Among Friends

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@Perkup wrote:

I am neither accusing or defending. But do any of us actually know what Matt Lauer is supposed to have done?  All I have heard is what is on tv, which is nothing specific. Just that he's out.

I have reached a sort of notion of my own about these many  allegations. Not just this one. I think that if something happens it should be reported right away - not 5, 10, 20 or more years later.  If it was bad enough to be true harrassment, it should be reported within a year, or not at all.Keeps these fame seekers (and many of them are nothing more) from jumpiing on the band wagon years later. At least that's getting to be my opinion. Perhaps no one agrees with me, but that's ok.  We're all entitled to our own opinions. 

---

@Perkup

First, NBC or any other employer has no obligation whatsoever to reveal the specifics of reported assaults, sexual harassment,  or other actions deemed to be unacceptable by their employees.  

Secondly, why do people think that when a woman comes forward to report a sexual assault that she is looking for FAME?   Who gets FAMOUS from that?   I wish someone could list the women who get famous (in a good way) from reporting a crime.

It's so easy to chastize women by saying that if she didn't immediately report something, then it must not be true.  If the perpetrator is the boss, or a very high up individual, many will assume that nothing will be done.  In many cases, that is absolutely correct.  

It's human nature for sexual assault victims to be reluctant to report a crime ....  statistics say that only 15 to 35 percent of these crimes are ever reported, so this needs to be seriously considered.  (see link for explanation)  

My guess is that when one or two women come forward with a recent assault, past victims are moved to speak up to give corroboration to the original complaint(s), and NOT because they are looking for "fame".   (When one woman accused Cosby, many people dismissed it.  When the number jumped to 60 women, the very similar patterns & facts in their reports made it impossible to ignore.)

https://ocrsm.umd.edu/files/Why-Is-Sexual-Assault-Under-Reported.pdf

[hckynut]

---

@chiclet wrote:

I cannot understand a person risking a job where you are as overpaid as he was and your family for any reason.    

---

@chiclet

Like a big percentage of sex crimes, it isn't for that type of satisfaction, it is done for power. Lots of studies of these felons and addicts have said that was their reason. High $$$ egotist's are no different.

hckynut

[chrystaltree]

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

@chrystaltree. Sorry but I am not wrong.  I worked for 32 years for an agency the took workplace complaints that were forwarded to federal and state agencies for  investigation.  We took all discrimination complaints very seriously, and I assure you the training was no joke.  You apparently had the opposite experience and your employer didn't take this seriously.  They usually change their mind once the first complaint hits the fan.  Your ignorance on the subject reflects the quality of your orientation.

Maybe you "worked" and I assume that means you retired years and years ago but I still work and I sit through that little Abuse video every year, we have to or we don't get our yearly raise.  I was also, until a year ago, a department manager.  I managed a staff of 70.  So, I know the process inside and out and no employee is ever fired based on an allegation and that includes every possible offense you can imagine.  If something is criminal, the police are called in.  A physical attack is always criminal and never, ever falls under in house domestic abuse.  It's a police action.  The "he touched me axx" type allegations never go anywhere because there is never any proof or witnesses and no company wants to subject themselves to an unfair dismissal lawsuit from a man.  You don't know what you think you know.  

---

[chrystaltree]

---

@jewel3 wrote:

I think it is awesome that the Today Show ratings are highest in their time slot now that Matt is gone. Maybe women like to watch women better in the morning. I certainly do. 

I don't think that's the reason.  I think there are a lot of people, like myself, who never liked Lauer and so we never watched Today.  Now that Lauer is gone, those people are coming back.   

---

[qbetzforreal]

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

---

@qbetzforreal wrote:

---

@Sooner wrote:

---

@Reever wrote:

---

@Sooner wrote:

Let me throw out this question:  IF a woman wears very revealing and provocative clothing to the office, could a male who worked for her say he was being sexually harassed?

---

I presume the woman in question is his boss. Only if her ACTIONS are construed as sexual harrasment could she be accused of sexual harrasment. Wearing an outfit is not harrasment. But can women be sexual harassers ? Absolutely. Ive witnessed it myself. But your premise as described above is not sexual harrasment.

common sense seems to be an endangered species. If someone speaks up and says "that makes me uncomfortable", if the perpetrator does it again it becomes harrasment. We are all guilty of saying or doing something that is inappropriate. We are human, but if a pattern emerges and someone continues to say lewd jokes I feel it is harrasment.

