THE COSTS OF UNSAFE WORKPLACES
We’ve always known that victims bear the impact of sexual harassment at the workplace. Some of them give up careers to avoid a situation of harassment. Some costs are intangible—loss of confidence, shame and ‘mindspace’. Over the past few weeks, we’ve seen women speak out on these costs, but not enough has been heard yet on the costs establishments bear. It’s not just that sexual predators have been outed; companies that harboured these men have also taken flak for, among other things, hiring people without doing background checks beyond “the old boys’ club”, not calling out blatant sexist behaviour, and letting ‘open secrets’ remain secrets. In some cases, they have vacancies to fill after men have been asked to leave. In others, the entire structure of the organisation is in a shambles after co-founders have been found to have either behaved badly or abetted this behaviour, by omission in some cases.
A key feature of this work environment has been the lack of redress mechanisms an employee is aware of, feels a sense of ownership towards, and has confidence in. The Vishaka guidelines made this mandatory in 1997. All that the 2013 sexual harassment law seems to have achieved is to make the institution of Internal Complaints Committees a ‘compliance issue’. Heads have rolled, but women don’t necessarily feel safer at the workplace. If anything, the bar for what constitutes ‘sexual harassment at the workplace’ has been set very high by instances that could even be called rape or assault. Already eyes are being rolled at ‘trivial’ instances, or instances where women have purportedly consented to predatory behaviour for ‘benefit’.
The 2013 sexual harassment law is quite different from criminal laws on violence against women. For one thing, it recognises that consent is a grey area even at the workplace, and nods at the possibilities of explicit or implicit promise of preferential or detrimental treatment in the organisation. But the point is not whether a woman accepted these advances; the real question is: can we have workspaces where women are not forced to make these choices or risk consequences?
Sexual harassment laws are not so much about punishing perpetrators as they are about ensuring a safe working environment. Sexual harassment is an occupational hazard for all women in any industry. Dalit, Adivasi, Bahujan women, and women with disabilities, face even greater risks at the workplace simply because they face more barriers in finding redressal. The diversity these women bring to the organisation is probably worth more than anything the ‘rockstar’ with a ‘bad boy’ past might contribute. Hiring someone with a ‘reputation’ is a gamble that extracts a heavy price: the amount of time wasted on miscommunication because women employees don’t want to see this person in his cabin; accounts lost because of his predatory history gone public; the litigation a company faces for failing to take preventive action. There are public costs too. Sexual harassment at the workplace has been linked to psychological distress that could precipitate future psychosocial disability.
Organisations would do well to facilitate conversations about problematic behaviour, offering support for colleagues who’d like to address their own behaviour, and assure victims of support if they raise issues. Both an effective ICC and a company work culture that does not enable sexist and misogynistic behaviour have immense deterrent value beyond the fear of someone’s screenshots going public. A more diverse representation and involvement of women in hiring, recruiting and mentoring employees will be much more impactful than a yearly training session. As for horizontal recruiting, hopefully, the very male notion of ‘poaching’ talent will be accompanied by thoughtful consideration of the person’s antecedents and observation of the person’s impact on the working environment.
It’s time to raise the costs of bad behaviour and make it unaffordable for the perpetrators and the organisations that employ them.
Not just victims, organisations too pay a price for hiring people with a ‘reputation’: losing people and accounts, and facing litigation—and flak for heedless recruitment