1. Your article is extremely biased and you have accused a man without due process. Workforce has published your article. For this reason, I am not continuing my subscription. I thought these type of forums will not engage in partisan politics. I now know different. Thank you. Dr. Shay

    • Hello @drshaym:disqus Thank you for your input. Kellye Whitney’s post here addresses an all-too-real workplace issue, and as such is worthy of publication. It is political but is not partisan. And through the years, when appropriate, Workforce writers have addressed political topics that have a clear workplace relevance. In fact, here’s a post on Workforce.com from 2012 titled ‘The 47 Percent and You’ authored by former Workforce colleague Ed Frauenheim. https://www.workforce.com/2012/09/18/the-47-percent-and-you/

      • Thank you for your response. Just let me say that my argument is about the workplace issue, since as an OD professional and law school graduate, I understand that sexual harassment is very real. I think, however, you might have missed what I have said, and so I will say it again. I am truly disappointed that the writer doesn’t recognize that the same workplace issue could have been addressed seriously without showing bias to any candidate and a statement made decades ago. She has clearly forgotten that Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton both have many supporters in all type of workplaces across the nation, but neglected to address Bill Clinton for doing the same thing.

        To say that the article is unbiased means that the meaning behind what the term is, is confusing. The article certainly did not paint Mr. Trump in a good light, when unless I missed something, it did not mention Mrs. Clinton or her husband, at all. If that does not constitute bias, I don’t know what does. Mr. Trump did not have to be used as an example for what’s wrong with the workplace, when there are a ton of current, timely examples around. The problem the article addresses existed long before Mr. Trump, so other examples, illustrations and case studies are available about the topic.

        Perhaps, a less biased approach would, at a minimum, have at least mentioned Mrs. Clinton and correlated her take on the same topic with that of Mr. Trump’s. I too write articles for publication and I take into account the responsibility I have to my audience. What I am saying is, and I’ll say it yet again, that if you are going to write an article of this nature, even if the topic was about saving a life, you take your audience into account. Your audience, as I have previously mentioned, is a melting pot of people from all races, cultures, political and religious affiliations, just to name a few diversifying characteristics.

        No disrespect to Mr. Frauenheim, but even if he wrote something similar, in this politically charged point in time about Bugs Bunny and didn’t mention his opponent Elmer Fudd, I would provide the same dissent. The reason why it is smart for organizations to keep even the mention politics out of the workplace is because the workplace consists of people of opposing parties. For this reason, writers need to remain impartial and take this fact into account. I will say, yet again, that it is unprofessional not to remain unbiased in these types of social systems, because you risk losing your readers. That’s all. Thank you!

  2. I submitted a comment. Why is it not posted?

    • There is no comment in the pending or approved folder. please try again, @kumbyya:disqus

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment *
Name *
Email *