---

@Reever  Wearing a provocative outfit isn't harassment, but a joke might be?  I'm just trying to clarify here. 

---

Correct.  

---

@qbetzforreal. Wearing provocative clothing, flirting, joking, comments, etc. by either male or female can creatate a hostile enviroment which must be corrected by the employer if an investigation finds complaints to be valid.

---

What?  I'm currently employed as a manager by a very, very large govermental agency.  I am aware of the federal, state, county laws, rules and regulations.  I am also aware as a manager I am subject to discipline if I am aware of violations and ignore them.  I was responded to reever.  Absolutely, provocative clothing, racy catalogs, dirty jokes etc can lead to a hostile work environment if a person bothered by it.  S#xual harassment can also lead to a hostile work environment.  @Kachina624

[muttmom]

I have no sympathy for Matt Lauer.  As others have said he cheated on his wife for many years.

I laughed out loud when I read the comment he no longer has a hair and make-up perosn.  The hair part is too funny.

I cannot help but wonder how many of these victims enjoyed the perks of being the secret partner of a high power, rich, married man.

As for Ann Curry, she was an awful co-host on Today.  When she did evening news segments she was fine.  On Today she seldom made eye contact and always sounded nervous.

[Sooner]

---

@chrystaltree wrote:

---

@Kachina624 wrote:

@chrystaltree. Sorry but I am not wrong.  I worked for 32 years for an agency the took workplace complaints that were forwarded to federal and state agencies for  investigation.  We took all discrimination complaints very seriously, and I assure you the training was no joke.  You apparently had the opposite experience and your employer didn't take this seriously.  They usually change their mind once the first complaint hits the fan.  Your ignorance on the subject reflects the quality of your orientation.

Maybe you "worked" and I assume that means you retired years and years ago but I still work and I sit through that little Abuse video every year, we have to or we don't get our yearly raise.  I was also, until a year ago, a department manager.  I managed a staff of 70.  So, I know the process inside and out and no employee is ever fired based on an allegation and that includes every possible offense you can imagine.  If something is criminal, the police are called in.  A physical attack is always criminal and never, ever falls under in house domestic abuse.  It's a police action.  The "he touched me axx" type allegations never go anywhere because there is never any proof or witnesses and no company wants to subject themselves to an unfair dismissal lawsuit from a man.  You don't know what you think you know.  

---

---

@chrystaltree  There are no absolutes.  These situations run the gamut from horrible abuse of people to people who tease and invite then file charges for revenge.  There are cases of true victims and scorned lovers.  And companies and situations are as different as night and day too.  You simply can't generalize about any of this--and the generalizations are wherein lies the big problem.

What you think you know only applies to certain places and certain people and certain law enforcement agencies and states and laws and how they are enforced or not.

If you are in the public eye or your position is a visible one, sometimes allegations alone can get you booted out.  

Each person, case and situation has to be examined to determine what really is going on.  I worry that not enough of this is being done on eitiher side of the coin.

[Vickiv]

KARMA  Will get you sooner than later. He is arrogant and thinks he was untouchable. He is probably is in shock that they had the nerve to fire him. 

 I don’t think he really understands or cares. The only thing he worries about is he fell  off his pedestal. 

[OfCourse]

Matt Lauer will presumably find his "new normal" in time.  He has his considerable wealth to cushion the hard landing he had when he was fired.  It doesn't sound to me as if he forced any of these women to do anything, or have I not read the right articles?  My true sympathies lie with his wife, who should have divorced him in 2006, when she filed and then withdrew.  Did she do so after prodding from him/his people so that he could save his image?  She's now in her 50s.  Still, she has her children, her horse riding, and will undoubtedly get a huge divorce settlement.  Why did she put up with what she described in 2006 as cruelty and abuse from him?  Unless she was fooling around too, he has treated her very badly.  God only knows what this has done to the children.

[Othereeeen]

Regarding the "training" given about sexual abuse, misconduct, or ANY type of conduct infraction...

The purpose is NOT to teach anyone anything.

It's to get your name on a form saying you TOOK the training, were informed of consequences, and now that YOU have been accused, you MAY get a warning, but that signature covers the company's behind if they fire you.

DOcumentation is EVERYTHING.

When we gave training in MegaCorp on any subject, the attendees had to sign, AND, someone made sure that anyone who attended DID sign. If they didn't they had to take it again, or that became a reason to be let go (failure to follow company policies on training).

It wasn't because you didn't absorb the subject matter.