Bill O'Reilly: sexual harassment claims

[Belz...]

Sexual harassment claims.

And why would they bother with those unless it hurt their bottom line or threatened to? You're just repeating the same basic claim.

 

[PhilosophicalCaveman]

And why would they bother with those unless it hurt their bottom line or threatened to? You're just repeating the same basic claim.

It's the claim they publicly stated as being the reason for firing Bill O'Reilly.

While you and I and perhaps everyone else knows it was done for financial reasons, I see no problem with it being based genuinely on the piling harassment claims.

I'm only answering your question.

 

[Belz...]

It's the claim they publicly stated as being the reason for firing Bill O'Reilly.

While you and I and perhaps everyone else knows it was done for financial reasons, I see no problem with it being based genuinely on the piling harassment claims.

Sure but they wouldn't do it unless they thought it'd cost them. You may say that their publicly-stated reason isn't the real one, but beyond that I don't see what your objection is.

 

[PhilosophicalCaveman]

Sure but they wouldn't do it unless they thought it'd cost them. You may say that their publicly-stated reason isn't the real one, but beyond that I don't see what your objection is.

Don't worry, there is nothing beyond what I stated, which was that it's a shame that it was due to cost rather than based on principle.

 

[quadraginta]

Don't worry, there is nothing beyond what I stated, which was that it's a shame that it was due to cost rather than based on principle.

It was based on the principle of the cost. That's the only principle.

That's what businesses are supposed to do in free market capitalism. The important thing is to win, and the way the score is kept is with money.

It's the conservative way.

Ethics, other principles, are for chumps. Not for Real Businessmen™.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well since we don't know if he's guilty or not (even though it wouldn't surprise me at all if he were) what other factors would have motivated them?

We certainly know he was guilty of it in the past. Look into the recordings he left in his 2004 case. But it isn't like anyone cared about sexual harrasment all the way back then.

 

[3point14]

$13 million is too much for the offenses involved. The reason the numbers were so high is because Fox was trying to protect $400 million a year in ad revenue by keeping everyone quiet. They were all settlements, the idea was to keep the cases out of court . This is my opinion, I don't think it's anything that can be proved, at least not by me.

What's your scale? What objective standard are you making your judgement against and which evidence have you used?

Could you show your working? Otherwise it's just a totally unsupported opinion on your part and can be safely disregarded.

 

[Belz...]

Don't worry, there is nothing beyond what I stated, which was that it's a shame that it was due to cost rather than based on principle.

Which brings me right back to my earlier question: what principle? O'Reilly is ACCUSED of sexual misconduct. Should people accused of a crime be assumed to be guilty?

This doesn't mean that I don't find the accusation credible. But to expect employers to fire their staff because they're accused of something is a step in the wrong direction.

 

[PhilosophicalCaveman]

Which brings me right back to my earlier question: what principle? O'Reilly is ACCUSED of sexual misconduct. Should people accused of a crime be assumed to be guilty?

This doesn't mean that I don't find the accusation credible. But to expect employers to fire their staff because they're accused of something is a step in the wrong direction.

I'm not speaking about anything other than this specific case, I'm not speaking about an employer firing a staff because someone accused said staff of something, I'm speaking about firing based on the merit of the actual sexual harassment cases and not due to money as in O'Reilly's situation.

Believe it or not I believe we're already in that direction. In most, if not all workplaces that amount of sexual harassment reports would be cause for firing anyone and it would've taken place. Firing someone for a series sexual harassment is not uncharted territory or a new direction.

Perhaps the direction FoxNews should've taken was to deal with the cases in lieu of paying off these women and have them sign a non-disclosure agreement. *But they didn't because he was making them more money than they were dishing out. To me that's the wrong direction because it means that there is no regulating the behaviour of these 'high-ups'.

O'Reilly had enough time to redeem himself.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not speaking about anything other than this specific case, I'm not speaking about an employer firing a staff because someone accused said staff of something, I'm speaking about firing based on the merit of the actual sexual harassment cases and not due to money as in O'Reilly's situation.

You're asking Fox News to play jury, then.

You still haven't told me why it's the principled thing to do.

 

[PhilosophicalCaveman]

You're asking Fox News to play jury, then.

You still haven't told me why it's the principled thing to do.

Jury?
Quick question, how is workplace sexual harassment claims handled in your workplace? Because here it is taken up with HR (even if there's an outside investigation happening), and it is grounds for dismissal.

It's principle to dismiss on grounds of sexual harassment to protect employees. Seems simple enough to me. Much better than monetary gains/loses or pay off to silence the victims.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Which brings me right back to my earlier question: what principle? O'Reilly is ACCUSED of sexual misconduct. Should people accused of a crime be assumed to be guilty?

This doesn't mean that I don't find the accusation credible. But to expect employers to fire their staff because they're accused of something is a step in the wrong direction.

And his record of being recorded sexually harassing women is irrelevant to this case too I am sure. How he loves to rub falafel on women in the shower for one.

 

[Belz...]

Jury?
Quick question, how is workplace sexual harassment claims handled in your workplace? Because here it is taken up with HR (even if there's an outside investigation happening), and it is grounds for dismissal.

The claim is grounds for dismissal?

Gee, that's not an open door for abuse at all, is it?

It's principle to dismiss on grounds of sexual harassment to protect employees.

And now you've switched from claim to guilt, which kind of supports my point: You seem to equate the two.

And his record of being recorded sexually harassing women is irrelevant to this case too I am sure.

Strawman.

And as usual you're "sure" of stuff you make up about other people.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The claim is grounds for dismissal?

Gee, that's not an open door for abuse at all, is it?

If one assumes no investigation.

Where I have worked an investigations the logical extension of a claim.

That investigation need not find evidence sufficient to convict, just sufficient to terminate employment. They are different measures. Avoiding abuse is the entire point of the system.

 

[Belz...]

If one assumes no investigation.

Of course, but notice how PhilosophicalCaveman worded his post. He said the claim is grounds for dismissal.

Where I work, you'd need a pretty solid case for that to occur.

That investigation need not find evidence sufficient to convict, just sufficient to terminate employment. They are different measures.

Sure, but they wouldn't fire you on the simple claim, which was my point.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Of course, but notice how PhilosophicalCaveman worded his post. He said the claim is grounds for dismissal.

Where I work, you'd need a pretty solid case for that to occur.

I'm willing to bet most people assume a claim is coupled with an investigation which then leads to dismissal. We should all be more careful to point out such assumptions, clearly.

Sure, but they wouldn't fire you on the simple claim, which was my point.

Congrats on winning that point! It has really progressed the thread.

 

[Belz...]

Congrats on winning that point! It has really progressed the thread.

Why the sarcasm?

There are MANY threads on this forum where mere accusations lead to the assumption of guilt. I don't think it's trivial to point it out and aspire to a higher standard.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Why the sarcasm?

Feeling sarcastic.

 

[Belz...]

Feeling sarcastic.

Happens to me all the time.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And as usual you're "sure" of stuff you make up about other people.

And as usual you don't bother to find out anything about what you are talking about and demanding everyone else do the work for you.