Selecting five smooth stones

The company Linda worked for is playing along their process, assuming they'll make us go away by annoying us with red tape. If it were just Linda that might have worked because their hiring process, at least initially, utilized psychological techniques to weed out people who would be the kind that would take much effort in fighting for what they believe in. That's not really an insult to Linda's former fellow workers, because in all honesty that's typical of most Americans. We tend to walk away from a problems rather than inconvenience ourselves. But as I remind my wife constantly—I'm not most Americans.

To shine a little more light on the situation, the man that falsely accused my wife has previously violated company policy by having an affair with a married woman who worked under him. She, by the way, is willing to verify that fact. He also did little to hide the fact that he was violating company policy as well as general business ethics. Apparently he's very useful to the company, enough so that they are willing to overlook his peccadilloes and even fire employees he fear may expose him.

The corporate offices would be oblivious to this since they expect the local managers to handle any local problems. The local managers are playing a delay and annoy game in hopes that we'll simply go away.

As we've said, the lawyer we spoke to wouldn't touch the case until the OHRC and/or the EEOC approved it as a valid case, but as we're learning, they also tend to be reluctant to make much of a judgement unless an actual legal case has been built. It may sound open and shut on the surface, but there's been a powerful tug-of-war between government, big business and unions going way, way back. The more power one has, the less the others are able to get away with, but the more the one with power is able to do to abuse that power. The average Joe is caught in the middle and depending on the state, can be left high and dry.

We are being approached by others who have faced similar situations and found both lawyers and the government to be of little help.

People with honest complaints are reluctant to use sleazy lawyers, who have no interest in the truth of the case, only in what tactics they can use to more or less extort money via annoying lawsuits. When your case has merit, using a lawyer like that insults the validity of your claim. But those lawyers find plenty of clients who have no case, but are more than willing in trying to get something for nothing.

Meanwhile government agencies charged with protecting the individual are reluctant to commit resources to cases that aren't already well prepared. One woman we spoke to quit her job after being sexually harassed only to discover that she couldn't claim unemployment because she quit, and the government agency (there are several so I don't know which one she approached) wouldn't talk with her unless she had specific date, quotes and witnesses. Making sure your victim cannot defend herself, therefore, seems fairly easy given those requirements.

At the same time another person we spoke to, a business owner, is being sued by an employee, whose boyfriend came to the workplace and stabbed her. She'd been having heated arguments on the phone with him, while at work, but is suing the company because they didn't "provide a safe work environment". So employer or employee, it's the dishonest who victimize the honest, using the system which seems designed to encourage dishonesty.

One thing I'm seeing though, given the circumstances, is that blogging has really become an asset as we strive to deal with this problem attempting to utilize the usual sources for resolution, which are turning out to be fairly inadequate. But that we are both bloggers has provided us with a voice well beyond what most people have, who don't blog. The networking of people who see these situations in terms of normal human morality rather than stale legalese is refreshing. And as a Conservative, I find that invigorating. The idea of power coming from the passions of individuals rather than the self-serving motives of powerful entities like government, political parties, etc. is at the core of the Conservative philosophy. Remember when "Dan from Colorado" called Rush Limbaugh, telling him his wife said they couldn't subscribe to the Limbaugh Newsletter? Rush suggested a bake sale as a joke, but "Dan from Colorado" took it seriously and within a short time a massive gathering was planned. Rush was ecstatic over the effort, because it proved the power of rugged individualism, and how people can and will stand up for a cause, without the need for big government. I've seen that organic response to several issues within the Blogosphere in the past, and see it happening here as well.

Oh, and the title of the post? It comes from 1st Samuel 17:40, but to understand it in context you'd need to read all of 1st Samuel 17.

Posted by Danny Carlton at June 4, 2007 11:52 AM