NOW: "calls on CBS to recognize that Letterman's behavior creates a toxic environment "

[joeycola]

The Latest Letterman Controversy Raises Workplace Issues for Women

Statement of NOW President Terry O'Neill

October 6, 2009

Recent developments in the David Letterman extortion controversy have raised serious issues about the abuse of power leading to an inappropriate, if not hostile, workplace environment for women and employees. In the case of Letterman, he is a multi-million dollar host of one of the most popular late-night shows; in that role, he wields the ultimate authority as to who gets hired, who gets fired, who gets raises, who advances, and who does entry-level tasks among the Late Show employees. As "the boss," he is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace -- and he did that with sex. In any work environment, this places all employees -- including employees who happen to be women -- in an awkward, confusing and demoralizing situation.

Most women can attest to the fact that many workplaces are plagued with inappropriate behavior by men in power. The latest Letterman controversy sheds new light on the widespread objectification of women in the workplace.

We recently received a call from a man in Rockford, Ill., who wanted to get advice from NOW about what to tell his 16 year-old daughter who was confused by reports on the latest Letterman controversy. The father raised his daughter to be a feminist. He raised her to stand up for herself. He raised her not be objectified as a sexual object. She admits she is confused because the messages she sees on television and news reports appear to make it okay to objectify women as long as the man in power is famous. He can crack a few jokes and publicly apologize for his mistakes. It is this kind of hypocrisy that perpetuates the image of men in power preying on women, while many look the other way.

Every woman -- and every man -- deserves to work in a place where all employees are respected for their talents and skills. The National Organization for Women calls on CBS to recognize that Letterman's behavior creates a toxic environment and to take action immediately to rectify this situation. With just two women on CBS' Board of Directors, we're not holding our breath.

###

For Immediate Release
Contact: Mai Shiozaki, 202-628-8669, ext. 116; cell 202-641-1906

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Agreed - I don't mind him sexing around, but I *DO* mind that he did it from a position of power.

That's pretty damn unethical.

[Cleita]

7. Even Bill Maher, who is known for a certain amount of womanizing,

didn't approve. He said he had dated guests but never any of his staff. He didn't consider it ethical either.

[timeforpeace]

36. Funny, you don't see this kind of "understanding" when it's someone whose ideology you don't share.

Lot of hypocrites and sexual harrassment enablers here all of a sudden.

[Cleita]

40. It has nothing to do with what I see. I'm only repeating what

Bill Maher said on his last show. :shrug:

I have never condoned sexual harassment, having been a victim of it myself in the past and actually when you couldn't complain about it because men ran everything.

[katty]

67. yes, I know folks how have worked with Maher and he does

do his womanizing, but Letterman has quite a double life going on.

[notadmblnd]

There have been no complaints fom any of the women that worked with him

seems to me, it's between him, the women and his wife. If what he did offends your sensibilities, turn off the channel.

[Rabrrrrrr]

18. I imagine because they got nice perks for the sex -

we'll see what the other people he works with have to say about it all, and the environment it created.

It's quite possible that this was not an issue for anyone involved or not involved - but I doubt it.

It's the atmosphere that it creates that is the problem, not whether the sex was consensual.

Try to see the bigger picture of the entire system, not just the few people directly involved.

[notadmblnd]

47. people screw around with each other all the time at work

I imagine a great number of people actually have found their life partners that way. I don't care what two consenting adults do, I like to think I've gotten past that sort of puritanical hypocrisy.

[Rabrrrrrr]

48. It's not an issue of puritanical hypocrisy or puritanism at all - it's an issue of power abuse

and the effect it has on the office.

If Joe and Jane work somewhere and neither one is the other's boss and they want to fuck around, that's one thing.

If the boss is screwing people who under him/her - that's a huge power differential and creates a stressful work environment. Especially when it's coming from the Very Top Boss.

And don't say "it's private" - it's not. Even if the boss and the person(s) he/she is screwing think it's private, it ain't. People notice, and it can very easily escalate into a very bad mood in the office.

I've dated people I work with - but we were equals at the workplace.

I don't know where you've been living the last 20 years, but the word has gone out. I have been extensively trained at every company I've worked for the last 20 years about sexual harassment, and the truth is that you don't do anything sexual with the boss, and you don't do anything sexual with one's employees.



I don't know why you and some others have such a difficult time understanding what abuse of power means. This goes far beyond what two people do, because it effects the whole work environment; and even for those two, it can get very ugly very fast and leave a trail of ruination and hurt behind it, and not just for those two, either.

[notadmblnd]

53. we don't know if that was the case

no one has come forward to complain. Not the women, not their co-workers.

