I virtually never agree with Kirstie Alley. Every company is free to implement their own personnel policies. It's not like these people were deprived of their rights. They just don't work there anymore. It's administrative, not punitive.

Trial by the Media. Yes, I do agree with her. I also absolutely 100% do agree that sexual predators, regardless who they are, should be fired and/or prosecuted, but ONLY after the evidence is found to be irrefutable. It should not be spread all over the media as a given.

Administrative would be reassignment of job duties, not termination. However, it would be very interesting to know what the personnel policy manual states, wouldn't it?

I agree with dchall.

Lynn, irrefutable might be difficult in the case of one party says this/another party says that. Unnerving to say the least.

"We now live in a country where people lose their jobs when accused of something without proof or trial or in some cases with anonymous accusers..."

Since we do not know what was presented to these employers, behind closed doors, we really have no way to know if there is no proof, how much proof there is, etc. Just because a person is anonymous to the media, does not mean that the employer is not aware of the person's identity. I somehow doubt that these people are losing their jobs based upon anonymous accusations with zero evidence.

veggiegardnr - Good point. Just because the press has not published accusers' names does not mean the accusers are anonymous!

I'm assuming that when presented with these complaints, people like Matt Lauer are leaving willingly because they know the allegations to be true. I think he would've insisted on due process if he thought there were any chance he could prove these women wrong.

No, haven’t taken Kirstie seriously since reading of just how far she is enmeshed with the whole Scientology thing. Any organization (I cannot call it a church, not going to apologize for that either) that splits parents from children as standard practice, demands billion year contracts, and unceasingly requires members to funnel cash into courses and books that keep being slightly revised on things like punctuation so that they have to buy the stuff all over again and take the same courses which is all designed to extract more money - credit cards, settlements, loans and refinancing have been things members are pressured into giving to the organization and the celebrities who endorse this scammy business know that they are supporting the horrible treatment of average rank and file members. They themselves are only treated better as long as they don’t step over the line and speak out against Scientology, evidently that is enough to get some to attack one of their own - Leah Remini is one tough mama, and she won’t let them silence her.

The more I find out about different celebrities the more narrow my entertainment options get because it’s hard to stomach watching or listening to the stuff that I know features certain celebs after learning just how rotten these star(s) are.

Gail618: or do the accused know they cannot defend themselves in the media?

So far the accused well known people who have lost their jobs have all apologized for their actions haven't they?

Which to me says they are admitting guilt,

A corporation can and should put a morals clause in its contracts.

If you're in entertainment in the first place it's because you've got some kind of drive or need you are trying to accommodate. Other than that the entertainment community is just another slice of humanity, with all that entails.

>A corporation can and should put a morals clause in its contracts<

Starting with the CEO and board.

Deliliah - I don't think people in these positions would walk away from so much if they were innocent but afraid of trial by media. And it does seem like many of them have agreed that to some extent, what they are accused of doing did in fact occur. PS - TOTALLY irrelevant but I always thought he was kind of a jerk. When he interviewed Anne Hathaway the day after she was photographed from a low vantage point coming out of a limo and the first thing he said to her was something like "we've been seeing a lot of you lately" -- how rude and insensitive. Yeah, let's embarrass the poor girl even more...

Who, specifically, has lost his/her job based on accusations? There are people who have lost their jobs and all we have heard is the accusation -because we arent' privvy to the evidence, but it may well exist.

With respect to the Laurer issue, he was a key contributor to NBC's cash cow show. They would have never fired him if there wasn't clear evidence that he violated his contract. Like bestyears said, just because we don't know specifics doesn't mean there isn't evidence.

I agree that an inappropriate comment is not equal to a rape and should not be treated in the same way. But both are wrong and should be addressed.

Did she ever #METOO? I would have trouble believing she has never been approached in ways she disliked. While her sentiments are fair--the issue for the last 50 years has been PROOF. How do you prove that? This is the first time in history the victims had a voice that was listened to.

In some or even most of the cases, the only punishment these men are getting is to be outed and loose their jobs. So in the big scheme of things, they’re still getting the easier side of it. They’re all millionaires and most are already nearing the end of their careers anyway, the impact financially for them is non existent so yeah, if there are a lot of women accusing one man and there’s a pattern, I think it’s fair.

Don’t read anything she says, but...

Personally, I’ve seen some pretty rotten things occur to myself and other women in my career but it hasn’t been close to what I’ve been hearing and I haven’t reported it.

I’m torn with a lot of compassion for the victims. But I’m concerned about the impact from what can be perceived as a “pile-on” that’s happening right now.

