There was an interesting piece in the WSJ today, (front page above the fold) entitled A "Data-Storage Titan Confronts Bias Claim" The article was in refernce to a series of sexual discrimination suits brought by saleswomen (and a few men) at EMC the storage ghardware behemoth. Now while I myself am in tech sales, I have never worked for, with, or with anybody who has worked for EMC, so i cant comment on the validity of the claims or any lack thereof, However one thing did catch my interest and leave me fuming. Included in the litany of complaints against EMC is the fact that they often rewarded thier salesmen with company funded visits to Strip Clubs and would also reimburse salesmen for expenses incurred taking thier clinets to strip clubs. This is what angered me as in both cases it seems to be a perfectly rational way of both rewarding salesmen and establishing the rapport with clients necessary for said salesmen to do their job as expected. In point of fact I know from experience that taking large clients out to clubs, bars, strip clubs, and in some cases (depending on where in the world you or you clients are based) brothels is not only a great way to build rapport, but is in many senses a competitive neccessity. In other words if your the only salesmen not engaging in such practises you are at a competitive disadvantage. In addition it seems to me that since every straight male has been to and enjoyed a strip club (and any guy who says he hasn't is lieing. Going to a strip club is like masterbating, 75% of men have done it, the other 25% lie about it) that taking male employees to one is a very god way of motivating people. It is in fact a tactic I have used with male (and female, afterall chippendales and similar clubs are everywhere) employees to quite good effect.
The problem I had was with the charge that rewarding salesmen in such a way, or even reimbursing salesmen who took their clients to such clubs, somehow creates a "hostile workplace environment" A biggger load of bullshit I have only rarely seen. This is part of a continuting trend in America tod emonise all male sexuality. I have known several who were collegues forced to go to "sensitivity training" or even fired for having sexually charged material in their private offices, inside their desks. In one case when a female receptionist went through a collegues desk looking for some paperwork (without his permission or the authority to enter his office without his approval or presence I might add) and spied an issue of Maxim, (in the bottom drawer of his desk, underneath other papers) she was able to successfully intimidate the management into firing the poor bastard. This idea that a man indulging his appetites in any way, or even having the materials necessary to do so nearby, somehow creates a "hostile workplace environment" is simply ludcirous. Its nothing more than another attempt at the authoritarian moralising which feminsits and thier deluded supporters are so fond of.
What we are seeing is in fact, simply the practical application of feminist dogma that somehow male lust in inherantly corrosive. In what way does an employer sponsered trip to a strip club even affect female employees? Does recognition of the fact that enjoy watching women dancing int he nude somehow demean a woman who wears a suit? Do people honestly think the male employees are going to start trying to put dollar bills down their female collegues shirts simply becasue as a reward they were taken to a nude bar? COnversely if a woman has a "firefighter beefcake" calender on the wall in her cubicle does that create a "hostile environment" for men? When recently married women are talking about a baby shower does that creat a "hostile environemnt" for women who dont intend to become mothers? Honeslty what makes people think that an event they didnt attend, weren't invited to, and has nothing to do with them, can somehow create a hostile environment? I just dont get it. Are women assuming men are so stupid or ignorant that they cant treat female collegues and strippers with differeing levels of respect or differing types of interaction? Are we so stupid that after attending such an event we assume all woemn are really strippers?
I am sure there will be many who disagree with me, so my challenge is this. Explain in rational, reasonable, and logical terms, without resorting to emotional polemics or emotionally based arguments how a manager rewarding his male employees with a visit to a strip club in any way shape or form affects a female employee who was not present. In what way does announcing that "the winners of this month sales contest will be treated by management to a visit to the Scores" in any way shape or form create a "hostile workplace" Now keep in mind that "feelings" have no part int his debate. It honestly doesnt matter whether these types of entertainment offends you, I would like conrete examples of how this creates a "hostile workplace"
But I wont hold my breath.
*Unit X*
4 hours ago
4 comments:
You lumped a whole bunch of arguments together (which need to be treated separately) in an attempt to give the impression that endorsing ONE position somehow means a person MUST endore the other positions too. For example, there is a big deal of difference between a Maxim magazine at the bottom of someone's
work drawer and Company-subsidized strip club excursions. Objecting to one does not necessarily equal objecting to the other. Let me be clear on that up front.
Basically, the reason the strip club scenario is hostile is because the company, by funding the excursions, is tacitly endorsing the patronage of an
establishment that many women find offensive. There's really no other way to read it. Whether it's right or wrong for many women to be offended by strip clubs is neither here nor there.
If people in the company want to go to strip clubs on their own dime, fine, that's their business. But the company shouldn't be paying for it. And why would they even WANT to dip into such sexually controversial waters? Is that the job/place of a "professional" company?
Secondly, if you're talking about taking clients there, and the company paying for it, it is exclusionary toward women, which can be read as "hostile." It is
exclusionary because many women would be uncomfortable in such a setting, or going there, or taking clients there. As a result, they don't feel like they can compete on equal footing.
To say, "They could go too" isn't an adequate response, and many men would object to having female co-workers there anyway. Not only that, many women would object to the message a male client would get by taking him to a female strip
club.
Hence, the whole ordeal creates a setting where women can't compete on equalfooting. Ok, MAYBE we could argue it's ok for a LONE salesman to take a client there PRIVATELY on his own dime. That's an argument I might be persuaded by. However, for the company to foot the bill is quite a different matter.
