Should Employers Be Asking Staffers Whether They're Gay Or Trans? Yup

[Butterfly]

Should Employers Be Asking Staffers Whether They're Gay Or Trans? Yup
Queerty
16 October, 2010


http://www.queerty.com/should-employers-be-asking-staffers-whether-theyre-gay-or-trans-yup-20101016/


The giant financial media company Thomson Reuters is asking employees in a new survey whether they're gay or straight or bi or trans or whatever. The Newspaper Guild of New York, where the company employees hundreds, thinks this is a disgusting invasion of privacy. They are wrong.

[V M]

I can understand how being asked such personal questions could set off alarms    on the onset

But the questionnaire is voluntary and anonymous... Also the reasoning sounds legit as in creating a more comprehensive and inclusive work environment and health care policy

[Fencesitter]

They point to the flaw in the survey in the article. One more survey where you can't check both your sexual orientation and the fact you're transgender, which makes the survey kind of pointless for transgendered people. This flaw also would give me the impression that they don't "get it" concerning trans people and would make me reluctant to fill out the survey.

Plus I mean, why do you need to find out with a survey that queer people are already present in you company to create an atmosphere etc. which is okay for queer people? Can't you agree on being okay for queer people no matter whether know if they're already there?

[Janet_Girl]

Depending on how the test was access, ( it was by computer if you look at the screen shot ) they can tell who answered what.

at the last company I worked for you were given a ID and Password to assess the survey.  According to Gallop who conducted the survey, the company would not know you answered what.  If that was true why were we given separate IDs and passwords.

They know who answered which questions and how they answered.  This is the computer age and all that information is stored for use at a later date.

[kyril]

You're given separate IDs and passwords to ensure that each person can only take the test once. Reputable survey companies like Gallup anonymize people's responses in several ways: the ID and password assigned are randomized, then the actual survey responses aren't stored with the username and password, and finally the results reported to the company are aggregated results.

[Britney_413]

I don't agree with these types of surveys. If it is truly anonymous and voluntary that is fine. Otherwise, employers should stay out of employees' personal business. I think a lot of companies are taking diversity the wrong way. If the hiring process is truly non-discriminatory then you will naturally have a diverse group of people at work without much effort required. Beyond that this is just data mining. Political affiliation, religion, marital status, race, sex, sexual orientation, favorite food, music preference, etc. etc. is none of an employer's concern unless it directly relates to the job. Instead of a "don't ask don't tell" policy it should be a "don't ask" policy. In other words, if an employee chooses out of their own free will to share personal information with others in the company that is their choice. I don't believe that people should go around asking them though. There is way too much of an invasion of people's privacy in today's modern society. Probing people for information is generally done with a real or perceived purpose of good intentions but on the other hand I believe adults should be treated as adults and if they aren't asking for help they shouldn't be having to divulge information so that others can "help" them when they don't need it. Enough said.

[kyril]

It's mostly true that if you're not discriminating, you will naturally have a diverse workforce. But it's often hard to tell if you're unintentionally discriminating.

[jonnismith]

Not to mention that Thomspon Rueters in MN is formerly the West publishing co. who had an employee transition at work and refused to let her use the women's restroom:

http://www.humanrights.state.mn.us/education/articles/rs06_4gender_protections.html
"Although an employer may grant a transgendered employee the right to use the restroom consistent with the employee's self-identify, another pivotal court decision suggests that an employer may not be legally required to do so. Juli Goins (formerly Justin Goins) had transitioned from male to female in terms of gender-identity several years before getting hired at West Publishing. Although she had not undergone sexual reassignment surgery, her driver's license and birth certificate now identified her as female, and she dressed and presented herself as a woman. Coworkers at West, however, regarded her as male, and female employees objected to her use of the women's restroom. Her employer sought a compromise by insisting that she use the men's restroom or one of the company's single-occupancy restrooms. Goins objected, and was warned that she would face disciplinary action if she continued to use the women's lavatory. Citing the stress and hostility she had experienced, Goins resigned. She subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging sexual orientation discrimination, in violation of the Human Rights Act.

In a decision that went all the way to the state Supreme Court, Goins' claim of discrimination was rejected. The Court found that the employer's decision to deny Goins' use of the women's restroom was based on her biological gender, not her sexual orientation; and that, therefore, the employer's policy could not be viewed as discriminatory. To conclude that the Human Rights Act restricts an employer's ability to designate restrooms based on biological gender would likely restrict employers in the gender-designation of shower and locker room facilities, and lead to a result not intended by the legislature, the Court ruled."