Many companies have instituted formalized Sexual Harassment policies. Israel Discount Bank, PepsiCo. , Mitsui & Co., and Time Warner were questioned regarding their sexual harassment policy. The opening statement of a policy establishes the tone for the rest of the policy, clarifying a company’s position on the issue. Three of the above-mentioned companies opened their statements of policy forcefully and definitively, stating that all employees have the right to work in an environment free of sexual harassment. The fourth company, Mitsui ; Co. , was less explicit, stating that all employees have the right to equal employment opportunities. It later proceeded to state that unlawful employee harassment is prohibited.
Within their policies, each of the companies gives their definition of sexual harassment. Israel Discount Bank and PepsiCo. ‘s definitions were similar, listing repeated sexual flirtation, unwelcome advances, propositions, verbal abuse of a sexual nature, suggestive objects, offensive comments, jokes, or innuendoes as harassment. Time Warner and Mitsui & Co. simply enumerate unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,and verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature under sexual harassment. Each company stresses forbids the threat of job loss due to rejected sexual overtures.
They prohibit supervisory staff from threatening or insinuating, either explicitly or implicitly, that any employee’s submission to or rejection of sexual advances will,in any way, influence any personnel decisions regarding employees:employment, evaluation, wages, advancement, assigned duties, or compensation. Sexual harassment can only be dealt with if the victim comes forth. The willingness of an employee to be forthcoming is dependent upon the articulated position of a company regarding sexual harassment. PepsiCo. ‘s zealous opposition to such harassment is clear in their written policy which states, All employees are STRONGLY URGED and ENCOURAGED to bring such harassment to the attention of their supervisors.
. . . The other three companies were not as strong, in that their written policy suggests that all employees SHOULD report harassment to their supervisors. Other than Mitsui & Co., each company clarified steps to be taken upon the reporting of sexual harassment. Israel DiscountBank oddly claimed that there would be no retaliation against employees reporting sexual harassment, promising response to the complaint within thirty days. PepsiCo. and Time Warner assured that reported cases would be responded to in strict confidentiality and with a prompt investigation. Preventative measures such as ongoing educational programs and group sensitivity sessions can limit the occurrence of sexual harassment on the job. An effective deterrent to this kind of behavior is clearly delineated protocol and the consequences for breaking job-place rules.
Israel Discount Bank and Time Warner are vague in that they state that appropriate corrective actions willbe taken. PepsiCo. and Mitsui & Co. threaten prompt disciplinary action and possible termination.
The above survey suggests that individual companies have differing policies and procedures responding to sexual harassment,from forceful to inexplicit. Yet, each of the surveyed companies clearly recognizes the problem and has taken steps to curtail the occurrence of such incidents. There are, however, companies who either wish to ignore the problem or do not feel it important enough for them to address. Their responses follow. BibliographySexual HarassmentMany companies have instituted formalized sexual harassment policies.
Israel Discount Bank, PepsiCo. , Mitsui & Co. , and Time Warner were questioned regarding their sexual harassment policy. The opening statement of a policy establishes the tone for the rest of the policy, clarifying a company’s position on the issue. Three of the above-mentioned companies opened their statements of policy forcefully and definitively, stating that all employees have the right to work in an environment free of sexual harassment.
The fourth company, Mitsui ; Co. , was less explicit, stating that all employees have the right to equal employment opportunities. Itlater proceeded to state that unlawful employee harassment is prohibited. Within their policies, each of the companies gives their definition of sexual harassment.
Israel Discount Bank and PepsiCo. ‘s definitions were similar, listing repeated sexual flirtation, unwelcome advances, propositions, verbal abuse of a sexual nature, suggestive objects, offensive comments, jokes, or innuendoes as harassment. Time Warner and Mitsui & Co. simply enumerate unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors,and verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature under sexual harassment.
Each company stresses forbids the threat of job loss due to rejected sexual overtures. They prohibit supervisory staff from threatening or insinuating, either explicitly or implicitly, that any employee’s submission to or rejection of sexual advances will,in any way, influence any personnel decisions regarding employees: employment, evaluation, wages, advancement, assigned duties, or compensation. Sexual harassment can only be dealt with if the victim comes forth. The willingness of an employee to be forthcoming is dependent upon the articulated position of a company regarding sexual harassment. PepsiCo.’s zealous opposition to such harassment is clear in their written .
