By Stephen D. Bruce, PHR
Editor, HR Daily Advisor
Just My E-pinion
A recent article on our HR.BLR.com website prompted quite a response by Suzanne Lucas who blogs as Evil HR Lady. “Oh, cry me a river” she said over suggestions that employers take steps to ameliorate off-site harassment of female employees.
Our writer, who had attended a presentation by Holly Kearl, author of Stop Street Harassment: Making Public Places Safe and Welcoming for Women, suggested that employers could consider training, changing work hours, and arranging car pools. “If you are so delicate that you can’t handle riding public transportation, then it’s certainly not your employer’s problem,” Evil HR Lady said.
But It Is the Employer’s Problem
Unfortunately, it is the employer’s problem. Take flextime and telecommuting. There’s certainly no law, no regulatory requirement that employers offer either. But, in the end, with today’s demographics, it’s not really the employer’s choice. If you need ceramics engineers, and they won’t come to you, you’ll have to go to them—and you now offer telecommuting. And if the people you want to hire and need to hire demand flexible hours, you’re going to offer them.
The same is true for the situation of harassment during the commute. First of all, you want to be able to hire the best people you can. If web reports suggest “It’s a little scary to get to work there” and “Don’t take a job there where you have to leave after dark,” your recruiting efforts are going to take a blow.
And, similarly, you want to be able to retain good people once you get them. Remember, the better the employee, the more options the employee has. What in-demand employee wouldn’t prefer to work in a place where he or she feels safe?
After reading Evil HR Lady’s blog, Kearl responded, putting it a little more delicately:
“Hmm. Certainly employers aren’t responsible for their employees’ safety during the commute, but I think the point is they should be aware that harassment along the commute could impact job turnover. And if they want to avoid that, they may want to consider doing something about the commuter, even if they aren’t obligated to.
“[Evil HR Lady’s] opinion that women are too delicate if this is a problem for them just shows how little this issue is understood.”
What Can You/Should You Do?
Every workplace is different and, obviously, some are more likely to encounter these problems than others. If you do sense or know of problems, however, and if they threaten your people, your reputation, or your ability to attract and retain good employees, you will probably want to take action.
What can you do? First of all, you can make sure that people on your premises are secure and free from harassment. (You actually do have a legal obligation to do that under OSHA and Title VII.)
You can take steps such as offering flexible schedules, carpooling, escorts, shuttles — whatever it takes.
You can ask your employees about their concerns. What bothers them? What could be done to help?
Then you can train your people in how to deal with the difficult situations they might face.
How about you? Do you agree with the Evil HR Lady (Oh cry me a river … if women can’t figure out solutions to their own problems, then may be they are just too delicate) or do you agree that, in spite of the fact that it’s not required, it’s a good idea to respond to these situations for the sake of your employees’ well-being, their productivity, and their retention?
Let me know and we’ll present your comments in a future issue of the HR Daily Advisor. sbruce@blr.com
Seriously? As a woman, I’d be offended if my employer were condescending to me in the ways you describe here. Focus on giving me good management, good pay, and the resources to do my job, please. I’ll handle my own security outside of work. Because I’m, you know, a grown-up.
Employers have enought to worry about, it seems, regarding possible harassment from supervisors, co-workers, customers/clients, and vendors than feeling they need to extend their protective reach to ‘people you meet on the street’ during one’s commute.
On the other hand I don’t think it’d be condescending to provide general advice to (all) employees regarding ‘staying safe’ when traveling/commuting.
As an employer, I will provide a safe and secure workplace for my employees complete with a zero tolerance policy for harassment of any kind. Having said that, I am an employer, not a parent; and my employees are adults, not children. I want employees who are capable of problem solving. If I have an employee who is taking public transportation to and from work and they are experiencing harassment, I would expect them to be able to stand up for themselves and take appropriate action to bring the harassment to an end. File a police report. I’ll provide them with paid time off to pursue their claim, and an EAP so they have someone to speak with confidentially about the issue. I’ll provide moral support. I will not, however, fight the battle on their behalf.
If she’s Evil, then I guess call me Wicked. At what point do we stop to consider that as an adult in an oft-ambiguous world, you have to put on your big girl panties and deal with it? If all we ever did was create policies, practices and protocols that coddled people (in general, not just our employees), we take away their intrinsic right to care for themselves. Now…I’m not saying that it’s not the employer’s responsibility to provide good lighting, secure WORK environments and safety training, but really? Are we responsible for protecting the world? Where do you draw the line? Once you step outside your work locale, it becomes society’s responsibility as decent human beings to make the world a safer place.
Well, at least Evil HR Lady didn’t (’cause she couldn’t) tell her to “put on her big girl panties.” That doesn’t stop me from saying it, though.
