Comments by "xybersurfer" (@xybersurfer) on "Gender Segregation in the Workplace" video.

  1. so you don't disagree. well lot's of things can only be formalized to some extent. indeed feminism makes for a more hostile work environment. i think that the lawsuits that would result from a no fraternization rule would be more directed directed towards the company. as opposed to, allowing them to fraternize and file lawsuits against each other.
    2
  2. i agree that the male co-workers have the right to refuse, and i do get the impression that she was feeling entitled. but beyond that, you could also say that the male co-workers' right in making this decision was taken away.
    2
  3. i don't think it's that simple. making dick jokes and fraternizing are not the same thing. more thoughtful decision making is key.
    1
  4. i think such a rule actually attracts lawsuits. look at all the attention it's already receiving, without someone being fired over it.
    1
  5. i did not miss this point in my second paragraph (which you didn't quote). as said; it might make sense from the company's perspective (probably money wise). the problem is that looking at just the *bottom line* results in very poor choices.
    1
  6. if you don't stand by looking at just profit then you shouldn't present it to me and later tell me that it is someone else's stance. (you should have said this right away)
    1
  7. well in that case... it's not any way for a company to behave. and making it into a written rule does not make the behavior more acceptable. they deserve the lawsuits (they asked for it in a certain sense) i can see that from their perspective, making this rule discourages people from engaging in questioning/lawsuits. but that does not make it right.
    1
  8. that comment was actually directed at you
    1
  9. except it's not really a workplace rule. main problem is it extends outside the workplace. which seems completely ridiculous ( whether a woman feel entitled or not ). the employer should have nothing to say about this. of course the male co-workers have the right to say no. but with such a rule in place, did they really want to? you need to read between the lines
    1
  10. yes, Richards in dongle gate did not show tough skin. but management made the bigger mistake. we both already pointed out that the corporate model is greedy. so there is no need to bring it up. just because it is that way, does not mean it should be. management should make better decisions than the employees. isn't that the whole point? announcing bad decisions ahead of time does not make these decisions better. also, it's very naive to assume that employee satisfaction won't effect profit.
    1
  11. i don't think it's a coincidence, that this film was made, as you seem to suggest. whether this film was made is related to it's contents and not an independent act. (they asked for it in certain sense) furthermore, technically you might be right in there being less attention/lawsuits without this video. however, just because no-one knows about it, does not make it right.
    1
  12. if the boss is the person making this rule, and doing the firing. then it's like he's trying to protect his employees from himself. it doesn't really make that much sense to me.
    1