I wonder if stockholders, investors, and clients are more concerned with making money or with treating everyone nicely and fairly? Those two goals probably aren't mutually exclusive, but what if they are correlated? What if promoting more women ends up cutting profits by 10%? What if firing high-level executives who don't work well with women cuts profits by 10%?
The City has been urged to tackle its culture of sexism following a plethora of sex discrimination cases brought by female bankers and lawyers.It's obvious that the men involved here are pigs. But, as a former customer of Morgan Stanley, I couldn't have cared less how many women were involved in management. I cared about how much money the company made me. If some executive couldn't or wouldn't stop offending women, I'd want to company to make the most profitable choice and fire whoever was contributing least. If the women were less valuable than the man harassing them, then get rid of them; if the man was less valuable, get rid of him. (And, obviously, if any of the harassment was actually criminal (such as assault, battery, rape, or attempted rape) then seek criminal prosecution.)Julie Mellor, chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, called for companies to shake off their "macho" image by carrying out "root and branch" reform in the way they recruited and paid female staff. ...
The settlement includes a $12 million (£6.8 million) payment to Allison Schieffelin, a bond trader who helped launch the joint action six years ago.
The women claimed they were gropped by male colleagues and were sent strippers or breast-shaped birthday cakes in the office.
Morgan Stanley admitted that few women were promoted to its top jobs, but denied discrimination.
Companies aren't designed or intended to make people feel good about themselves, they're designed to make money for their investors. It's the only fair thing for them to do. If you invest money in a company that makes telephones and then the management of that company decides to waste your investment by buying balloons for orphans you'd be pretty upset. On the other hand, if buying balloons for orphans -- or firing sexist managers -- is the profitable way to go in the long run, then so be it. Do it. But leave all the touchy-feely (ha) warm-and-fuzzies at home.
The problem, of course, is that there are laws designed to make it expensive to make some decisions, even if they're the most profitable. So now some women are suing (and winning) and costing the companies even more money. What should they have done? How about quitting and finding another job where they're appreciated more? If they're really that valuable, some other company should be glad to take them away from the competition and treat them the way they want to be treated. The only reason to sue is if you know you can't cut it and aren't worth having around.
Update:
And of course some industries -- like rap music -- would disappear entirely without sexism. Should bankers be held to a higher standard than musicians?
Part of the equation should be how valuable the harassers were as employees, and whether that value would have been diminished by telling them to knock it off. In most situations, the harassing behavior adds nothing of value, professionally. For the harasser, it's horsing around when he should be working. For the harasee, it's one more thing getting in the way of doing her job. Unless the harasser is the best guy in the business, he can and probably should be replaced. And even if he can't be replaced, he should be contained as much as possible.
Course, given the existence of sexual harassment laws, that's one more reason why investors should not want to invest in companies that tolerate such behavior.
X: Right, it may be the case that the activities are hurting business, but in that case the investors should stop it based on profit concerns, not based on making people feel good. And yes, the sexual harassment laws do change the incentive structure, as they're intended to do.
What gets me is that the woman who was "discriminated against" made close to a million dollars a year - BEFORE she sued.
If I could make that sort of money, I don't care what shape cake my co-workers got me. And if they groped me, they would end up with a black eye instead of a lawsuit.
This is all about a shakedown for money.
DM: Wait, it's all about money? Say it isn't so!
Michael, are you suggesting that companies shouldn't require their employees to act in an ethical manner?
By the way, my company (and many others) do perfectly unprofitable things like buying balloon for orphans in the form of charitable donations. There is definitely a school of thought that companies, like individuals, have societal obligations.
J: I'm suggesting that companies should require their employees to follow the law; as long as sexual harassment laws exist, they should be followed, but I think they're a drain on the economy. It bothers me that no one considers the cost of this type of law, because there are lots of them and the costs add up to be quite substantial. Further, I don't think the law should be used to force people to be nice to each other.
The owners (shareholders) of a company are well within their rights to do charitable things with company money, as long as they recognize that it's reducing the value of their investment. Management should take direction from owners on the issue though, otherwise their just spending other people's money to make themselves feel good.
