
Losing Your Job for Sexual Harassment Is Not a Violation of Due Process - selllikesybok
https://rewire.news/article/2018/01/18/losing-job-sexual-harassment-not-violation-due-process/
======
dekhn
I've noticed this argument a few times. It's based on the legal concept of due
process. However, when non-lawyers use the term, they do so colloquially, and
instead are discussing a much less formal thing. This is generally understood
by most people, and it's mainly constitutional law experts who bring up the
argument.

Like the trolley problem, outside of a limited group of aficionados, most
people don't care about this kind of argument because it's excessively
technical and irrelevant to what people care about.

------
mindcrime
This author misses the distinction between the _legal_ concept of the due
process (see: the 5th Amendment) and the _moral_ concept of due process.
Violation of due process as a moral issue has nothing to do with whether or
not it is the government judging / sanctioning you.

~~~
fenwick67
It's similar to the term "free speech". It has a constitutional meaning but
people give it a colloquial meaning as well... which adds to confusion when
you start talking about legal stuff.

------
mc32
>...where anyone accused of sexual harassment can lose their job or place at
school...

Well, that's not completely true. If you're a union worker, it can be harder
for the school to rid itself of the problem employee. Same for many other
members of strong unions.

That said, they have to have some process to ensure that unfounded malicious
accusations don't both undermine (oh, I hate this phrase) legitimate problems
and get innocent people fired, while also ensuring (sexual conduct) violators
get their just desserts.

~~~
wahern
I once interned at a law firm which represented a public sector union. My
takeaway is that unions want to get rid of problem employees as much as the
employer.

That can make it awkward for a union representative at a disciplinary hearing
who is counseling a troublesome employee. Sometimes the lawyer might tell the
employee something like, "I can get you off this time but they're gunning for
you, so you're better off resigning and taking severance." Which is true as
far as it goes, but the lawyer and the union leader are actually thinking,
"this guy is an asshole and we need to get rid of him without looking like we
sold him down the river."

Long story short: when the employer and union have a good working
relationship, a union has no trouble showing a problematic employee the door.

The real issue that I saw repeatedly is that employers will often try to
unfairly fire employees, either to circumvent contract rules or because of
incompetent or malicious supervisors. They'll even go so far as to concoct
complaints out of thin air. In such a hostile environment, when a legitimately
problematic employee is under review the union has to take extra care to
ensure the legitimacy of the problem. Furthermore, it's more difficult
organizationally (i.e. maintaining the trust of union members) to usher a bad
employee out the door when N previous employees were screwed by the employer.
(Because the details of misbehavior often need to remain private for legal or
practical reasons, it's difficult for both employer and union to be
transparent with rank-and-file about why an employee needed to go.)

The moral of the story is to maintain a good working relationship. It's
ridiculous that employers can't always do that, but I think it speaks to
systematic problems in continuity of leadership of large public and private
employers. Every successive leader (CEO, Police Chief, whatever) spends a
substantial amount of his time attempting to unwind transactions executed by
the previous leader, rather than moving forward. That ultimately leads to
inconsistent, unfair, and often egregiously improper management practices.

~~~
vfulco
My ex-mother-in-law faced this exact problem. Really oppressive working
conditions in a department of New York State government. When she was falsely
brought up on shoddy work quality, which was really her bosses' inadequacies,
the union wanted to have nothing to do with her and give her a minimal level
of support. Greatly re-enforced the uselessness of unions. But they sure are
happy to take employees money on a regular basis.

------
Nomentatus
It's not just that this is illegal and immoral (which is the most important
point) it's also that the perpetrator has sacrificed the interests of the
corporation to his (or her) own appetites. Not something the law is going to
shape itself to tolerate, or ought to.

------
StreamBright
Any company can fire you without any reason in the US. The laws are not really
on the employees side there.

~~~
dekhn
Not all states are employment at-will. Also, even if you fire somebody for
"any" reason ,if you don't document the process carefully, you expose yourself
to legal action. There are a whole bunch of concerted protected activities
that your employer can't fire you for.