[Rabrrrrrr]

56. I'm not talking this specific case -

I'm speaking about cases *in general* - that was very clear in my posts.

[Rabrrrrrr]

64. I'm not talking this specific case - I'm talking about workplace practice in general

I thought that was pretty obvious.

[Rabrrrrrr]

65. Damn - didn't realize that first response was also from me

At least my thinking is consistent!

:blush:

[defendandprotect]

27. And, what might happen if the women did complain . . .? Duh???

[timeforpeace]

34. never thought I would see the day something like that was posted here.

[emilyg]

68. I did turn off the channel.

[Warpy]

17. Unethical, but so far, not illegal

No woman has come forward with a case against him for sexual harassment.

Sex with the boss can be completely voluntary and not tied to any job issues. This might just be the case with Letterman.

However, it's an incredibly stupid thing for both parties, opening the boss to lawsuit and the employee to summary firing once the affair is over.

That's what I'd tell a daughter.

There is a difference between harassment and being stupid and thinking with the wrong head. Right now, Letterman is in the second category.

I won't be surprised to see a lawsuit, though. I'm a little surprised I haven't seen one yet, probably filed by a former employee.

[rocktivity]

2. And how do they know that the relationship WASN'T consensual?

I mean, has the victim actually claimed sexual harassment? Heck, she might even "guiltier" than HE is!

:eyes:
rocktivity

[tridim]

3. Doesn't matter, NOW says he's guilty. Case closed.

I have no problem with NOW, but this accusation is extremely premature.

[joeycola]

9. They said no such thing.

[Skittles]

6. it's nothing to do with consent

it's the ENVIRONMENT it creates - the man is selectively fucking certain workers - you don't think that could cause problems?

[saracat]

24. Sorry Skittles, But you made me giggle.Are you saying if he wasn't selectively

fucking, but fucked ALL the workers it wouldn't cause problems? :rofl:
BTW I agree with what you say about the enviornment but I really find it hard to believe Dave "harrassed anyone.He married Regins, who also woprked for him, and Steph, who had had the affair with, before he was married, is now a sucessful lawyer and speaks glowingly of Dave. Go figure.

[Skittles]

29. well, we'll never know what really happened

but it's never good when a boss is fucking some of the underlings

[saracat]

33. I would agree in general except inmy own case LOL!

I married my husband when he worked for my theatre company! I don't think he ever felt harrassed! That being said,;-) I , myself have been subject to harrassment and consider it very serious.but as you say, we don't know all the facts here, and might not ever.)

[customerserviceguy]

10. Depends on how many parties are consenting, when it comes to workplace sex

There's the boss trying to manage the office from his pants, there's the people who are willing to sleep their way to a cushy job with no responsibilities and plenty of perks, and finally, there are all the people who have to pick up the burden of dealing with the work that the sex toy is not going to get done.

If you can produce consent from all three sets of parties to workplace sex, then go for it.

[Skittles]

11. CUSTOMERSERVICEGUY GETS IT

no pun intended :D

[customerserviceguy]

22. Yes, but not at work!

Ok, yeah, the boss tries to screw me, but only figuratively. Good thing I'm the drinking buddy of our shop steward!

[Cleita]

14. If that was the situation, he should have removed the woman from his

staff. Surely, he had enough clout at CBS to get her a job at another show that he has nothing to do with. Then it would be consensual and not before. Women who boink the boss either are intimidated and afraid of losing their jobs or promotions or are doing it to get a promotion or other reasons that make it questionable. Any boss who dates a subordinate has an unfair advantage over them.

[saracat]

26. Hey, Steph is now a successful lawyer who speaks glowingly and fondly of Dave.

Regina, who also worked for Dave lived with him for 23 years and married him.I had a theater company and my husband was one of my actors. I didn't fire him, but we have been married for 24 years! LOL:rofl: I always tell people I married him because he threatened to quit and I didn't have an understudy. The understudy part is true!Perhaps he had the unfair advantage?

[Cleita]

42. It's very tricky and sometimes it works out but it's still not right anymore

than with a teacher and a student are no matter how consensual it is. They even had a thing about it on "Numbers" with Charlie and Amita. Even though Amita was clearly in love with Charlie, he always kept their relationship academic until she became a teacher herself. As for yourself, you came pretty close to the casting couch scenario.

[saracat]

58. Ahem. My husband was the one that was going to quit. I didn't threaten him

So actually i guess i was the one who was harrassed.And I didn't date my husband until AFTER he was cast. Many mounths in fact.I didn't want to go out with him. But he persisted.I didn't come "perilously close" to any casting couch.

