The blog writer explicitly said they weren't going in to details, but had confirmed to their own satisfaction the veracity of the reports. But there have been a few people willing to go on record to report on what they've seen of Appelbaum's behavior:
How about not having their asses sued off? Strong responses to sexual and other forms of misconduct are often not done out of some sense of decency, but because without a strong response, the victims' next route is to sue the organization, which can be very costly.
The only troublesome events I've had with other coworkers was in some of the management positions I held where I had to take some disciplinary action for tardiness or poor work. Once I had to terminate someone, and I have to say that of all the hard things I've had to do in my professional and personal life, that was just about the hardest thing I ever had to do. The individual was a very nice person, someone who I personally liked a lot, but for a lot of reasons, some of them not their fault, they just couldn't do the job, and after multiple chances, the management team decided they had to go, and I, being direct supervisor, was the lucky recipient of that task.
Now I have seen some pretty deplorable behavior between other workers. I've seen bullying, both subtle and not so subtle, and have seen two coworkers enter a sexual relationship. None of these were my supervisors, and I wasn't their's, so it did not affect me personally, but I'd say that good people and shitty people are pretty much evenly divided between men and women.
The worst boss I ever had was a man, however. A petulant, ill tempered asshole who took out his shitty marriage on his employees, to the point where, after a ten minute session of the most vile berating because she had forgot to make a new pot of coffee, she just ran out the door in tears. She came back an hour later, and actually fucking apologized to that creep, mainly because she was a single mother with a young child, and couldn't afford to be unemployed. That certainly taught me a good deal about situations of relative power and impotence, and while not sexual abuse, was a kind of hostility and abuse where I did see people stick with the job, simply because they needed to pay the bills.
A company doesn't need to wait for formal legal proceedings to terminate someone, particularly if they have an existing set of policies surrounding sexual misconduct.
It may not be a crime to be bad, but in may still be an actionable offense by one's employer. Employers, particularly where employment contracts are in place, do not have to sit and wait for the police to charge someone, or wait until they're convicted, or even ignore violations of policy because they don't rise to the level of criminal actions, to sack someone.
Whether it's someone sticking his hands down a woman's pants or even just common theft are almost always actions that can lead to immediate termination.
They don't want a court involved for the same reason no corporate or private entity wants a court involved; because the court will find the organization was in the wrong, and will find against it. The whole point of having sexual harassment policies and making them apply to everyone from the CEO to the guy that vacuums the carpet is corporate liability for sexual harassment or assault lies solely on the perpetrator. Even where a board or management has been proven to have insufficiently protected employees from sexual or other kinds of abuse, a strong response is seen as a way of assuring the corporate culture is appropriately modified.
Where I work, and I am in a senior management position now, sexual harassment, bullying and other anti-social actions are all in the company policies, and those policies constitute part of an employee's employment contract. While serious assaults would be referred to police, actions that while perhaps not criminal in nature, but still in violation of the policies surrounding the most egregious behaviors will inevitably lead to termination (with severance where we deem it inappropriate to have the individual on premises one second longer).
It sounds to me like Tor hat a right shitty organizational culture which had far too much familiarity between employees, and while I'll wager that they did have the proper policies, non-enforcement can lead to those being little more than a booklet that collects dust in everyone's office. Well, that's bad on them, but at the end of the day, in the world we live in now, at any point one party in a sexual or erotic encounter can terminate that encounter immediately, and if the other party does not comply, then the line is crossed. But really, there should be a zero tolerance for shenanigans. Managers should not be having any kind of sexual encounters with subordinates, even if it is consensual. It's disruptive, bad for general moral, and opens up the organization to significant liabilities. Frankly, if I or one of the other managers had a sexual encounter with a subordinate, and it gets found out, I'd say we'd be out the door in a pretty big hurry.
Their attitudes rather explain why. They clearly hate women, and it stems from their own fear of women.
For chrissakes all but one of my bosses has been a woman. I have worked with women as my supervisors and women working under me, and women in equal positions. I've never had one accuse me of anything untoward, nor have I ever seen any of them behave in a dishonorable fashion towards me.
But that's impossible. Everyone knows Slashdot posters are the most desirable of all men? How is it possible that she didn't immediately leap across the space, demand sexual gratification from you, and then inevitably go and tell your mutual supervisor that you molested her in a wanton and depraved manner?
Oh, I forget to mention SJW, so SJW this and SJW that! Women are vile evil creatures out to entrap men and then get them fired!