MW: I'll have to disagree with you, then. If there were no harassment laws, I would still fire the man (in your example) regardless of the relative importance to the company. There are two major reasons:
1) His actions are unprofessional and unethical. Keeping him risks his harassing someone else or otherwise "acting out". Let him run rampant and you'll be paying re-hiring and training costs every time you fire his victims.
2) Firing the woman lowers other employee's morale when they see how easy it would be to lose their jobs for no reason of their own. Employees are a crucial component of the company and if they aren't treated well or don't have a good work environment, the company's performance will suffer.
J: Fantastic, I'm glad you would make that decision. That doesn't mean it's the right decision for every company though. For instance, and I mentioned, the rap music industry is built on sexism.
Do you have some special insight into the inner workings of a Rap recording label? Anyway, you're arguing some other point. Just because they produce sexist (or other -ist) drivel doesn't mean they don't run a professional organization.
Jay: I don't need "special" insight, I know people involved in the music industry and have, at most, second hand information. You think the sexism in the lyrics is just for show? Don't be absurd. The same rappers also get busted for drugs and violent crime, just like they sing about.
I don't think I'm arguing a different point at all. I think you're probably right in thinking that many companies would benefit most by firing the harasser, but certainly not all companies. Plus, what if the harasser is the owner? He's not going to fire himself, and he may want to sacrifice profits so he can "be himself" or whatever. That should be his choice, not the legislature's.
I'm not arguing that harassment should or shouldn't be the law. I'm commenting on your position that companies aren't intended to make their employees feel good about themselves. From that position, you can imagine firing the harassee could be a good thing for the company. I still don't buy it.
So, I know less than you about the music industry, but as I understand it, the artist has a contract with the producer -- artists are not employees. So, the company is making money of the popularity of this crap - sorry, rap :). However, I'd still guess that the record label employees won't put up with harassment from their coworkers and my arguments above would apply to the economic health of the company. So, the company has decided to put up with a sexist contractor and will put up with whatever he brings into the office when he visits. Basically, my point is that the rapper is not an employee in that company and doesn't interact with the majority of the employees at all. And, even if he is harrassing someone everytime he visits, no one will be fired over it since its an obvious sacrifice they're making.
Regarding the harassing owner... You're right, chances are they're sacrificing profits - not the positive result you put forward in your post.
By the way - sexism and sexual harrassment are two different things.
Oh, well I was discussing the laws, and saying that they're not good policy.
Sexism and sexual harassment should be two different (admittedly overlapping) things, but apparently these lawsuits show that they're not.
I don't care about proportional representation (the sexism part of the equation), but I do care about the sexual harassment part. As X mentions, the harassment per se adds nothing of value to the shareholder or customer (as opposed to rap, where it's part of the entertainment, so it =does= add to customer value).
I understand you're talking about a legal point of view, and I agree that discrimination and harassment laws can be a big ole money sucker for a company... especially if frivolous lawsuits multiply. But this is just one of many regulations imposed on businesses (there's handicapped-access, OSHA regulations on worker safety, EPA regulations on disposing your waste, Dept of Labor regulations on paying overtime). Why target this regulation as opposed to the myriad others that also increase the cost of doing business? I would bet there are plenty of other employment regulations that are even harsher to the bottom line.
From a finance biz perspective, the issue is a non-starter, though, especially now when ethics of financial institutions are being called into question.
It's good for a financial business, and other businesses that rely on having respectable reputations, to have anti-harassment policies, and even train employees on it. And yes, fire misbehavers due to it. I'm in the finance biz, and my company's biggest asset is our squeaky-clean image amongst our shareholders (TIAA-CREF is my company). Our "corporate culture" is waaaay far away from that kind of shenanigans - I would imagine someone in my company would be fired immediately for that kind of behavior.
And as sexual harassment suits aren't going away (and the laws sure as hell aren't...imagine trying to pass that), allowing this kind of behavior is adding to the company's expenses -- some companies may make the calculation that it's worth it on their bottomline, but somehow I doubt that people who have so little judgment as to think this kind of behavior is a good idea add that much value to the company. I could be wrong. I'm sure some of those guys are still working at Morgan Stanley - I suppose they were worth the $54 million, chump change after all. I would take it out of those guys' bonuses. Then all would be square with company shareholders and investors.