[rocktivity]

28. I'm sure that what he WOULD have done

IF she WANTED to work away from Dave. We don't know how committed they were, and we don't know if either over them used their relationship as a source of power of the rest of the workplace. We don't even know if anyone else in the workplace about it!


rocktivity

[Demoiselle]

32. Women "boink the boss" for all kind of reasons.

Including the fact that they have determined the boss to be boinkable, according to their inclinations in these matters..
I wish you would elaborate a bit on the idea that any boss who dates a subordinate has an unfair advantage over them. In what respect?
I am fully aware of the potential for bossy bullying that comes from such a situation...but, certainly these days, there is also the danger, for a boss, that he is exposed for such behavior, and I am uncomfortable with the automatic consignment of victimhood to women in these relationships. Isn't it possible that a woman who says she has "no choice" but to boink the boss is simply giving away her own responsibility for herself? Isn't it possible that women chose to boink Mr. Letterman because they found him attractive ?

[Cleita]

45. Look, I worked for a company in the past that did business with David Letterman and

He had groupies all over the place, but still there is something unsavory about having sex with a subordinate. This is why Clinton got into so much trouble over Monica Lewinsky. He wouldn't have been so vilified if it was just a hooker he was playing with, which is why the Republicans who have been caught lately with their pants down aren't getting the same attention.

[bertman]

55. Sorry, Cleita, but that's NOT why Clinton got in trouble with Monica Lewinsky.

I find it hard to believe that any person who observed politics during the Clinton years would say that Bill Clinton wouldn't have been so vilified if it had been a hooker.

Just incredible. Do you REALLY believe that?

Please think hard before you answer.

[Cleita]

60. Okay let's talk about the Kennedys. They all got away with a lot of

womanizing and not necessarily with hookers, but not with those who worked for them, but the time one of them got into real trouble was when Edward Kennedy was caught with a staffer because he had an accident and she drowned. How about John Edwards? You can't stop co-workers from having sex, however, when one of them is the supervisor of the other, it raises the level of control over the subordinate and that's why NOW and others find it unacceptable. Technically Clinton was impeached for lying about having an affair with an intern. It seems his stalkers could have found other things to make him lie about. After all he's a politician and they all lie. It really was about the inappropriateness of his sexual object and doing it in the Oval Office. The whole Paula Jones crap was also because she was in the position of being a subordinate. They really wanted to nail him for her and in the process of the investigation discovered the even juicier indiscretions with Monica Lewinsky. I don't think his stalkers would have pursued his peccadilloes so militarily if either had been a party girl for hire.

[bertman]

62. The times were different when the Kennedy's were in office. Ted's tragic stupidity

was about the tragic and unnecessary DEATH of a woman more than it was about his sex life.

The Republicans have gone rabid since Clinton came into office. They spent $40 million-plus on the Whitewater investigation. Believe me, it had nothing to do with having sex with a subordinate. It was about an opportunity to hang him for anything they could find.

A hooker would have been just as bad, if not worse.

[saracat]

59. They didn't get the same attention because they weren't President and because the Democrats

don't usually go after people for sexual trangressions.That is a modus operendi of the Gop!

[bertman]

54. Demoiselle, you expressed it very neatly. Thank you.

I'm kind of amazed that so many people have lost sight of the two consenting adults aspect of this. To them, it's all about POWER.

Mostly it's about judgment. Sometimes you can't have a law for every single thing. This is one of those times.

On edit: Could we Americans just please stop being so freakin' hung up over who's screwing who? If no one is getting coerced or hurt, let it be. It's natural. Oh yeah, I forgot it's also the land of the Puritans.

[DoctorMyEyes]

46. I boinked my boss cause I liked it!

And according to him - he liked it too. But, neither one of us were married at the time and everyone at work knew it. I wasn't afraid of anything. I sure as hell wasn't intimidated and I didn't get a promotion. We just had fun. For a good long time.

[Cleita]

51. So would you have if he were the mail room guy?

Just asking if the same attraction would be there.

[DoctorMyEyes]

70. abso-freakin-lutely!

He was funny and fun to be with. We had great chemistry.

I didn't "boink" him because he was in a position of power - but because I liked him and I wanted to. If anything I'd have boinked him a lot sooner if he'd worked in the mail room cause I wouldn't have wasted time repressing my feelings.

The relationship was fun, lasted well after we stopped working together, ended amicably, and years later we both married other people and are still friends.

No one was harmed. There were no "victims".

[sandnsea]

4. Gotta get that money any way they can

Even by smearing someone when they don't have all the facts yet!

