The behavior of the male co-workers is offensive to the female coworkers
The management should therefore come in to curb the intolerable conduct of the male employees. The male coworkers’ behavior is offensive and does not create a favorable environment for the female workers to work. Therefore, the management should act with act with lots of concern to both genders of the workers. It is the responsibility of the management to ensure that all workers are treated fairly in the work place and, therefore, need to work hard in ensuring that no worker is subjected to any form of mistreatment by any one. I do accept the claim that workers have the freedom of posting pictures that they so desire in the work place. Despite the fact that they have a right to do so, I tend to believe that that right should not be used to offend or portray any form of discrimination against anyone in the firm. Having a right to do something should never be used to violate the rights of others. Posting of pictures by employees in the work place that other employees see it offensive is not a personal problem. Others may find it offensive in the firm, but the fact that it is offensive to other employees should be dealt with by the management itself. Employees trying to solve it on their own could create animosity among the workers and that is why the management needs to intervene (Budget, 2007).
Sex based discrimination involves subjecting someone to various forms of treatment because of their sex. In the work place, sex based discrimination surfaces when a male manager subjects a female employee to some form of unwanted sexual advance; a woman forced to endure sexual jokes and jeers from male co-workers; a woman denied a position or promotion because she is female. Therefore, the treatment that Lois Robinson was subjected was a form of sex discrimination. No matter how hard she had worked and became equal to the male coworkers, she was never given any executive position. This was a clear indication of sex discrimination against the females. She was also forced to endure sexual jokes and ridicule from the male workers, despite the fact that she had informed the management about the issue. The management never heeded to her complaints but instead increased the pictures that touched on the females. If the management own up to the fact that Lois’ treatment was wrong and deny that the male coworkers did any wrong, I would disagree. The male counterparts were wrong with displaying and passing round pornographic pictures. The even passed a picture that showed portrayed that it was her. Denying Lois to enter the ship fitter’s trailer where the workers would go for instructions or to pick paper work was in itself wrong treatment to Lois (Cotter, 2010).
Lois was offended by the act of the male coworkers passing round a picture a nude woman that had blonde hair and had a whip. The picture was her since she had blonde hair and used a whip in his area of duty. She was also ridiculed and every time she made a comment, the male counter parts would laugh at her. Also putting the sign ‘male only’ hurt her since she was entitled to entre there as it was a place where all the workers would receive instructions and pick their paper work. Putting the pictures showing the private parts and that sign that stated men only is a clear indication that she felt demeaned by the acts of the men counterparts. Yeah, every employee has a right not to be offended. No employee has a right not to be offended. An employee could get offended by someone’s intentional or non-intentional acts. Employees should therefore have in mind that they could be offended not because it was the other person’s wish (Budget, 2007).
Posting of the sign ‘male’ only was morally and legally objectionable
The place was meant to be accessed by anyone regardless of gender. That was where work instructions and paper work was picked. Maybe at the time, Lois wanted to receive instructions and to pick paper work and the acts of the male co workers denied her the opportunity to do so. Therefore, that worked against Lois both morally and legally too (Cotter, 2010).