By "frowned upon", you mean "treason". Inviting a foreign power to breach US security with the promise of reward is treason. If he were in office and made that statement, it would be grounds for impeachment.
But I get it. Trump can say anything he wants and his supporters will either ignore it or make excuses.
That was Kaiser Wilhelm II's theory of international affairs, right up until he was forced to leave Germany as the country collapsed. Being a blow hard is not some sort of positive character trait, even when you think you have the upper hand.
Maybe he will, maybe he won't. One thing is certain, all the claims that he would moderate his tone can be discarded. He's going to keep being Donald Trump all the way through. We'll see, once he's said thirty to fifty more absurd things, whether he can still get the votes he needs.
No one has to try to make Trump look bad. The man is actively trying to destroy his own campaign, but morons like you seem to think that's some sort of master plan.
Yes yes yes. Whenever Trump says something so blindingly idiotic it always is handwaved away as a joke... Unless of course the audience eats it up. You know, like making Mexico pay for a big wall, something Trump has no power to do, but because it gets idiots like yourself to jump up and down like five year olds in a blow-up castle, well, yay Trump meant it!
Translation: I'm ignoring the idiocy of Trump's statement, and inventing a rationale that allows me to not feel like a contemptible moron for supporting the man.
I can't decide which is stupider, a Trump supporter who just willfully filters out any of the idiocies the man spouts to convince themselves he's a fitting presidential candidate, or Trump supporters in general.
So you think destabilization of international affairs, particularly against the larger more powerful competitor nations, along with unnerving long-standing and even newer allies is somehow beneficial?
So, in other words, providing a buy into the Trumpite "big media" conspiracy theory, it all makes sense. That's kind of like having to actually buy into Scientology before I can believe in e-meters and Thetans, right?
So you don't think the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US inviting a foreign power, one that is at the best of times in a rather tense relationship with the United States, to hack into US systems just to gain dirt on the other party's nominee is reasonable?
Slashdot Mirror
The blog writer explicitly said they weren't going in to details, but had confirmed to their own satisfaction the veracity of the reports. But there have been a few people willing to go on record to report on what they've seen of Appelbaum's behavior:
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...
How about not having their asses sued off? Strong responses to sexual and other forms of misconduct are often not done out of some sense of decency, but because without a strong response, the victims' next route is to sue the organization, which can be very costly.
There have been at least a few people willing to go on record as witnesses to his ill behavior.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...
The only troublesome events I've had with other coworkers was in some of the management positions I held where I had to take some disciplinary action for tardiness or poor work. Once I had to terminate someone, and I have to say that of all the hard things I've had to do in my professional and personal life, that was just about the hardest thing I ever had to do. The individual was a very nice person, someone who I personally liked a lot, but for a lot of reasons, some of them not their fault, they just couldn't do the job, and after multiple chances, the management team decided they had to go, and I, being direct supervisor, was the lucky recipient of that task.
Now I have seen some pretty deplorable behavior between other workers. I've seen bullying, both subtle and not so subtle, and have seen two coworkers enter a sexual relationship. None of these were my supervisors, and I wasn't their's, so it did not affect me personally, but I'd say that good people and shitty people are pretty much evenly divided between men and women.
The worst boss I ever had was a man, however. A petulant, ill tempered asshole who took out his shitty marriage on his employees, to the point where, after a ten minute session of the most vile berating because she had forgot to make a new pot of coffee, she just ran out the door in tears. She came back an hour later, and actually fucking apologized to that creep, mainly because she was a single mother with a young child, and couldn't afford to be unemployed. That certainly taught me a good deal about situations of relative power and impotence, and while not sexual abuse, was a kind of hostility and abuse where I did see people stick with the job, simply because they needed to pay the bills.
Being stupid isn't a license for someone to sexually assault you. But there have been much more specific accusations about Appelbaum's behavior.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8...
A company doesn't need to wait for formal legal proceedings to terminate someone, particularly if they have an existing set of policies surrounding sexual misconduct.
It may not be a crime to be bad, but in may still be an actionable offense by one's employer. Employers, particularly where employment contracts are in place, do not have to sit and wait for the police to charge someone, or wait until they're convicted, or even ignore violations of policy because they don't rise to the level of criminal actions, to sack someone.
Whether it's someone sticking his hands down a woman's pants or even just common theft are almost always actions that can lead to immediate termination.