[cliffordu]

5. Maybe those women wanted to have sex with him, being adults and all

Of course we can always assume that he was lording his ginormous thingy over them over them, as all men are wont to do.

Until those women come forward and say differently, I'll NOT treat them like victims.

According to NOW, in EVERY CASE, having ovaries in the sexual equation automatically makes you one..




What disgusting filth.

If I am wrong about THIS situation, I'll be the first to call for his resignation.

[Skittles]

8. HELLO

they're referring to the WORK ENVIRONMENT, NOT CONSENT

[xultar]

20. Are you kidding? Having sex with someone you work with does not make the

environs toxic unless you make it toxic.

Most people meet their spouses on the job.

[Skittles]

30. it's not good when a boss is fucking some of the employees

it's not a good work environment - any decisions made regarding said folk is suspect

[lapfog_1]

23. Anyone that knows Dave's history

knows that the relationships in question were hardly the first time he dated a staffer. He has dated, lived with, and married former staffers. More than one. All was known about this long ago.

Why does NOW choose to comment on this one and not the other ones (when they occurred)?

(oh... could it be the PUBLICITY for doing this now??? Nah... couldn't be... :sarcasm: )

[cliffordu]

69. When I worked in restaurants I had sex all over the place with other members

of the staff lots of them....people above and below me on the food chain.

In business I imagine professional status means something, in bars, not so much......

Could be different now, but I had lots of fun being exploited.

[joeycola]

12. You missed the point.

[cliffordu]

37. Probably. I often do.

[lapfog_1]

44. Oh please tell us what the "point" is...

please oh please, pretty please...

[Mabus]

13. Glad I haven't sent in my renewal yet

If the daughter is getting confused by reports then isn't the media to blame?

None of us, outside of those parties involved, know what happened. I'm not ready to act as judge, jury and executioner. Nor am I ready to support the allegations of an unknown male who says he raised his daughter as a feminist. How do I know that this isn't some sort of crackpot RW who is going after Letterman to avenge Palin?

[lapfog_1]

25. 99 % sure of that last observation.

not to mention the motivations of the OP in this thread. Same OP that was wondering about the White House handing out white lab coats to medical doctors for a photo op (obviously the white house wanted to emphasize that DOCTORS were supporting HCR and did so graphically).

NOW should not let themselves be made a tool of the far right attack machine.

They didn't choose to comment BEFORE when Dave Letterman was KNOWN to be dating staff members, why comment today?

[Mabus]

49. Where was this outraged guy when Mel Gibson called a female officer "Sugartits"?

Why didn't this guy call on behalf of his daughter then? I mean, doesn't Mel Gibson have his own production companies and have a say in who is in his movies or whose musicians his recording label signs? And didn't Mel just get divorced from his long-time wife because he was fooling around with a musician signed by his record label? Was it because the media portrayed it differently? Or is it because this guy agrees with Mel's politics and not Letterman's?

And yeah, I think NOW is letting themselves be used as like a tool.

[rudy23]

15. Did NOW see the chemistry between Dave and Stephanie? She obviously liked him.

I always thought they had something going on. To me, it looked like she was the one in control of that relationship, just because she was young and "cool", and always teasing Dave.

[lapfog_1]

41. I was always pretty sure that he was having affairs

with the "will it float" girls (that also walked him onto the stage there for a while), and very possibly "grinder girl". I know I would have had a hard time turning them down if the opportunity arose.

How cool that he goes for the smart and funny girl rather than the beautiful models.

[Ineeda]

16. NOW doesn't know the specifics and neither do we

so they can't possibly claim that, "...Letterman's behavior creates a toxic environment..." with the certainty they espouse. May be true, may not be. :shrug:

[xultar]

19. NOW is stupid. The only time I have to scope for men is in the office.

[lapfog_1]

21. Hmmm...

Where was the poutrage when he was dating and living with his former employee (who was also his head comedy writer) BEFORE he had the NBC "Late Show with David Letterman"... (the one that came up with the idea of "stupid pet tricks" and other comedy classics)? Later, he started dating ANOTHER employee, Regina, who got pregnant and had a baby with him and eventually married him?

Where was the NOW statements on "inappropriate behavior" THEN? (over the last 30 years)

So he had more affairs with yet more staffers, some of whom (according to leaked diaries) were very much in love with Dave. There hasn't been a hint that the attention was unwanted. Or that he forced himself onto them, or promised them any promotion or advantage for having dated him.

