Sex and the single-minded

It is not as if sex is on everybody's mind in the desire-dissipating clamminess of this mid-summer. But the matter of legal provisions to counter sexual harassment in the workplace is exercising various minds, leading to heated debate. Some very loose utterances by captains of commerce have earned those orally erring gentlemen severe rebuke from parliamentarians of female gender. Efforts to explain the remarks, suggesting that the cold print in press reports did not convey adequately the tone and body language of the speakers, did not really help much.

If thereby the president of the Chamber of Commerce and the director general of the GRTU cannot henceforth be declared guilty of being male chauvinist creatures with tiny curled tails and unwholesome habits of eating and speaking, they have caused quite a stir. That also elicited a contribution from the president of the National Council of Women to explain the "sexual harassment" policy enacted by parliament in February "in the light of misleading comments" on it.

If I might suggest, one should be speaking of an "anti" sexual harassment policy. That provides a more appropriate framework to the question: is there so much sexual harassment on the job that a stringent policy to counter it has to be given strict legal form? It should not really be a matter of extent and degree. Fact is, there should be no harassment at all, not little nor much, whatever form it takes, which may range from light-hearted (sic) flirting to open or implicit demands backed by sinister open or veiled threats regarding, say, the possibility to work overtime, gain promotion, and even job security.

Fact is too that, though it might happen that a female or more than one may harass a male, such sexual harassment as does take place is very largely done by males against female colleagues, whether their equal or to whom they are superior in rank, at whatever level of the work pyramid in place.

The size of the workplace be it a small retail outlet, restricted reception space, a manufacturing line, a partly cordoned off office space, or a room with the door closed, has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It is, in fact, rather surprising that anyone should cite such a factor in arguing that what some claim to be harassment is purely accidental brushing of bodies. Accident and wilful intent are easily told apart, by both sexes. It is also surprising that anyone should cite a female's mode of dress as some sort of "provocation". Within the limits of social mores and decency anyone should dress as they like, without that being interpreted as a come-on signal. Though serious employers should, anyway, implement correct dress codes, the right dress, even if it be a nun's habit or the old ghonnella, is not enough to camouflage all the features that might be compellingly attractive to the beholder.

The only cover exists in everyone appreciating that one goes on the job to work, not to ogle, drool, or fantasise. When that is done by females, it is not the way that males dress that triggers it off. Why should one presume it is so different the other way round?

That said, all employers and managers should read the summary of the code of practice - and not just those specifically termed human resources managers. Employers who are party to a collective agreement, and others who also practise sound human resources policies, will already have in place disciplinary provisions against sexual harassment.

Drawing on my own experience in management I should think that in most cases, where intent has not translated into much worse, the most direct course is the best one - listen to the complaint, assess the sincerity of the complainant, call in the alleged culprit, assess him, if the conclusion, albeit possibly subjective, is that there is a basis to the complaint, give the alleged culprit a severe dressing down, plus a grim warning that any recurrence will attract the maximum penalty.

Employers who are single-minded about not tolerating anything that affects the dignity of their workers can be more effective at keeping thoughts of sex from occupying the minds of their employees more than the job they are paid to accomplish.

That, as the president of the National Council of Woman said, enhances the workplace. I feel, though, that her addenda that "it means more profitability for the enterprise" is irrelevant and even misleading.

It is every worker's right to be properly treated, by superiors as well as by colleagues. Monetary profits for the employer have nothing to do with it.