[insanecoder]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Something just isnt right when behavior like this can take place for 20 years... the HR dept that knew about this should be fired as well.

Its called .. yea hes a sex fiend but hes makin us $$$.. so letem do whatever til someone exposes it.. and it took 20 years
They dont give a rats asp about women they're just blowjobin a cash-cow til it drops empty of semen (and hair it seems)

[CTinline-six]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Something just isnt right when behavior like this can take place for 20 years... the HR dept that knew about this should be fired as well.

Yup, did you see the list of past things he had done? Giving a co-worker a sex toy for a present and wanting to use it on her, etc...

Some HR departments are just as corrupt as the employees. My guess is that all along they kept ignoring the things he did, and this last person who came forward had evidence (such as a text message or picture) and planned on suing them or is in the process of suing them so they let him go. They only did so because money was involved.

[ASAP]

Originally Posted by CTinline-six

Yup, did you see the list of past things he had done? Giving a co-worker a sex toy for a present and wanting to use it on her, etc...

Some HR departments are just as corrupt as the employees. My guess is that all along they kept ignoring the things he did, and this last person who came forward had evidence (such as a text message or picture) and planned on suing them or is in the process of suing them so they let him go. They only did so because money was involved.

this is the problem across the board... money rules and is king, people that generate revenue can do anything

[JohnnyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Germanauto

I'm enjoying watching all the liberals who were on their moral high horse during the election cycle getting busted for being human scum in their personal lives.

What do politics have to do with any of this? This isn't a left or right issue ... maybe you've heard of Roger Ailes or Bill O'Reilly? Why this incessant need to link everything to the schism in American politics, completely irrespective of any actual connection?

[JohnnyCanuck]

Originally Posted by ASAP

Something just isnt right when behavior like this can take place for 20 years... the HR dept that knew about this should be fired as well.

I've worked in organization where HR has governance and where they don't (far more common). Guys like Lauer have a lot of power and in organization where HR doesn't have governance, all they can do is make recommendations to the responsible executives and have no actual decision making authority. I've worked in both models, but currently am in a senior role but without governance.

Fortunately for me, I've only had one situation where I have been unable to influence the decision makers to the right outcome. I left the organization almost immediately (and took a short detour to a lower paying job). Often, HR doesn't hear about this stuff until it's gone on for many years (. When we do, we may not have the decision making authority and may not be able to influence the right outcome.

You have no way of knowing who is accountable for Lauer getting away with it for years. I agree there should be consequences ... but, based on my personal experience, it is far more likely that NBC Universal programming execs are the ones to blame.

[gonzo]

Really?

NBC News publishes survey about sexual harassment day after Lauer firing
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...er-firing.html

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck

What do politics have to do with any of this? This isn't a left or right issue ... maybe you've heard of Roger Ailes or Bill O'Reilly? Why this incessant need to link everything to the schism in American politics, completely irrespective of any actual connection?

I think it's pretty clear what he means. Liberals, particularly those in Hollywood, and mainstream media spoke with disdain about Trump and revelations that were conveniently made during the election. They made the election about smashing through the glass ceiling and electing the first woman president vs. electing someone who said "grab them by the pussy." The liberals claimed moral superiority. Lauer is part of mainstream media.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes these same people were pulling their dicks out and using their positions of power to coerce women into sex, or raping them if they refused. That doesn't mean there weren't conservatives guilty of the same actions, but the conservatives did not claim moral superiority (on this particular topic).

It's no different than a conservative outspoken against gays who gets caught in a gay relationship or a conservative outspoken for family values and against abortion telling his side chick to get an abortion. It's the hypocrisy of the situation.

[UncleWede]

So the 2 women who made the announcement on TV, were they crying because they thought he was such a wonderful coworker, or were those tears of relief?

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck

What do politics have to do with any of this? This isn't a left or right issue ... maybe you've heard of Roger Ailes or Bill O'Reilly? Why this incessant need to link everything to the schism in American politics, completely irrespective of any actual connection?

Let me step in and help, Johnny. This is from my view as a person of color and a bit of a political insider as well as a former liberal and Democrat.

The left in the US says that they are champions of women, minorities, and all other downtrodden people. This is done by putting any non-believer in a position to be vilified. Let's look at the scenario currently in front of us: The unmasking of another group of predators. Many of the same people who have vilified Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Cosby, and others (and rightfully so) in the strongest possible terms, are now being unmasked as multi-decade predators agains women.

Women are a special constituency in the pantheon of liberal causes. Think about this for a second. These self-same people who vilified Mr. Trump for, "grabbin' 'em by the pussy" either directly like Matt Lauer, or indirectly, like Harvey Weinstein who gave almost exclusively to liberal causes and the DNC were icons of liberals. As I stated in a different thread these people, by their association with liberal causes have provided a tacit safe environment for women because, "they couldn't possibly disrespect women as they stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the solidarity of achieving equality". And then reality hits. They are actually scumbags, as well.

This is the extra cherry on top of the hypocrisy pie of which most who are discussing this politically, speak.

I hope this helps as I genuinely believe that most people are on the correct side of this, especially someone like you who is on the frontline.