They don't want a court involved for the same reason no corporate or private entity wants a court involved; because the court will find the organization was in the wrong, and will find against it. The whole point of having sexual harassment policies and making them apply to everyone from the CEO to the guy that vacuums the carpet is corporate liability for sexual harassment or assault lies solely on the perpetrator. Even where a board or management has been proven to have insufficiently protected employees from sexual or other kinds of abuse, a strong response is seen as a way of assuring the corporate culture is appropriately modified.
Where I work, and I am in a senior management position now, sexual harassment, bullying and other anti-social actions are all in the company policies, and those policies constitute part of an employee's employment contract. While serious assaults would be referred to police, actions that while perhaps not criminal in nature, but still in violation of the policies surrounding the most egregious behaviors will inevitably lead to termination (with severance where we deem it inappropriate to have the individual on premises one second longer).
It sounds to me like Tor hat a right shitty organizational culture which had far too much familiarity between employees, and while I'll wager that they did have the proper policies, non-enforcement can lead to those being little more than a booklet that collects dust in everyone's office. Well, that's bad on them, but at the end of the day, in the world we live in now, at any point one party in a sexual or erotic encounter can terminate that encounter immediately, and if the other party does not comply, then the line is crossed. But really, there should be a zero tolerance for shenanigans. Managers should not be having any kind of sexual encounters with subordinates, even if it is consensual. It's disruptive, bad for general moral, and opens up the organization to significant liabilities. Frankly, if I or one of the other managers had a sexual encounter with a subordinate, and it gets found out, I'd say we'd be out the door in a pretty big hurry.
Their attitudes rather explain why. They clearly hate women, and it stems from their own fear of women.
For chrissakes all but one of my bosses has been a woman. I have worked with women as my supervisors and women working under me, and women in equal positions. I've never had one accuse me of anything untoward, nor have I ever seen any of them behave in a dishonorable fashion towards me.
But that's impossible. Everyone knows Slashdot posters are the most desirable of all men? How is it possible that she didn't immediately leap across the space, demand sexual gratification from you, and then inevitably go and tell your mutual supervisor that you molested her in a wanton and depraved manner?
Oh, I forget to mention SJW, so SJW this and SJW that! Women are vile evil creatures out to entrap men and then get them fired!
SJW....
SJW...
SJW .... SJW .... SJW !!!!!
So you don't have any context either...
By "frowned upon", you mean "treason". Inviting a foreign power to breach US security with the promise of reward is treason. If he were in office and made that statement, it would be grounds for impeachment.
But I get it. Trump can say anything he wants and his supporters will either ignore it or make excuses.
That was Kaiser Wilhelm II's theory of international affairs, right up until he was forced to leave Germany as the country collapsed. Being a blow hard is not some sort of positive character trait, even when you think you have the upper hand.
People keep saying he's being quoted out of context, but curiously never actually provide the context.
Maybe he will, maybe he won't. One thing is certain, all the claims that he would moderate his tone can be discarded. He's going to keep being Donald Trump all the way through. We'll see, once he's said thirty to fifty more absurd things, whether he can still get the votes he needs.
No one has to try to make Trump look bad. The man is actively trying to destroy his own campaign, but morons like you seem to think that's some sort of master plan.
Yes yes yes. Whenever Trump says something so blindingly idiotic it always is handwaved away as a joke... Unless of course the audience eats it up. You know, like making Mexico pay for a big wall, something Trump has no power to do, but because it gets idiots like yourself to jump up and down like five year olds in a blow-up castle, well, yay Trump meant it!
Translation: I'm ignoring the idiocy of Trump's statement, and inventing a rationale that allows me to not feel like a contemptible moron for supporting the man.
That's NATO's fucking job, to contain Russia, and Russia has demonstrated amply why it still needs to be contained.
I can't decide which is stupider, a Trump supporter who just willfully filters out any of the idiocies the man spouts to convince themselves he's a fitting presidential candidate, or Trump supporters in general.
"Donald, you're my brother, and I love you, but don't ever take sides against Russia again..."
So you think destabilization of international affairs, particularly against the larger more powerful competitor nations, along with unnerving long-standing and even newer allies is somehow beneficial?
So, in other words, providing a buy into the Trumpite "big media" conspiracy theory, it all makes sense. That's kind of like having to actually buy into Scientology before I can believe in e-meters and Thetans, right?
Trump makes a lot of absurd comments. Can someone explain to me how you filter them in to "Serious Proposals" and "Jokes"?
So you don't think the Republican candidate for the Presidency of the US inviting a foreign power, one that is at the best of times in a rather tense relationship with the United States, to hack into US systems just to gain dirt on the other party's nominee is reasonable?