. And you lose the job opportunity you've been studying towards for years and years

Quite.

Yes; apparently the women have to leave at curfew time, while the boys (partners and clerks) all get boozed.

🙄

I was a lawyer at a Magic Circle firm for 10 years. I knew (both as a student and as a lawyer) that when we went out drink would be flowing, and to remain professional I would need to watch how much I drank.

Surely you also knew that plying young male graduates with alcohol in order to have sex with them is a sackable offence?

Maybe if this were about college lecturers and students trying to pass an exam, more women on this thread would be able to see the issue.

I'm missing something, why does having a number of drinks have to result in having sex? Even when at my drunkest, I always found my ways to say job to anyone suggesting sec. Of anything I'd been more likely to be sacked for slapping the guy in these circumstances.

Well yes, I'm sorry to say that double standards still exist. Young women are pressured to drink too much and be compliant and many are too young and inexperienced to see the whole situation and those awful men for what they are. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

All you can do is repeat all those very good reasons you gave to this chap and tell him about your disappointment in him and why. Hopefully he'll think again if he's a decent chap.

Bluntness you're assuming the women were active aggressors in this situation. Where did you get that idea from, based on the information the OP's given? I interpreted it as not so much "shagging for jobs" as "complying to (potentially immense) pressure from older, more powerful and more numerous men". I think it's horribly unfair to castigate an inexperienced young woman for not having the courage to be confrontational in that situation. It smacks of the old "don't get raped" culture.

I'm in my early 30s now and consider myself to have balls of steel when it comes to this, but a decade ago I did so many regrettable things because it was easier to be compliant than to be confrontational.

I agree that the long-term solution is to empower women to say no, as well as educate men not to apply pressure in the first place, but I'm dismayed at the attitude of "well that's what happened if you don't learn to stand up for yourself".

(I recognise we're both making assumptions here - you're assuming these women are making a canny play for position, whilst I'm assuming they were completely coerced. I realise we can't and don't know the full details.)

Firstly I think that the company is correct in what they have done.

However

Due to circumstances I won't go into, I happen to be privy to the events that led to the firing.

and since I'm not explicitly forbidden from disclosing what happened

I also think that you are either basing the what you know on hearsay or were in someway involved in the process of the firing and could get yourself in to a lot of trouble if you keep doing this.

You know that you are breaking rules by doing this hence the name change and the "not explicitly told" statement.