Cheers-mk

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

I think it's pretty clear what he means. Liberals, particularly those in Hollywood, and mainstream media spoke with disdain about Trump and revelations that were conveniently made during the election. They made the election about smashing through the glass ceiling and electing the first woman president vs. electing someone who said "grab them by the pussy." The liberals claimed moral superiority. Lauer is part of mainstream media.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes these same people were pulling their dicks out and using their positions of power to coerce women into sex, or raping them if they refused. That doesn't mean there weren't conservatives guilty of the same actions, but the conservatives did not claim moral superiority (on this particular topic).

It's no different than a conservative outspoken against gays who gets caught in a gay relationship or a conservative outspoken for family values and against abortion telling his side chick to get an abortion. It's the hypocrisy of the situation.

This.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Let me step in and help, Johnny. This is from my view as a person of color and a bit of a political insider as well as a former liberal and Democrat.

The left in the US says that they are champions of women, minorities, and all other downtrodden people. This is done by putting any non-believer in a position to be vilified. Let's look at the scenario currently in front of us: The unmasking of another group of predators. Many of the same people who have vilified Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Cosby, and others (and rightfully so) in the strongest possible terms, are now being unmasked as multi-decade predators agains women.

Women are a special constituency in the pantheon of liberal causes. Think about this for a second. These self-same people who vilified Mr. Trump for, "grabbin' 'em by the pussy" either directly like Matt Lauer, or indirectly, like Harvey Weinstein who gave almost exclusively to liberal causes and the DNC were icons of liberals. As I stated in a different thread these people, by their association with liberal causes have provided a tacit safe environment for women because, "they couldn't possibly disrespect women as they stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the solidarity of achieving equality". And then reality hits. They are actually scumbags, as well.

This is the extra cherry on top of the hypocrisy pie of which most who are discussing this politically speak.

I hope this helps as I genuinely believe that most people are on the correct side of this, especially someone like you who is on the frontline.

Cheers-mk

Plus this.

[JohnnyCanuck]

Originally Posted by anglo

Pretty appalling indeed the mockery was before these allegations came to light.
Of course anyone with a lil bit decency would find this behavior unacceptable.

Not sure if your comment is being critical of the previous commentary or trying to explain it (not really looking back at older posts at this point and not going to single anyone out).

My issue with the first two + pages of this thread (and much of the Weinstein and Sexual Assault threads as well) is there are pages of references to "women sleeping their way to the top" or "it's awful to be a man these days" to "watch out for a woman using false allegations to get even you" and similar sentiments.

I've probably been involved in or advised on more than 500 harassment investigations for multiple employers over the years. Probably around 150 of those have been related to sexual misconduct. Of those, maybe a total of 10 have been frivolous, vexatious or malicious claims. A number of the non-sexual harassment ones have been communication or relationship issues that can be mediated, but almost none of the sexual harassment ones fit that definition. Of the remaining sexual misconduct cases, I have a few where the complaints had the ring of truth but I couldn't be satisfied on the balance of probabilities (the Canadian term for "preponderance of evidence") that I had a provable case and that there should be some level of consequence. My point is, that the overwhelming majority of sexual misconduct complaints that I've dealt with have been generally valid.

In my view, the reason we are seeing so many of these come forward now in a cluster is that women are feeling empowered by the fact that once powerful men who were able to use their power to avoid being held to account for their actions are now being held accountable. Women are finding courage in each other to finally speak up. It is not a conspiracy, it is not a coordinated effort, it simply the inertia of women feeling like their not alone and that's becoming very powerful.

Instead of prejudging the next one of these stories and assuming that somehow the women is attention seeking, or vengeful, or hates men, or is just as guilty because she used her own sexuality to get ahead ... why don't you (collectively, not individual) wait for some level of fact to come out before judging.

[gonzo]

Except Matt has admitted it.

[JohnnyCanuck]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

Let me step in and help, Johnny. This is from my view as a person of color and a bit of a political insider as well as a former liberal and Democrat.

The left in the US says that they are champions of women, minorities, and all other downtrodden people. This is done by putting any non-believer in a position to be vilified. Let's look at the scenario currently in front of us: The unmasking of another group of predators. Many of the same people who have vilified Mr. O'Reilly, Mr. Cosby, and others (and rightfully so) in the strongest possible terms, are now being unmasked as multi-decade predators agains women.

Women are a special constituency in the pantheon of liberal causes. Think about this for a second. These self-same people who vilified Mr. Trump for, "grabbin' 'em by the pussy" either directly like Matt Lauer, or indirectly, like Harvey Weinstein who gave almost exclusively to liberal causes and the DNC were icons of liberals. As I stated in a different thread these people, by their association with liberal causes have provided a tacit safe environment for women because, "they couldn't possibly disrespect women as they stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the solidarity of achieving equality". And then reality hits. They are actually scumbags, as well.

This is the extra cherry on top of the hypocrisy pie of which most who are discussing this politically speak.

I hope this helps as I genuinely believe that most people are on the correct side of this, especially someone like you who is on the frontline.