Dave seems to be a loner type, someone uncomfortable meeting strangers. Workplace relationships seem to be the norm for him. Probably the only place he felt comfortable meeting women. The only thing wrong with it was his position as star and "boss" of his own production company. Yes, it shows bad judgment. But why the poutrage now? It's not like this is the first office romance for him.

Not a single woman has come forward to claim sexual harassment. Nobody else from his staff has come forward (even former staff) and said they felt like they were treated unfairly because of his relationships with some female staff members.

This isn't a Bill O'liely sleaze game where he pushed himself sexually onto one of his former employees, and later paid a great deal of money to hush it up. Nor was Dave a married man, not that anyone should care.

But if NOW thinks THESE relationships were so inappropriate that they had to comment on them, what about the previous ones (it's not like they were a secret)???

[IndianaGreen]

31. NOW was among several feminist organizations that kept silent during Lewinsky affair

Unlike that sordid affair, this one involves office romance, which occurs daily across our land and involves none of the elements of sexual harassment.

[timeforpeace]

35. Hey hypocrites, they are his employees. You're defending him because you like his politics. That's

pretty low. And you would be on the opposite side of this is the offender was not your kindred spirit.

[lapfog_1]

38. No, I wouldn't.

I would be calling for a boycott of the Letterman show if he had acted like Bill O-liely and HIS actual sexual harassment case that he paid to hush up.

I haven't defended John Edwards one little bit, not one post, even though I liked his politics.

Not because he had an affair while married.

Not because he had an affair with a campaign worker.

But because he lied about it and tried to cover it up, and used campaign money to do so. Used his friends to do so. And, for all I know, is still lying about it.

But Letterman is an adult, his employees were all adults. There isn't even a whiff that he forced himself on any of them. And, so far as I know, the affairs that he had were when he was single. Not that I would care if he is married. Those are all issues for him, his girlfriends, and his wife.

BTW, since college and his first serious girlfriend... ALL of his relationships have been with staff members, including one with his head comedy writer and another with his now current wife. Where was all the outrage THEN about his dating behavior? It was well known and documented.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Come back to us once you find out the elements of sexual harassment

It would take draconian measures to stop office romances, and it would make a lot of single people very pissed.

[lapfog_1]

43. I was married to a former student.

But I did wait until the end of the semester to ask her out.

She was also a co-worker for most of our marriage.

And, since then, I have often dated co-workers but never a direct employee. When you work 60+ hours a week, where else are you going to meet people? Especially people that you already have a lot in common with?

I honestly don't know what I would have done if I was attracted to a subordinate or a supervisor. I'm glad that's never been an issue so far.

[sasquatch]

50. Oh shut the fuck up NOW, you're barking up the wrong tree

[supernova]

52. I think NOW is off base here

We don't know if Dave's office is "toxic."

The only people who can say if it was or wasn't sexual harassment or just a consensual good time are the women he's dated. So far, they aren't talking in those terms. The last one wrote nice things in her diary. She was betrayed as well here in that her confidentiality was breached.

Did Dave step out on the mother of his child? Yes, but that's a personal dilemma between them, not sexual harassment in the office.

Watching Dave over the years, and I remember when he was a daytime host, he has struck me as a loner, geeky, funny, nice to his mom, cynical, bitter at times even, but I don't get the power-tripping vibe from him.

Until the ladies involved say that it was "toxic" for them, then it's not harassment.

[Go2Peace]

57. Not condoning this, but there is more danger of becoming a society that controls and judges every

human trait until we all become zombies and slaves. We have laws, they are imperfect, but trying to declare every "non work" related activity or relationship in the workplace to be innapropriate is just another pathway to facism.

If you don't think there are adequate safeguards then lets improve the laws. But when we get into judging intentions and outlaw what are often just human nature we are not becoming a better society.

[tomm2thumbs]

61. will be interesting to see what court cases come out of this, if any make it out of settlement

a few tell-all books are no doubt the next step along with that script the guy was pushing

[Daveparts still]

63. Have you ever been around a Celebrity?

Male celebrities especially have women throwing themselves at them. The men become so egotistical that they think the women really love them when it's the celebrity status they are in love with.

So the idea that Letterman used his office power to bed these women is probably misguided. The women wanted to sleep with a celebrity and if it advanced their careers all the better.

[brendan120678]

66. I used to have a female boss who most people...

in my department suspected was dating one of our male coworkers.
He tended to get favorable treatment, and always got the better assignments and contracts to work on.

That created a hostile and toxic environment in the office for those of us who resented the apparent favorable treatment.

The Letterman situation could be similar. Possibly, some of his staffers who were not being wooed and bedded by Dave could be upset at any apparent favorable treatment that those who did sleep with him may have received.