MW: Upon reflection, I am arguing that the harrassment laws are compatible with good business practices. Your counter example isn't realistic.
When I look at this court decision again, I think the real problem is the US court system that allows for these insane penalties. Coming from Canada, this is something Canadian companies don't have to worry about so I didn't take it into full consideration.
meep: I agree that all those other regulations are incredibly burdensome as well. Imagine how hot our economy could be if the government stopped babysitting everyone and just let them handle themselves?
Jay: The laws are compatible with good business practice in some industries, but not in others, that's my point. Why should the government get to decide how every business as to act? It's inefficient and overly nanny-ing.
My counterexamples are totally realistic because they actually exist in reality. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean such cases are in the minority? Maybe so, but so what?
MW: as you mentioned, [c]rap artists typically have illegal lifestyles, not just sexist ones. Should certain businesses fire employees who refuse to break certain laws? Or is the real argument that some industries, including [c]rap, are not worth saving anyway?
X: Morally I may agree with you, but I don't think the government should be deciding which industries are morally worthy to exist.
Sexual harassment law is not for businesses purposes, its for social engineering. Of course there are arguments that changing a business culture that makes older white males less dominant will make the business more profitable, but the presumption for a profit-making organization is that their practice is to maximize profits, shouldn't it? And so the real policy decision is whether the policy's goals are sufficiently address to meet the regulatory burden, a value judgement.
This blog should keep its eye on the social engineering ball, which probably comes down to more power in the workplace to women and favored minotires, and not on supposed advantages to the business's profit-making capabilities.
Why is the assumption always that the male employee is more valuable than the female employee? If a man treats his female colleagues in a degrading or condescending way, how do you think he treats female customers? Yes, he probably doesn't have many of them in a company like Morgan Stanley, but women are gaining more high-level business positions every year.
How about flipping the proposition and saying, "If a man can't work well with women, why doesn't he join a company that's all male?" Why should the woman have to change her job and career aspirations because of a man's narrow-minded attitudes? The burden is always on the woman to change her behavior as opposed to the other way around.
VMC: Who was making that assumption? I simply said that the owners of a company should have the freedom to run their business however they want, and that employees should be able to leave if they don't like the environment.
I simply said that the owners of a company should have the freedom to run their business however they want, and that employees should be able to leave if they don't like the environment.
What if the owners of the company threaten to kill the employee's family if he or she tries to quit?
Just sayin'.
What if companies found it profitable to fire all blacks? or all gays? or all women? Would you not support a law that banned this sort of discrimination, even though it may be profitable for the discriminators? (My point can be said in other words: slavery was profitable for the slaveowners.)
Joe: I think that corporations should have the same freedom of association that private individuals do. -- no more, no less. If it's illegal for me to threaten to kill you, it should also be illegal for a corporation to do so. If it's legal for me to not be friends with green people, it should be legal for a corporation to not hire green people.
AM: Then companies should have the right to fire all blacks, women, &c. I don't think that would be a profitable decision, especially considering that minorities and women are often willing to work more cheaply than white males. Slavery is quite different than refusing to hire someone.
This election was the worst one yet! in the time we needed change, and good leadership, the idiots of America united and re-elected two of thier own! Fly your flags at half for the death of the country!
thanks for the artile i used it for a speech im giving for a class im taking... but dont worry ill beure to cite my works... thanks again i totally agree with you...
Yes rap lyrics are just for show.Stop hating on rappers.
You are a sexist and selfish pig! You say that the women are all about the money, but just listen to what you are saying!!! You have no regard for morals or ethics, and I just can't believe that you are selfish enough to think that buying balloons for orphans is going to hurt you in any way. You care about nothing about yourself and your money. I hope you feel good about robbing poor little orphins of their little bit of happiness. How would you like to be in their situation? Prick.
what the hell was that? read thru and couldn't find who melany was talking to but have decided that she is cracked. besides the usual liberal name calling bit there was the statement about not "buying balloons for orphans" followed by "robbing poor little orphans". so she seems to think that if you don't donate to "the less fortunate" that you are stealing from them. only a liberal/socialist could find logic in that.
I think your arguments on this are fairly rational. (i'm a woman, btw)