Cheers-mk

The problem is that turning this into a political issue diminishes the evil of the behaviour. Look, I have no problem with calling out an individual's hypocrisy. Lauer deserves special rebuke for his interview with O'Reilly in light of his own (possibly worse) misconduct. But, when you try to align the misconduct to left or right skews, the issue gets lost in people's politics. By defining Lauer a hypocritical liberal the public dialogue loses sight of what he actually is: a sexual predator.

Political leanings do not belong in this conversation. Serial sexual harassers belong to all political and religious stripes and their is no ownership by any constituency of the moral high ground.

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck

The problem is that turning this into a political issue diminishes the evil of the behaviour. Look, I have no problem with calling out an individual's hypocrisy. Lauer deserves special rebuke for his interview with O'Reilly in light of his own (possibly worse) misconduct. But, when you try to align the misconduct to left or right skews, the issue gets lost in people's politics. By defining Lauer a hypocritical liberal the public dialogue loses sight of what he actually is: a sexual predator.

Political leanings do not belong in this conversation. Serial sexual harassers belong to all political and religious stripes and their is no ownership by any constituency of the moral high ground.

I respectfully disagree. Like the predator priest who engaged in pedophile behavior which is as close to the ultimate hypocrisy as one can approach, the left leaning predators who espouse their solidarity with women while preying on them is actually more heinous.

Cheers, my friend-mk

[JohnnyCanuck]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

So the 2 women who made the announcement on TV, were they crying because they thought he was such a wonderful coworker, or were those tears of relief?

Really good question. People like Lauer (and this is a generalization but probably an apt one in this case) reserve their behaviour for those where there is a clear power imbalance. Although Lauer was probably more powerful than Savannah Guthrie and possible Ann Curry within NBC circles, I doubt he was more powerful than Katie Couric. In any event, he likely moderated his behaviour where the power balance wasn't so strongly in his favour and his various co-hosts over the years were probably never targets of his.

What I'd find more interesting is what they might have heard over the years and how they responded. To go back to your original question, my guess is a combination because they were never victims themselves but now that the story's out there they have probably pieced together things in their own minds that they had seen and/or heard but never connected before.

[The Choosey begger]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck

What do politics have to do with any of this? This isn't a left or right issue ... maybe you've heard of Roger Ailes or Bill O'Reilly? Why this incessant need to link everything to the schism in American politics, completely irrespective of any actual connection?

Like Hannity on the right, Charlie Rose, Matt Lauer were advancing the left's agenda, all those guys are political operatives, same with Hollywood.
It's not that complicated.

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by MKSixer

I respectfully disagree. Like the predator priest who engaged in pedophile behavior which is as close to the ultimate hypocrisy as one can approach, the left leaning predators who espouse their solidarity with women while preying on them is actually more heinous.

Cheers, my friend-mk

So the far right is also hypocritical, aka O'Reilly's "No spin zone"? Moore, who is most likely a child molester, he who lost his job because he wouldn't remove the 10 commandments statue from in front of a courthouse, is representative of the alt right? And the big boss, Trump, tweeting about Al Franken when more serious allegations have been leveled against Trump himself?

[Captain Blood]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck

Really good question. People like Lauer (and this is a generalization but probably an apt one in this case) reserve their behaviour for those where there is a clear power imbalance. Although Lauer was probably more powerful than Savannah Guthrie and possible Ann Curry within NBC circles, I doubt he was more powerful than Katie Couric. In any event, he likely moderated his behaviour where the power balance wasn't so strongly in his favour and his various co-hosts over the years were probably never targets of his.

What I'd find more interesting is what they might have heard over the years and how they responded. To go back to your original question, my guess is a combination because they were never victims themselves but now that the story's out there they have probably pieced together things in their own minds that they had seen and/or heard but never connected before.

Seemingly, no. Apparently this behavior started in 2002, before he was so highly paid and powerful.

[JohnnyCanuck]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

Seemingly, no. Apparently this behavior started in 2002, before he was so highly paid and powerful.

But he was still more powerful than some intern or production assistant. Back then his behaviour was likely a lot less brazen ... that probably grew in direct proportion to his power. My point was that I doubt his on-screen colleagues were ever the target of his behaviour because the power imbalance was never strong enough.

[Germanauto]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck

What do politics have to do with any of this? This isn't a left or right issue ... maybe you've heard of Roger Ailes or Bill O'Reilly? Why this incessant need to link everything to the schism in American politics, completely irrespective of any actual connection?

It's not a left or right wing issue at all as pervs from both sides are guilty.

BUT my point stands that a lot of these Hollywood and media people painted themselves as moral superiors and denounced Trump for multiple things yet in their own lives they have done worse!

[MKSixer]

Originally Posted by Real Dodger

So the far right is also hypocritical, aka O'Reilly's "No spin zone"? Moore, who is most likely a child molester, he who lost his job because he wouldn't remove the 10 commandments statue from in front of a courthouse, is representative of the alt right? And the big boss, Trump, tweeting about Al Franken when more serious allegations have been leveled against Trump himself?

Please go back and read what I wrote a bit more carefully.