BR2 Rob Royal,
I was interested to read that you work for a large organisation,The Environment Agency.
A friend of mine and I have had the discussion a number of times around our jointly held view that most legislation comes about because of what does or doesn't happen in large offices in London.
Also within the Financial Services world regulations are needed because of the practices of people operating within large organisations based in London and Schards will probably back me up here-money-grabbing practices that are far less prevelant in firms working away from London.
In smaller companies people reach common ground in how they inter-react with colleagues.
They don't have line managers to turn to,they don't spend time wondering if what somebody has said to them could at a stretch be deemed to be a sexist or racist remark,they are often too busy getting on with their work.
I would suggest also there is not the competitiveness that happens in larger organisations between men and women-quite simply I think you will find that in most smaller businesses (for whatever reason) the boss tends to be male.
The majority of businesses in this country are small businesses.
When I lived in Reading I commuted to the City daily and it is different there,a different kind of existence from what happens elsewhere and I am sure that is the same experience of other posters.
In my day-to-day life neither racism or sexism are ever issues-where I work there are no other races than Brits and they are all white.
The women are all over 27 and none have ever complained about sexism-they are not ruled by fear either and are encouraged to air their views whenever they feel like it and they do!!
Since we merged 3 companies some 7 years ago no female has left other than to go on maternity leave.
I mention all of this because all of our women here have expressed the view that they are horrified that after 20 years service these two have got the sack.
The general view is that at worst they might have been suspended for a week or so to give everybody time to reflect but most felt that was not even necessary.
Well, I work in Sheffield as it happens
But although I'm bound to have a different slant on these things to yourself, I think there's some truth in what you say. The EA, along with other govt bodies, I should imagine, likes to consider itself at the forefront of promoting equality in the workplace, etc. Let me say, though, that my office isn't full of people watching their backs, snootily reporting ill-judged off-the-cuff comments, of whatever. I threw in the reference to where I work only because I believe that, if a complaint were ever made about one of my workmates, it would be taken very seriously indeed (at a guess, I'd say someone could survive two plausible complaints of sexism, but not a third).
I think the idea of "common ground" you mention is important, and it's relevant to what I said earlier about Charlotte Jackson. If (and it's a really big if - I know she didn't complain but there are obvious institutional reasons why she might not) she had no problem with the Gray comment, then you could say they had some "common ground" between them - an understanding of what was appropriate behaviour between them. However, they don't work alone, so this "common ground" would have to include the views of feelings of other people in their workplace. If someone new comes in and takes offence to a comment like that, the employer should take it seriously - because its the newbie's working environment too. But then how far do you want to manage office behaviour based on the feelings of a single employee, when the participants of the "banter" don't care? It's tricky, and it depends on the context and severity.
It doesn't sound to me like you're someone who actually would have enjoyed working with Gray and Keys, or knowing that the majority of the people around them (men, by the sound of it, as well as women) were p*ssed off but felt unable to speak out because of their power.