Your argument that other companies will take clients there if your company doesn't, so you need to do it too, may be true to an extent, but being practical or expedient with clients doesn't have any bearing on whether it's the right
thing to do. It also has nothing to do with whether it's hostile toward women (even unintentionally) or whether we should be setting precedents to eliminate such practices in
society.
Besides, are there no clients that would respect a company MORE if they DIDN'T take people to strip clubs? Are the male sales forces of
America so bad that the only way they can compete is to ply their clients withalcohol and then put them in front of a gyrating woman?
You basically answered your own question when you said "it has nothing to do with them." EXACTLY the point. The company should not be endorsing any trips or
excursions or practices that exclude a sizable portion of their workforce, or make them feel uncomfortable. To say, "It doesn't exclude them" is disingenuous
at best.
There's always going to be disagreement on these issues, and a lot of gray areas. But just because we can't establish iron-clad guidelines that doesn't
mean we just say to hell with it and anything goes, be it fireman calendars, strip clubs, or whatever else.
It has nothing to do with being hostile toward men. It has to do with keeping your sexual entertainment separate from the company, and the company not sending a message to half their workers, "We're totally cool with propogating this, and we're gonna pay for it!"
If a CEO or a worker wants to go to clubs and is ok with them personlly, that's fine. But a big company should make a concerted effort to not endorse (and
certainly not finance) sexually charged hot button issues.
Your friend with the Maxim shouldn't have been fired, either.
You can stop holding your breath now. :)
Basically, the reason the strip club scenario is hostile is because the company, by funding the excursions, is tacitly endorsing the patronage of an
establishment that many women find offensive. There's really no other way to read it. Whether it's right or wrong for many women to be offended by strip clubs is neither here nor there.
===================================
So what if it offends them. I find Hillary Clinton Offensive, should I be able to sue my workplace for creating a "hostile workplace" becasue the company contributes to her campaign? WHy should the fact that it "offends" them matter at all. Since when does the constitution guarantee a "freedom from offense"?
-----------------------------------
If people in the company want to go to strip clubs on their own dime, fine, that's their business. But the company shouldn't be paying for it. And why would they even WANT to dip into such sexually controversial waters? Is that the job/place of a "professional" company?
===================================
Maybe because its a proven way of motivating male staff? What other reason do they need?
-----------------------------------
Secondly, if you're talking about taking clients there, and the company paying for it, it is exclusionary toward women, which can be read as "hostile." It is
exclusionary because many women would be uncomfortable in such a setting, or going there, or taking clients there. As a result, they don't feel like they can compete on equal footing.
===================================
Ohh bullshit. Theres many things some salesmen can take advantage of that others can't. Again you are confusing a lack of difference wiht equality. Equality doesnt mean we all have to be carbon copies of each other wiht the exact same traits, advantages, disadvantages, and starting point. Furthermore claiming its "exclusionary" because many women would voluntarily not use that tactic is inane. Thats like saying the welfare office is exclusionary becasue even when I qualified for welfare I chose not to apply. FInally most male salesmen cant compete with a womans natural advanatge in terms of prospecting and getting her foot in the door. many potential clients are more liekly to listen to a woman simply becasue shes a woman. Does this mean all salesmen and salewomen should have to go to sales meetign wearing sheets and using voice changers so no one can tell their sex?
===================================
You basically answered your own question when you said "it has nothing to do with them." EXACTLY the point. The company should not be endorsing any trips or
excursions or practices that exclude a sizable portion of their workforce, or make them feel uncomfortable. To say, "It doesn't exclude them" is disingenuous
at best.
----------------------------------
SO then a company should'nt support say "national breast cancer awareness day" becasue that excludes the male population?
Or should we prevent companies from having "female empowerment" seminars?
Claiming that this is "exclusive" is inane. It isn't any more exclusive or hostile than having bacon in a comany cafeteria is exclusive or hostile to muslims. Yes it may (or may nto) offend them, but so what? Thats the prive you pay for freedom of speech and action.
If you cant handle it, then move to china, they are great about cracking down on "offensive" speech and actions there.
I was a sales rep at EMC before they disallowed the expense reimbursement for strip clubs.
One of my first (actually, my first) "after work meetings" with my new manager was to a local strip club.
The environment at EMC (at least 8 years ago) was as male oriented and non PC as I can imagine any company might be.
And, in a real way, it was this very environment/reputation that attracted their desired sales employee..."manly" (mostly ex-jocks) that were VERY aggressive and motivated to "not take no" as an answer.
And, to a great extent, this environment contributed to their success.
But, as a "rational" person, I can't say that I don't understand why moving away from this type of approach to doing business, ultimately, would be a good thing...for both EMC and society.
It is not just about making women (or other's with slightly less 'open' moralities) uncomfortable.
Ultimately, this approach (although temporarily opportunistic) is limiting. It truly does tie the sales process to "traditions" that are decades old.
And, assuming that most of the rest of the world is moving away from this sort of 60's/"Mad Men type of approach to the workplace, EMC will need to compete in those situations that can't be influenced by adolescent (male) tendencies.
I haven't worked there for seven years, so things may have changed. But, I find it very hard to believe that it is as easy these days to cover the "overhead expenses" of this sort of approach in a storage market that is becoming commodified.
At the time, sales reps were given something like $5k/month for "entertaining" and were disciplined for not spending every dime; everyone assumed they weren't building "customer relationships" well enough.
So, a decent chunk of the dollars being spent on disk drives had the built in "expense" of Trixy and Brittney.
Great read tthankyou
Post a Comment