Great analysis - I can't see how anyone can police suggestive looks, staring or leering and certainly not pre-emptively. I don't think this legal change will help women since obvious harassment is already covered but could make employers, esp in hospitality and similar, less likely to employ women as they will be seen as a risk. The only winners from this are going to be the lawyers.
A very good point. Shifting the burden to employers could easily make them think twice about employing young women. And at this point, the penalty for not preventing harassment is unclear.
Thanks for your clarity of analysis. We are patently way through the looking glass! We all know who’s doing the sexual harassment and it’s not these valiant nurses.
There's so much we can say about this - it was hard to keep this article focussed.
For instance, I suppose I could have asked what is the point of legislating to put the onus on employers to prevent sexual harassment when we do next to nothing to prosecute clear cases of sexual harassment that have already occurred - or even rape?
Or if employers find it impossible to point to clear occurrences sexual harassment and name them for what they are, why would anyone expect them to be preventable before they happen?
Instead, the madness of pettifogging rules continues, and nothing changes.
Great analysis - I can't see how anyone can police suggestive looks, staring or leering and certainly not pre-emptively. I don't think this legal change will help women since obvious harassment is already covered but could make employers, esp in hospitality and similar, less likely to employ women as they will be seen as a risk. The only winners from this are going to be the lawyers.
A very good point. Shifting the burden to employers could easily make them think twice about employing young women. And at this point, the penalty for not preventing harassment is unclear.
Thanks for your clarity of analysis. We are patently way through the looking glass! We all know who’s doing the sexual harassment and it’s not these valiant nurses.
There's so much we can say about this - it was hard to keep this article focussed.
For instance, I suppose I could have asked what is the point of legislating to put the onus on employers to prevent sexual harassment when we do next to nothing to prosecute clear cases of sexual harassment that have already occurred - or even rape?
Or if employers find it impossible to point to clear occurrences sexual harassment and name them for what they are, why would anyone expect them to be preventable before they happen?
Instead, the madness of pettifogging rules continues, and nothing changes.