First of all, having all these come to light at the same time diminishes the value or the impact of any one incident.

Second, let’s face it. Women today are in a better position, but we’re nowhere near equal. So I’m just waiting for some to start calling it “hysteria”, which would never be used if men were the victims. It will become their defense and be used to discredit or quite down the “hens” cuz that’s how men like that think.

Third, I agree with others that the volume is making it difficult for many to view individual situations on their own merit. Most concerning is a misplaced hand, sex in the office and rape are in the media spin cycle together. See #2.

Fourth, and most inflammatory, is the “partisan” argument that is taking place in the conversation. It has no bearing, but instead is bullying it’s way into the real problem. And by doing so, we forget about the real problem because we’re so focused on finger pointing at one side or the other.

And finally - not from a partisan perspective, but as a woman - I’m wondering what people are telling their daughters about the president getting elected after being on tape talking about doing just this when others are losing their jobs.

The message there is that some people pay the price and others don’t. So you better hope when you go talk to your company about someone making unwanted advances that they are not one of the privileged. And this will ultimately shut down the conversation in any way that permanently changes the problem. Out of the spin cycle and everyone will move on if we’re not careful.

edited for typing errors.

And even when there is proof it can sometimes be dicey in my mind. Take Al Franken for example, there are pictures of him acting inappropriate. However, I just can't think of him as a sexual human being. I have better luck thinking of him practicing circus clown juggling in his free time or telling not funny jokes. Besides being a nincompoop was he just being clueless thinking he was being humorous or was he purposely acting in a degrading sexual way? I know what his accusers say but should there be little exceptions for simple people? People who used to be a comedian? And, not a good comedian so no real power over women.

If being an idiot makes you less responsible for your actions, we’d have half the jails we do now.

That being said, we’ve all done and said stupid things. So where does one draw the line?

That question will never be answered if we can’t build a framework that distinguishes these types of aggressions.

Yes, I know what you are saying. But still, I guess it all comes down again to not all this stuff is the same.

Agreed!

“maddielee

So far the accused well known people who have lost their jobs have all apologized for their actions haven't they?

Which to me says they are admitting guilt,”

It does? in the case of Garrison Keillor....touching a woman’s back. Lot of guilt there. His firing is bs.

yes, I agree with her.

I don't think any of us are in the position to judge if a firing is appropriate. Were you in the room with these people? Do you know their contract's morals clauses?

HE says it was because he touched a woman's bare back. MPR and the accuser haven't said any specifics. He also used this opportunity to talk about women making passes at him which is at the bare minimum, tone deaf.

Does anyone really believe Garrison Keilor was fired for touching a woman's backside? Minnesota Public Radio isn't sharing any of the information about the firing. So why are people concluding he was fired for 'touching a woman's backside? -because that's what HE's saying? That seems honestly, naive. It's a classic defense that we start as young children when we defend our actions by saying, "I just---" When our parents hold us accountable, it's usually for something quite different than our versions of events.

These major employers and boards aren't removing them because of any great moral compass, but because the backlash will hit their corporate wallets. If it were otherwise, they'd have been quietly dismissed much earlier.

I'll bet that in the small and medium businesses, and those not so much in the public eye, these dismissals don't happen based on accusations, even with evidence.

"I'll bet that in the small and medium businesses, and those not so much in the public eye, these dismissals don't happen based on accusations, even with evidence."

I agree bpathome.

Yes, and, as i said in the Weinstein case, the vast majority of women impacted by this behavior have far less power and resources and they are fearing for their sustenance and not whether they get a part or a story. Not at all saying those latter things are not important, but for many women being harassed/assaulted, this issue is literally about survival not just fairness or optimality. Those stories will not be tweeted and are usually ignored.

I have been lucky to only work for large firms with professional management, and both the press and stockholders to report to. But stories I have heard about how some small businesses treat people --- hair raising!

mtnrd, I worked in a large firm with professional management, everyone has heard of it, and it does have a public presence, but once you get into the offices, not the high-up muckety-mucks, no one cares.

Agree where human are involved no system or protocol is foolproof, but employees are treated far better in larger co IMHO.

I don't follow her, and I don't pay much attention to celebrity views on issues.

That said, if you're walking down the street and a stranger exposes himself, you report him to the police and he gets arrested for indecent exposure, right?

If you're in your office working and a co-worker comes in and exposes himself, he doesn't get arrested, but why not? Just because you know him, doesn't make it alright unless there's a consensual relationship between the two of you.

I don’t care the least little bit what some quasi-celebrity thinks. S/he is just a person, like me and you.