ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Bill O'Reilly , sexual harassment charges , sexual harassment issues

Reply
Old 25th April 2017, 09:12 AM   #281
PhilosophicalCaveman
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 265
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
If one assumes no investigation.

Where I have worked an investigations the logical extension of a claim.

That investigation need not find evidence sufficient to convict, just sufficient to terminate employment. They are different measures. Avoiding abuse is the entire point of the system.
In O'Reilly's case at least one of the reports was investigated by Paul Weiss law firm.

I also think that sexual harassment claims or reported sexual harassment is suppose to be detailed which makes it sufficient for employment dismissal. Where I work a report has to be made to HR (or I assume the manager in some places). In O'Reilly's case there was more grounds for dismissal.

I'm sure the reports can be difficult to prove 'guilty or not guilty' but from my understanding it is the claims that are looked into and whether there is solid evidence or not it is dealt with straight through as 'a sexual harassment claim' it doesn't have to be devoid of investigation or logical details. Esp. when there is a series of sexual harassment reports. And a person can be dismissed whether or not there is hard evidence or even any 'evidence' based on what is reported.
__________________
As sensitive as Stalin

Last edited by PhilosophicalCaveman; 25th April 2017 at 09:44 AM. Reason: *Added some more thoughts.
PhilosophicalCaveman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:48 AM   #282
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 20,731
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Of course, but notice how PhilosophicalCaveman worded his post. He said the claim is grounds for dismissal.
It looks to me like he's saying sexual harassment is grounds for dismissal.

Use a little common sense. If the claim itself were grounds, why would HR bother investigating?
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:49 AM   #283
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,116
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And as usual you don't bother to find out anything about what you are talking about and demanding everyone else do the work for you.
Wow, that's a new kind of strawman for you. Now you're not misrepresenting an argument, but the whole of someone's behaviour.

Where have I demanded anything of the sort?
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 10:50 AM   #284
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 61,116
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
It looks to me like he's saying sexual harassment is grounds for dismissal.

Use a little common sense. If the claim itself were grounds, why would HR bother investigating?
Hence the question mark.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 02:33 PM   #285
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Which brings me right back to my earlier question: what principle? O'Reilly is ACCUSED of sexual misconduct. Should people accused of a crime be assumed to be guilty?

This doesn't mean that I don't find the accusation credible. But to expect employers to fire their staff because they're accused of something is a step in the wrong direction.

Good thing that isn't what happened this time, eh?

Employers routinely fire their employees for far less egregious behavior and offenses, even ones which have not been proven in a court of law. Even when there is little more than suspicion.

How many teachers have found themselves on the way out the door on the basis of much less actual evidence than O'Reilly has accumulated.

In most states in the U.S. employers don't even need a reason to fire someone. There is a short list of reasons that they aren't allowed to use. Conveniently for them, though, they don't need to use any of those reasons anyway.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th April 2017, 02:36 PM   #286
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,955
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Why the sarcasm?

There are MANY threads on this forum where mere accusations lead to the assumption of guilt. I don't think it's trivial to point it out and aspire to a higher standard.

Not keeping known, serial sex abusers on the payroll just because they make you more money than it costs to keep the crowd of victims quiet would also be aspiring to a higher standard.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.