Unisex toilets in new office - dread going into work

[SocialMol]

The company I work for moved to a new office a few weeks ago. It is brand new and shared 50/50 with another company. We have our own side of the floor, key card protected so completely separate.

However, the toilets are in the middle of the block so are shared with the other company. These are unisex - several cubicles with shared area for sinks/dryers etc.

The other company is a sales one (they run a call centre there) and the demographic of their workforce is mainly young men in their 20’s.

There have been several instances of inappropriate comments made to staff in the toilets. Crass stuff like ‘give that cubicle 5 minutes’ to cruder comments directed at or about women - the men will often be talking about their own colleagues in a derogatory way in front of us.

The final straw for me was this afternoon when I walked out of a cubicle and a spotty young lad said he will ‘join me next time’ 😷

Our company are aware of our concerns but said there’s nothing they can do, as the toilets are designed to be ‘inclusive’ and similar to the other modern office blocks they viewed.

I don’t really know what I’m looking for by posting this to be honest, just wanted to know if anyone else finds this sort of set up completely ridiculous?

Why are you so persistently opposed to this employer following the HSE workplace regulations, ie the law?

Yes, clearly some people have never experienced perimenopausal flooding. It's very common, so much so that it's mentioned in my employer's menopause awareness training.

Your company needs to require the building owner to make changes to the lavatory arrangements to comply with the law.

I'm not.

Sure. Post after post from you saying that the toilets are not a problem, nothing to see here.

I haven't said the toilets are not a problem - they obviously are for the OP and many others here. I am saying that the toilets are not the main problem. It's the men's behaviour that's the problem. Yes, that's more difficult to alter. It's a much bigger problem and changing it is a long term goal. But that doesn't mean we should ignore it.

Hope there is a sign saying, please put toilet seat back down after you have used. Many men don’t 🤮

G: Change the behaviour of immature teens on a national scale, OP! Or, of course, you could just keep making a fuss about your little broken lock and ignore it, so the kids just carry on being ignorant.

I think people are struggling to understand your train of reasoning, Lily.

How does solving the immediate problem (mixed-sex loos) to offer OP rapid relief and protection equate directly to "ignoring" the larger-scale problem (male abuse)?

It's not unlike saying, "For goodness sake, OP, cancel the bake sale raising money for refugees, and focus on stopping the war!"

1. Addressing the toilet issue / raising money for refugees does mitigate the larger problem in a way that is meaningful to the OP.

2. It doesn't stop the OP doing any of your list of other suggestions to address the larger problem of male abuse / war.

3. Given that those suggestions aren't going to have an immediate effect (do I really need to point out that the OP's letter to her MP isn't, I'm afraid to say, going to be change millennia of human behaviour before she next needs the loo / hundreds more refugees arrive needing blankets), why do you appear to be vociferously against her doing it, seeing it as some kind of implicit capitulation?

You must see why people are interpret your comments this way. They simply don't make sense read differently, because it makes no sense to point out such bizarrely self-evident things as these:

1. They could still make inappropriate comments though. They don't change just because they're in a different place.

2. Stationery cupboards, underground car parks, empty corridors... There are plenty of deserted places around offices that seem far more dangerous to me than a probably frequently visited works toilet.

3. Changing the toilets won't change their behaviour.

Honestly the state of the toilets are grim but that’s the least of our worries. There is usually at least one which is blocked and pee covered seats are a regular occurrence.

I would not say that this is the least of your worries. It's disgusting, unhygienic and could cause illnesses. I am not at all surprised, though. The more you post, the worse your situation sounds. It is totally unacceptable.

H: It must be annoying for you, OP. But you can easily get out the vacuum cleaner to deal with the muddy footprints.

See? I can do it pre-emptively, too! 😂 Seen 'em all. None make sense thus far.

So gross. I used the mixed sex toilets in quite a posh restaurant and they were disgusting. Pee everywhere and it was early evening.

I have never ever encountered such a mess in women only toilets even in much less ‘nice’ establishments.

I: Personally, I tend to find that adults are much messier than kids. They always leave more muddy footprints.

...is another popular one, believe it or not.

I don't know why you seem to be deliberately misunderstanding what I'm saying but I'm tired of explaining. Reporting the behaviour until it is addressed by HR (or whoever) and appropriate steps are taken to ensure that those guilty men understand and stop doing it (at work and maybe even elsewhere) would be far better, and maybe quicker, than fiddling around with the toilets.

Did you miss that the culture of the OPs employer is to place female staff into positions where they can be harrassed?

