Antiseptic,
The case is not completely settled. A private detective is now suing her for unsubstantiated allegations she made about the private detective. After the solicitors and the private detectives take their cut, I think she could be left in debt.

Still, a payout from a company of $850,000 because she "felt" harassed, (with no physical evidence or signs of trauma) would be enough to make many companies highly unwilling to employ women.

I think most companies have enough problems surviving already without having to deal with ghosts, or unsubstantiated allegations of sexual harassment.

For those still having problems with this topic try the following website:

http://au.reachout.com/find/articles/sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace

unsubstantiated sexual harassment charges have no legal bearing.

Lexi, I checked that link, thanks. Let's look at what they say is sexual harrassment.

"Sexual harassment can include:

* unwelcome touching, grabbing or other physical contact
* comments that have sexual meanings
* asking for sex or sexual favours
* leering and staring
* displaying rude and offensive material, e.g. calendars, cartoons
* sexual gestures and body movement
* sexual jokes and comments
* questions about your sex life
* sex based insults
* criminal offences such as obscene phone calls, indecent exposure and sexual assault."

With the exception of the last one, all of these things are entirely subjectively offensive and what one person finds acceptable, the next may not. they've been a feature of nearly every all-male workplace I've worked in and some where women were present. Law should not be based on subjectivity and it should not pander to the unreasonably precious.

Why are her "feelings" so important?

you say "unsubstantiated sexual harassment charges have no legal bearing."

Which is a cop-out, as you know. Once the claim has been made there will be a lot of trouble caused for everyone. The link is doing as Pelican did and suggesting that he may be subject to coercion from his supervisors, even if no formal complaint is made. It's the same sort of thing that the silly Flood is demanding - she says "he's a bastard" and all the "real men" are meant to step in and bash him.
It's very much the same sort of thing that is applied in DV law and in Family Law - a claim is as effective as a substantiated case if the objective of the accuser is to cause trouble for the accused. There's lots of effort made to get the accused to just accept the accusation without ever challenging it.

Weak and not worthy of respect.

Lexi

If the law is all that matters, why does Dr Flood want other men to criticise the accused harasser?

All of the actions on Anti's list are only sexual harassment sometimes. At other times, depending on her feelings, they are enough for her to fall in love.

Stealing is always stealing. Murder is always murder. Assault is always assault. Flirting is only sexual harassment sometimes.

Errr...No Anti, if you are going to comment on my comments at least get it right. I did say that it was up to the complainant to first make a complaint, then the organisation can deal with it via mediation, counselling etc. Look back and see my earlier comment to that effect. The Courts are the most extreme course of action available.

As for the DJ's case, why are you blokes assuming that the claims were bogus? Is it possible that the ex CEO was actually guilty of the claims brought forward by more than one person? Yes the payout was high compared to a person injured at work but the complainant from the beginning took the case to court to highlight the issue of SH.

Your attitude is just the same as those you deride - you are saying that a woman's feelings are unimportant and that men's feelings override any others even if means women just have to put up with overt sexual attention in the workplace.

Clearly there needs to be a meeting of commonsense approaches. I have always worked with blokey blokes and there is a difference between overt SH and workplace jokes. Most blokes, even the blokey ones know where to draw the line because it really isn't that difficult to work out.

Pelican,
For a male in the workplace, drawing the line basically means not touching any woman, and having as little communication with women as possible, or all communication has to be stickly work related.

It also means not being in a room with a woman unless someone else is present.

I know of companies where this is now the unofficial policy of male workers in the company, and I also know of men who will not work with women full stop.

The DJ’s case only emphasises what can happen if a male does not follow these policies. The CEO gave a female employee a hug at a Christmass party, and at another time he asked her to go for a drink after work. For this he lost his job and about a $2 million dollars in bonus pay, the company also lost $100 million in share price decline.

So that is "drawing the line", and in a feminist society “drawing the line” also means not employing women to start with, which is what many companies do (unofficially).

The Floods in this world, with their bigotry, mis-information and male denigration have done amazing things for women.