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

[JaimesGoldenHand]

Apparently the Oxfam CEO thinks the reaction to the Aid Worker rape and use of prostitutes and the subsequent apparent cover-up has been disproportionate. It happens in all aid agencies so why the fuss.

I was in two minds as to whether to boycott Oxfam but this has decided me. I feel physically sick.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Aid agencies are there to support very vulnerable people and need to be trustworthy and completely above suspicion that they might abuse their position. Using prostitutes goes completely against that and undermines the good that the employing agency is doing.

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.

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 :(

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?

I beleve that prostituion is illegal in Haiti.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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....!

Discipline stuff.

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

interesting.

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.