I agree with the previous comments. Employers have enough crap to have to deal with to be concerned about what happens off-premises and outside of working hours. While on-site child care, health and wellness programs, tuition assistance, and all of the other benefits employers offer as incentives that aid in retention are good, I personally don’t want the company involved in my life, or monitoring me, outside of normal working hours. I spent 20 years in the military, where I could be held liable by my “employer” for whatever happened outside of work…which, since I had to remain combat-ready 24/7/365, didn’t really exist.
And besides, if she wasn’t working outside of the home, who would she then hold responsible for her safety and personal sense of well-being, or blame should her “karma” be disturbed? This is a personal problem, requiring a personal solution. To suggest that it IS the employer’s problem is pure HR drivel…employers have had to deal with the fallout of personal problems since time immemorial.
The bottom line: deal with it, lady.
And to Holly Kearl, I say…what about making the streets and public places safe and welcoming for EVERYBODY, not just women?
I concur with the Evil HR Lady and completely disagree with the BLR. MTA trains/buses, Metro North, LIRR are a way of life for us New Yorkers. Does anyone remember the transit strike? How about the Eastern blackout when many of us had to walk home from Manhattan to one of the boroughs? We banded together and did what we had to do. It was not our employers fault that the city lost power.
Real life means you go where you have to go to get the job done. I have been on the number six train at 1:00 am, and found that we have an entire subculture that works at that hour. Why because we have to work.
If someone feels threatened on the train, then find a job that keeps you home. You can feel threatened when you leave your home. Should the employer be responsible for that, too?
I am all for safety but your position about this is ridiculous. What about the weekends? What if you feel harassed getting the bus to go to the supermarket or to get to an event? Who do you talk to then? How about if you have a doctor’s appointment? “Gee doc, I really feel harassed when I leave my house, can you diagnose me from here?” Sure, wait at home while the doctor sends the men in the white jackets, with the police and the social worker to your home.
Tell you what: Regardless of the situation, comments such as “cry me a river,” “deal with it,” “get over it,” etc., seldom are helpful. They’re dismissive, reductionist, and signal that whoever is uttering them isn’t interested in listening, discussing, helping, or in all points of view.
Additionally, I don’t think the issue is fully addressed by limiting it to “women” being “harassed” on their way to and from work. I think what we’re really talking about is broader than that, i.e., the safety of all associates in such situations. As Chris C. says above, “I don’t think it’d be condescending to provide general advice to (all) employees regarding ‘staying safe’ when traveling/commuting.”
Nor would it be “condescending” to solicit employee suggestions on the matter, and/or to look for other possible solutions to the concern. But dismissing it with a catchphrase is only going to alienate some employees, and could have decidedly unwanted effects on your retention and company reputation.
I worked at a paper mill in Oregon in the ‘80s. In the winter it was dark when I got off and there were no lights in the gravel parking area along the river. Every night I would have to leave when a few others left because I didn’t want to go to my car alone. I wouldn’t work overtime unless there was someone else working in the office. Sometimes at month end we would work until 10pm and the mill ran 24 hrs a day. We had a big safety campaign but they never did light the parking area. I left after six months.
Perhaps we should pay more attention to the TV commercial for the company that “just does the right thing,” both an insurance company, financial company & Nike have had variations of this theme.
If we as employers take more interest in the well being of our employees, it can only better our company because the employee will reciprocate and take more of an interest in the company’s success even if for no other reason than a sense of obligation after the employer took care of the employee to the best of their ability. Providing tools or options for problem solving ought to be in every manager’s job description.
Just my opinion….. and for that matter, that of the company I work for – yes the one that the PRESIDENT and other executives came out in the snow of the century in January since they had 4-wheel drive vehicles to pick up and take home multiple loads of employees who WANTED to come in to work but had stuck vehicles! I know for a fact no executive job description contains the words provide shuttle service!
Right on Evil HR Lady !!! Employers offer jobs, they do not offer solutions to all the social problems someone can encounter. Not all jobs are right for every person. People have to make choices that are right for them. If someone is afraid of late hours or public transportation then don’t take a job far from home or with hours after 4pm. I am a 56 year old woman afraid of the water so I won’t be taking a job on an island and then expect my employer to build me a bridge.
Seriously – perhaps some industries are having trouble finding qualified people, but right now, with high unemployment and the power industry down in the dumps, we are fighting hard to find enough money to keep our core employees – we’ve frozen the 401(k) match and tuition reimbursement, and any optional programs. We don’t have flex time and it hasn’t been a problem recruiting for us even in tight markets – perhaps it is the engineering world.
