On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:54:01AM -0500, [email protected] wrote: > I kind of wonder what sort of signals this puts forth. In most cases > places have policy because something happened, or they are just building > a huge book of policies because they have some lawyer on retainer with > nothing better to do.
My experience tells me that many organizations are proactive and want to prevent an incident in advance, regardless what lawyers do or do not exist. Policies aren't always reactionary - certainly not in a modern, foward-looking organization. > > If someone was to look at LOPSA and see how little there is in regards > to membership requirements and/or things around attending a event and > one of the few things there is a policy on Harrassment, how might they > react. > 1. Cool, this is someplace that is prepared, safe, .... or > 2. I wonder what happened that they needed to spend how much time to come up > with this? > I'd fall into group 2. How bad were things that pushed this into existance? Many people would see this as the first, not the second. > > Chances are that in most locations where events take place, they already > have a code of conduct for what happens. They don't want their facility > to become known as the place where problems are allowed to occur without > ramifications. This isn't a universal guarantee, and it usually would only cover things that are clear legal issues that the hosting facility could be liable for, such as damage to property. > > Also, I think the Code-Of-Ethics really covers things. A Code of Ethics is a creed to follow, not a policy or procedure detailing how to implement such a creed in practical terms. An anti-harassment policy is a specific document that outlines expected behavior in specific ways with specific consequences and escalation procedures or avenues. > > Members need to lead by example. Allowing harrassment to happen and not > taking > action is a failure to lead or strive to maintain professional conduct. Without a specific codification of how to interpret and enforce such conduct, there will be vast disagreement or little or no action at all. Our general society of humans has shown this to be true on every level through the ages. > > If you are at a conference of LOPSA event, chances are you have a name > badge on that indicates your name and where you work. Even if it doesn't > have your employeer you are mingling with others in a professional setting. > Act professional. Chances are if you work for a company they have a code-of- > conduct you should be following. If nothing else, if someone is causing > problems > in this space at a conference, maybe it should be reported back to their HR > department. They are acting as a company rep to some degree. Do you want > your company name pulled throught the muck? This is not a deterrent for everyone, and some workplaces support or encourage (perhaps not officially) the very conduct we are trying to prevent at LOPSA events and in LOPSA communications forums. > > Is there really a need to go beyond this. Harrassement is NOT healthy or > ethical. > > Wouldn't it be better to spend the effort going into this on something else? Not for those people who are regular targets of harassment in the ways we are trying to prevent. I will guess that you are, like me, in a fairly privileged and protected class within our society at large, or you most likely would have a rather different viewpoint on these things. If expecting humans to be decent to one another without spelling it all out and having consequences for not being decent were sufficient, we would not need nation states or laws. Clearly this is needed, and LOPSA needs to expend energy and time and volunteer effort to make this happen. -- Jesse Trucks, GCUX [email protected] Director, LOPSA http://lopsa.org _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
