
Foundry Group's zero tolerance policy on sexual harassment - rmason
https://www.foundrygroup.com/blog/2017/06/our-zero-tolerance-policy-on-sexual-harassment/?utm_content=bufferb3424&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
======
t0mbstone
Zero tolerance polices are almost never a good idea. There should always be
some room for human grace and forgiveness, and room for misunderstandings to
be worked through and resolved.

Zero tolerance policies give way too much power to people who might cry "wolf"
to benefit their own careers.

~~~
r00fus
From TFA: "From this point forward, when we encounter something unacceptable,
it’s our responsibility to confront it. The offending party has the
opportunity to apologize, own their behavior, and change it going forward. "

Doesn't sound so intolerant. There is a 2nd chance given. But not a third.

~~~
falcolas
The article also says, "If found to be valid, we will request an immediate
termination of the harasser, regardless of job position."

Not as supportive of a second chance. Especially since this wording is part of
the actual policy, not the soft sell leading up to it. I interpret it as: If I
fuck up once, even if I recognize and own it, I will still be fired if the
victim reports it.

This would seem to encourage silence and denial on the part of the accused,
since owning up to it will be effectively a confession. And in such an
environment, the power will reside almost entirely with the accusers, since I
can't imagine the accused ever winning in a pure hearsay (i.e. no witnesses)
investigation.

~~~
dragonwriter
Note that the two quoted pieces refer to _different problems_. One is
treatment short of professional respect[0] (for which second chances are held
out), the other is validated complaints of sexual harassment (for which no
second chances are held out.)

This appears to be both a clear zero-tolerance policy _for sexual harassment_
, and an attempt to prevent anything near the border of harassment and illegal
discrimination by addressing behavior which is not necessarily illegal but
falls short of professionalism strongly (but without a “zero-tolerance”
approach.)

[0] it says such treatment is unacceptable, then relates the consequences of
discovery of such unacceptable behavior.

------
stinkytaco
Can someone with a background in HR fill me in on what the term
"investigation" means? I have to assume there's a standard here, but I have no
idea what happens when one undertakes said investigation or how validity is
determined. I realize we're not talking about a criminal case here and I don't
expect some ridiculous burden of proof, but I am curious how the process is
undertaken in order to be fair to both parties.

~~~
walshemj
From experience with the uk's system You do have to follow the rules of
natural justice custom and practice and case law in your country.

You have to be told what you are being accused of in advance.

You have to have a formal hearing with the right to be accompanied by a
"friend" to put your case.

There has to be an valid appeals process.

Fail these and the employer will automatically loose

------
sethbannon
"While we acknowledge that we are a partnership of six middle-aged white men,
we have tried to be a positive force in support of women as entrepreneurs and
venture capitalists."

I'm sorry. I have no doubt the Foundry Group partners are good people (I've
met and liked a few of them) but this disclaimer simply doesn't fly. If you
really want to stand up for gender equality in tech, hire more women into the
partnership. That would do far more than another blog post with a set of
commitments that dance around that.

~~~
david38
So all those people who say they are gay allies but don't happen to employing
gay people are full of shit?

It absolutely flies. Just because YOU think they should be all or nothing
doesn't mean they should. Maybe you should make a competing partnership and
hire all women.

Hiring is not the only way to show support. Public statements apply pressure
to other groups, signal that this place is a good place for women to do
business with, etc.

~~~
tentakull
Foundry Board: 6 white men, middle-aged

Percentage of LGBTQ in U.S: 3.4%

Percentage of women in U.S.: 50%

LGBTQ individual that should be on board: 0.204

Percentage of women that should be on board: 3

Yea, they're full of shit. That's a 0% diversity score, so objectively they
discriminate in employment. Like I said in my above post, I don't even
understand (translated for you: It's fucking absurd) how this happens.

------
spodek
What do you think they would do about the lawsuit that accused Yahoo CEO
Marissa Mayer of discrimination against men?

Would they treat it the same as a lawsuit accusing a male CEO of
discrimination against women?

------
skye196
Devil's advocate: This is bad for women.

"If found to be valid, we will request an immediate termination of the
harasser, regardless of job position."

So now if my CTO gets drunk and does something stupid, there is zero tolerance
and my investors will demand his termination. This would be in the back of my
head every time I sat across the interview table from a female. That if any of
my social inept key staff make one mistake my business could be torpedoed.

~~~
simonhamp
That's such a dick response. Work on making sure your 'key' staff aren't
douchebags... don't not hire a woman because there might be a situation!

~~~
falcolas
If it's a purely hearsay situation without witnesses, it doesn't matter if
your "key staff" are saints.

~~~
r00fus
I would expect that a purely heresy situation would not be counted as valid in
the investigation (or even in the allegation stage if flimsy).

Multiple accusations or more definitive evidence should likely put the accused
into a troubling situation.

