Posted on Apr 3, 2021
Remote Work Is Leading To More Gender And Racial Harassment, Say Tech Workers
871
10
8
1
1
0
Here is an article and survey that bothers me big time and why I believe the media gives the author a free ride without questioning Pao’s basis. The survey basically concludes that for Tech workers nationally: bias, by racism, by sexism, and by transphobia have increased a lot, and that the increases were highest among women, transgender and nonbinary people, and Asian, Black, Latinx and Indigenous people. The important thing to remember is this harassment may or may not be true, that in my opinion this article can’t be used as authoritative information.
This article identifies specific gender identity group percentages and makes broad statements like 1 in 4 responded… The article also says the survey consisted of 3,000 people and goes on to list a legal action of Ellen Pao against Kleiner Perkins, and then reveals that Pao started the survey the article is based on, along with its conclusions. Now all this sounds like real authoritative numbers, but they probably aren’t. A survey performed of 3,000 workers nationally in the Tech Industry is less that a drop in the bucket, with new hires last month around 200K its safe to assume Tech Workers number in the millions… even if only 1 million Tech Workers exist than 3,000 workers would be 0.3%. Put on top of that the survey’s criteria wasn’t identified and was commissioned by Pao, the person who sued her former employer for the very bias and racism this study contends… and this study doesn’t appear to hold any water at all. If this study was performed to scientific standards the judgment I use here is at fault, however it’s been my experience when a survey is conducted to standards, that the standards will be identified and they simply don’t identify them in this article. How does to old saying go? “Garbage in, Garbage Out.”.
I personally believe the media publishes this information as authoritative information because it fits the narrative they want to portray of our Country, and further want to isolate people according to their color, gender, and gender identification. There’s a lot of people pushing bad information out there. MHO
This article identifies specific gender identity group percentages and makes broad statements like 1 in 4 responded… The article also says the survey consisted of 3,000 people and goes on to list a legal action of Ellen Pao against Kleiner Perkins, and then reveals that Pao started the survey the article is based on, along with its conclusions. Now all this sounds like real authoritative numbers, but they probably aren’t. A survey performed of 3,000 workers nationally in the Tech Industry is less that a drop in the bucket, with new hires last month around 200K its safe to assume Tech Workers number in the millions… even if only 1 million Tech Workers exist than 3,000 workers would be 0.3%. Put on top of that the survey’s criteria wasn’t identified and was commissioned by Pao, the person who sued her former employer for the very bias and racism this study contends… and this study doesn’t appear to hold any water at all. If this study was performed to scientific standards the judgment I use here is at fault, however it’s been my experience when a survey is conducted to standards, that the standards will be identified and they simply don’t identify them in this article. How does to old saying go? “Garbage in, Garbage Out.”.
I personally believe the media publishes this information as authoritative information because it fits the narrative they want to portray of our Country, and further want to isolate people according to their color, gender, and gender identification. There’s a lot of people pushing bad information out there. MHO
Remote Work Is Leading To More Gender And Racial Harassment, Say Tech Workers
Posted from npr.org
IT Consultant
Sexual Harassment
Racism
Law
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
SFC (Join to see)
Some days I actually feel like that, especially when I see biased studies being passed off as good work. I am seeing way too much of it in the last 13 years or so. When my people performed evaluations for environmental clearances that I had to review and approve, If I let work get by like I saw in this article, I would have lost my job a long time ago. Thankfully I'm retired now. :)
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
SFC (Join to see) - Yeah, I've hit the point that I hope they DON"T make some medical breakthrough that will prolong my life into the 90's or 100's. A person can only stand so much voodoo that is being passed off as "wokeness."
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
1
1
0
Quote from the article: ""There's more one-on-one interaction when you're not in the office," Pao said. "People are seeing more harassment on chat and on email and on video conferencing."
Two of those things have a transcripted record that HR could pull. Don't understand why if it happened, it wasn't addressed.
Video conferencing could be recorded and the associated chat transcribed. If I were HR I would make this mandatory.
It cited a number of behaviors as harassment...which aren't, like raising your voice/yelling. Unprofessional? Sure, harassment? In and of itself, hardly. Not a smoking gun without other context. I would have appreciated a few examples for context vice the sterile categories.
Three thoughts:
- If the person's objective is to find injustice in everything, that's how they'll see it, whether it is there or not.
- if you were harassed and the employer addressed it, then it's done, unless it reoccurs...then Rinse lather repeat. If they are readressing them same person over and over, then that is on the employer and a legitimate grievance where more action should Be taken. If you said nothing, then no one will address it.
- if you got scuffed up by your boss for not doing your job, it is not automatically "harassment". They have to address the employee performance multiple times in very nit picky ways to fire them, which the burden for documenting is on them to calm HR into pulling the trigger on firing. It is incredibly difficult to fire someone as you may end up in labor court and have to defend it to a judge.
Two of those things have a transcripted record that HR could pull. Don't understand why if it happened, it wasn't addressed.
Video conferencing could be recorded and the associated chat transcribed. If I were HR I would make this mandatory.
It cited a number of behaviors as harassment...which aren't, like raising your voice/yelling. Unprofessional? Sure, harassment? In and of itself, hardly. Not a smoking gun without other context. I would have appreciated a few examples for context vice the sterile categories.
Three thoughts:
- If the person's objective is to find injustice in everything, that's how they'll see it, whether it is there or not.
- if you were harassed and the employer addressed it, then it's done, unless it reoccurs...then Rinse lather repeat. If they are readressing them same person over and over, then that is on the employer and a legitimate grievance where more action should Be taken. If you said nothing, then no one will address it.
- if you got scuffed up by your boss for not doing your job, it is not automatically "harassment". They have to address the employee performance multiple times in very nit picky ways to fire them, which the burden for documenting is on them to calm HR into pulling the trigger on firing. It is incredibly difficult to fire someone as you may end up in labor court and have to defend it to a judge.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
All great points that are true Sir. I always say the Truth will set you free. Thank you.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google