That was a choice.

That the culture of the OPs employer is to deny they have either a legal or moral duty to do anything about the harrassment.

That is a choice

So the problem begins with in the employers senior management team.

ETA: In response to Lily's last.

OK, that's rather clearer. The "write to your MP" and "change the culture" references did seem to suggest you were thinking on a far larger scale, and, in that context, the resistance to addressing the toilets whatsoever was hard to understand.

But even if you are thinking on a more practical level than I'd understood, and simply arguing that addressing the men as opposed to the loos is easier for the OP, I'd still question this.

1. Report the behaviour - potential for conflict with men who are already behaving intimidatingly.

2. Answer back - ditto.

3. Make it known who the culprits are - ditto.

4. Get others to report - better: safety in numbers.

5. Complain - I think she's planning to.

6. Call in a union - nuclear option: significant implications for OP's comfort and long-term security at her place of work.

7. Get other, decent men inside - they're already using the same loos, so, presumably, you can only mean as a escort each trip... surely you don't mean this?

8. Write to an MP - again, the context in which you suggest this reveals its impracticality, as if you meant about the loos, that could help, but you clearly mean about the behaviour of these men, which, like the above, is honestly a bit hard to take seriously as advice.

Lastly, none of the above guarantees a long-term solution that addresses the OP's actual need. There will be resistance, outliers who still behave badly, bad feeling across the building. And all this compounds what's already upsetting her - conflict and a sense of vulnerability.

Focussing on the toilets themselves avoids all of the above. Removes them, really.

Yes, it involves literal changes to the building - huge for the employer, and there may well be some resentment from them. But that resentment wouldn't be as personal as if she were to critique individuals' behaviour, and it won't be coming from the men she already finds upsetting: she'll be buffered from it to some degree. Not least as, the law's on her side.

OP, if I'm disrupting your thread, let me know. Happy to step back. It's just that I find the sheer illogicality of arguing against you asking your employers to uphold your legal rights (and, I personally think, the inadequacy of most arguments for this) a bit frustrating and hard to understand.

Yes, the behaviour of a bloke hacked off because he got reported to his employer could get really nasty.

Many posters seem to be labouring under the illusion that a threat to his job might prevent a man behaving badly but as we’ve seen in many situations like hospitals - male staff at all levels raping and SA female staff and patients and the misogynist organisation that is the police force where there are high rates of DV, rape and even murder. The threat of losing their career and being a policeman in prison was no deterrent.

Unfotunately, as the men are not employed by the OPs employer even the (percieved to be) all powerful 'HR' may be unable to guarantee the OP is not subject to further sexual harassment. The mens employer may decide to take no action, as they have no duty to protect the OP from SH at work, as she is not their employee. The onus is squarely on OPs employer to prevent her from being sexually harassed in the toilets. The only way they can reliably do this is to no longer require her to use toilets with these men. Obviously they can try the easier option of talking to the other company first. But I don't fancy their chances at ET if that's all they do and the sexual harassment continues.

They’re only legal if they have washbasins inside the cubicle. They don’t- so they’re plainly and clearly not legal.

it doesn’t matter what HR says - your employer must provide you with toilets that meet the regulations and protect you from harassment. They can hire their own portapotties in the car park, or they can move buildings.

The law is on her side, but OP needs to fight the fight.

It’s not better and it could aggravate the situation. Women will now step into the toilets knowing men have been told off. There may be her and multiple men. That’s an intimidating situation.

Their behaviour does need addressing but it doesn’t solve the toilet issues.

Making them single sex does.

The British Toilet Association state that women should have twice as many toilets as men to achieve equity in provision.
_

What I would do is grab some female and male pictograms and stick them on the doors - ratio 2 to 1. But this isn’t enough of course. The building owner needs to sort the loos out. The Sex Matters info is good - there’s also this article that is more from a business legal view that may go down better:

www.irwinmitchell.com/news-and-insights/expert-comment/post/102kb9l/do-retailers-have-to-provide-single-sex-toilets-and-changing-rooms-for-their-cust

The update about the toilets being dirty helps your case. You can complain directly to the Health & Safety executive about this situation and you can do that online, I posted the link on the first page.

I’d say if it’s a misogynistic workplace culture that emboldens men much more to be abusuve in different ways to the female colleagues. It emboldens them. No protection should be assumed because this is a work setting

Sharing content from an anti trans website? Real classy 👍👍

I think it says more about you @MNdrama that you see a charity which fights for women’s rights and call it “anti-trans”. Such misogyny.