If the commute is so horrible – what about the female employees banding together in a group to commute on their own? Why does everyone have to be taken care of instead of standing on their own two feet and figuring out some solutions on their own?
When I worked in the city and walked from the PATH, I changed how I walked to avoid unpleasant situations. Now that I’m working in NJ and drive – I’m always in control.
Oh yes, I am a woman and there are a lot of women who need to stop being so wimpy.
Geez.
It’s people like Evil HR Lady who give all in HR a bad reputation so that employees think HR is always doing something TO them instead of something FOR them.
This isn’t an issue of someone being too delicate. It’s an issue of being sensible and practical – whether male or female – and trusting one’s animal instinct for safety and survival.
I’ve worked for organizations in which all of the HR department was comprised of EVIL HR Beings, but I think that the majority of HR PROFESSIONALS (not those who merely have a job in HR) are educated, knowledgeable, and take their role and obligation as stewards of and advocates for all employees seriously. With that in mind, a true HR professional must look at all perspectives of an internal or external environment issue and the ultimate impact on both an employee and the company and do what is best for both, ideally. Neither operate in a vacuum. A company needs good employees to operate efficiently, productively and attain and maintain success. Good employees need employers who are respectful, provide a safe, challenging, work environment and don’t treat them as if they were a piece of easily replaced machinery. Employees are what make the company successful – or not – and they are human beings who need to be treated and respected as a company’s most valuable resource.
Evil HR Lady is absolutely correct. Yes it is good to attract and retain good employees; however the bottom line is that employees exist to support and operate the business, the business does not exist to coddle the employees. Generally, the best workers tend to also be the least “needy” because they have learned to make things happen for themselves rather than relying on someone else.
Not only do I completely agree with Evil HR Lady’s comment, I applaud her for making it in a public forum. There are far too many women and men in the workforce who are “too delicate” and expect employers or the government to make their lives carefree, danger free, and hazard free.
I wouldn’t be able to look myself in the mirror if I were to go to my employer and complain about the harassment I face on my way to work each day. What’s next? Suing my employer because I walk past a department store on my way in to work and a guy ogles me? I say the men & women of this country need to “Cowboy up” and grow an actual spine.
I’m with her. I think you (and other e-newsletters like you) go way overboard – perhaps to make your e-newsletter provocative? There may be a few instances where a few companies may want to offer some accommodations, but you seem often to go way too far in suggesting and/or “advocating” issues such as these as the norm.
Thanks for adding to the “entitlement” generation!
Dear Stephen D. Bruce,
I saw the newsletter you sent out featuring my article, Are Some Women Too Delicate For the Workplace? (http://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady/are-some-women-just-too-delicate-for-the-workplace/2151″>http://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady/are-some-women-just-too-delicate-for-the-workplace/2151) While I appreciate that you included me in your mailing, I’m disappointed and shocked that you provided no link back to the original article, nor even a mention of where it was published.
That’s tacky and, most likely, illegal. Yes, you can quote under fair use (which is encouraged, of course, by rational writers, as we want our work to get out there), but while you attribute to a writer, you don’t give a reference to the actual source.
I hope this was merely a mistake and not continued practice of HR.BLR. I’m sure that as soon as you get this comment (or read the email I sent), that you’ll add a link to the online posting. In the future, feel free to quote from my work, but only with a link back.
Thanks,
Suzanne Lucas, Evil HR Lady
http://www.bnet.com/blog/evil-hr-lady
Dear Suzanne Lucas,
The article has since been amended to include a link back to your post.
Thanks,
Stephen Bruce
Hi!
Just finished reading the piece about off-site harassment and the commute.
Having read more than one or two of Evil HR Lady’s blogs I have the impression that she’s not as well versed in strategic HR a she would like us to believe. Her responses and this particular response demonstrate a certain shallowness. I certainly think that in this new economy and this post millennium world, decent employers need to take the more strategic view set forth in your article.
If I employ people in a less than desirous neighborhood or on a poor commuter route, I want to take care of my valuable associates. So taking a good hard look at options is, in my humble view, taking a longer term perspective whose ROI should enrich all our futures and not just mine as the employer.
Also why on earth name your blog Evil HR Lady – didn’t we ditch the evil view of our profession when we stopped being the policy police. Such a title does no-one any favors and merely serves to reinforce in some people’s minds that ‘… those HR folks, are just bad news’.
I absolutely agree that it’s in the employer’s best interest to help good employees get to and from work safely. And, the statement that the employer is “not required” to act in that area may be a little over-broad. It’s true if your employees commute between home and a single work location. But beware the “traveling salesman rule” in Workers Compensation. If your employees visit clients or render services off-premises, your Workers Compensation is involved in all cases except a direct route between their home and their assigned office location. This may not make the employer “responsible” for the conditions, but it’s a financial responsibility.
What about offering self-defense courses at work for ALL employees? After all, it’s not only women who are subject to safety-related problems during a commute. A course like this brings the workforce together instead of isolating one group from the other, which can affect male employees perceptions of female coworkers as true, equal colleagues.
I agree with evil HR lady on this one. What happens in employees private lives is theirs to deal with. Not that the workplace is not there to support them in times of need but it has it’s limits and this is a stretch. I believe they should take some type of Verbal Judo classes or PPCT to defend themselves. It’s not up to the employer to manage their employees personal lives. I don’t know of too many employers who have the luxury of providing these types of services for their employees. Could this just be someone planting the seeds for a future lawsuit because they were harassed on the way to work and it is the employer’s fault??
If they can’t manage public transportation and all the issues that go with dealing with people on public transportation, they should go to work for themselves and then they only have to deal with themselves and maybe some employees.
With today’s employment issues there are plenty of people out there who want and need jobs so why should we cater to a few whiners?
Look – for argument’s sake, let’s say you don’t have to do anything in regards to your employees’ well-being once they leave your property. That’s all “find and dandy” until one of your employees gets mugged – or worse. Then the bad public relations begin as well as the lawsuit, even if doesn’t have any legs. So why not arm your employees with discretionary training, knowledge, or communications? If the unthinkable does happen to one your employees on the way to or from work, then better your employee remembers that you were concerned enough to provide some guidance, than to publicly disavow you with the label “The Top 100 Worst Companies to Work For.” The goodwill alone is worth any so-called inconvenience or trouble.
Such a wonderful message. But are we HRM reaching the potential of the 21st century issues of harassment? Or do we continually find new ways to dispose of that crying individual? Workforce violence has a new name. So will unintentional and intention injures. Even Nursing Homes have commuter vans for patients why not other organizations get their commuter vans for employees? They can get monthly, weekly or biweekly payroll deductions as revenue just like the parking deck but better. With the price of today’s gas this is a marketing and regulatory key for retention and empowerment for tardiness (job turnover). Even with this, the issue of harassment becomes close to home base; why, define your catchment area this to will be a part of the organization’s extended property, and therefore subject to it’s laws! Nothing new is done under the sun; just a suggestion.
1. I am a woman.
2. I was in the workplace when most women were home keeping house.
3. Yes, I have been approached on commutes to and from work, back in those days.
4. Yes, I have been harassed at work, back in those days.
My opinion. Toughen Up! On the street or on public transportation you may be limited as to what you can do. Be alert. Don’t leave yourself in a vulnerable position.
At work, if the SOB harasses kick the **** out of him. Then tell your boss. Also don’t forget to call the SOB’s wife (if he has one) and let him know you are going to call her.
As a woman, solve your own problems, you are an adult, you don’t need to go running to “mama or daddy” when the going gets tough.
To me the matter of providing transportation means for staff (not just women) is situational, based on the location of the workplace, the hours the employee leaves work, distance from the workplace and the like. It cannot be that persons are provided with communiting options only because of gender. Other factors surrounding the job need to be taken into consideration or else the company is setting a precedent that may cost more than it benefits the organisation – not just in dollars and cents but also in employee satisfaction and so on.
I know it’s difficult to do, particularly in this age of lawyers holding companies responsible for all the kitchen sink laws and executive orders, but you may need to hold the community, local government, the transportation system and local law enforcement agencies accountable for providing a safe environment. Instead of absorbing additional competitive weakening burdens, perhaps the solution for the jobs provider is to move from the unsafe area.
I have no problem with any company doing what is best for its employees. If, in order to hire and retain the best employees, you need car pools, then by all means do it.
What I have a problem with is women demanding special treatment. No company should set up car pools for women only. That’s ridiculous.
And as for the title, who would read the “Warm and Fuzzy HR Lady” column?
Suzanne
Steven Bruce,
Thanks for adding the link. I appreciate it.
Suzanne
Maybe all employers should build their own version of the Googleplex, or take it a step further and send a driver to each employee’s home to make sure she makes it to work safely. That’s certainly doable.
Evil HR Lady is right.
Employer saves on rent by locating in a bad neighborhood with a long commute and expectations that employees either come or go during the dark, and then people have the GALL, the NERVE, to tell women who that makes nervous that they need to “put on their big girl panties?” Wow, it’s almost as if I woke up in an alternate universe where women AREN’T raped every six seconds. And if the DUDES going to that work location were REGULARLY harassed in a vulgar sexual manner by other dudes twice their size, gosh, suddenly this would b an important problem we’d have to fix RIGHT GOSH DARN NOW.
Misogynists suck.