3月7日晚,脫口秀女王奧普拉·溫弗瑞對蘇塞克斯公爵夫婦哈里王子、梅根王妃的訪談如約而至。人們對此期待已久,而這檔可能吸引了數百萬觀眾的節(jié)目也不負眾望,接二連三地爆出重磅猛料。
這對夫妻自爆的細節(jié)包括:梅根聲稱自己“每天都像活在硫酸中”,并因此動過自殺的念頭;兩人在公開婚禮前就已經秘密成婚;他們的第二個孩子會是一個女孩;某位王室成員擔心他們兒子阿奇的深膚色——尤其是他們故意透露的最后一點,奧普拉聽后難以置信地問:“什么?”
但在梅根所說的“秘聞”中,最能夠引起觀眾共鳴的可能是這樣一段經歷——她說,當英國小報中的種族、性別歧視論調讓她產生自殺的念頭時,她曾經向白金漢宮的人事部門求助過。
梅根告訴奧普拉,和她溝通的人都很同情她,但他們也表示:“我們無能為力,無法保護您,因為您不是王室的有薪雇員?!?/p>
梅根說:“我給他們發(fā)電郵,希望他們幫幫我,我說得很明確:‘我十分擔憂自己的心理健康狀況?!比耸虏块T的工作人員都同意她的說法,即她所受的攻擊“異??膳隆?,但他們沒有采取任何行動。
梅根說,她想去看醫(yī)生,但沒有白金漢宮的首肯,她就無法這么做?!耙?,當我加入那個家庭時,那是我最后一次……看到我的護照、駕照和鑰匙。后來我什么也看不到了。”她說。
梅根稱,沒有白金漢宮的支持,夫婦倆就不得不自尋出路。最終,他們決定放棄自己的皇室職責,離開英國。
白金漢宮沒有立即回應《財富》雜志對“梅根控訴人事部門”的置評要求。
梅根被人事部門拒絕的經歷是有跡可循的。近年來的訴訟顯示,對那些在工作中感覺受到歧視或威脅的員工,人事部通常是他們尋求幫助的第一步,但該部門常常解決不了什么問題。這種不作為是由各種因素造成的,而在過去的一個世紀中,約束用人單位的法規(guī)越來越多,幾乎達到泛濫的地步,這也就意味著,總的來說,現代人事部門的目的是來保護公司等用人單位及其執(zhí)行團隊,使他們免于擔責,即便這要付出失去一名員工的代價。
這種現實依然在員工身上應驗著。2018年的一項調查發(fā)現,只有26%的工人相信,自己的雇主會迅速采取行動來處理職場中的問題或丑聞。
平等就業(yè)機會委員會(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)在2016年發(fā)布的一份報告中,描繪了一幅尤為糟糕的職場現狀:在與職場騷擾有關的問題上,雇主的權力遠大于員工。大約有70%受到騷擾的人從未與主管、經理或工會代表交流過這一問題,部分原因是他們“預料到、并會擔心由此產生的諸多反應——其他人會懷疑他們的說辭;對他們的控訴無動于衷;被指責這種控訴具有冒犯性;遭到社會報復(包括羞辱和孤立)以及職業(yè)報復,例如對職業(yè)生涯和聲譽的損害等?!眻蟾嬷姓f。
不過,即使對人事部的行為感到萬分委屈,也還是不得不去找他們求助——就像梅根一樣,因為實在沒有其他地方可以去了。梅根說,在她的“老東家”有工會代表,這可能說的是在她還是名女演員的時候,有一個美國影視演員協會(Screen Actors Guild),這段經驗告訴她,人事部可能會有所幫助。
但是梅根說,白金漢宮的人事部門在這種情況下卻沒有采取任何行動,因為她——公爵夫人嚴格意義上不屬于該部門的職權范圍。這也是人事部門的一個職能局限:非正式的雇傭安排、人員設置,都常常讓員工投訴無門。
作為英國王室成員,梅根可以說是最特立獨行的一位,但是她向人事部門求助卻被拒絕的經歷對人們來說,實在太熟悉不過了。(財富中文網)
編譯:陳聰聰
3月7日晚,脫口秀女王奧普拉·溫弗瑞對蘇塞克斯公爵夫婦哈里王子、梅根王妃的訪談如約而至。人們對此期待已久,而這檔可能吸引了數百萬觀眾的節(jié)目也不負眾望,接二連三地爆出重磅猛料。
這對夫妻自爆的細節(jié)包括:梅根聲稱自己“每天都像活在硫酸中”,并因此動過自殺的念頭;兩人在公開婚禮前就已經秘密成婚;他們的第二個孩子會是一個女孩;某位王室成員擔心他們兒子阿奇的深膚色——尤其是他們故意透露的最后一點,奧普拉聽后難以置信地問:“什么?”
但在梅根所說的“秘聞”中,最能夠引起觀眾共鳴的可能是這樣一段經歷——她說,當英國小報中的種族、性別歧視論調讓她產生自殺的念頭時,她曾經向白金漢宮的人事部門求助過。
梅根告訴奧普拉,和她溝通的人都很同情她,但他們也表示:“我們無能為力,無法保護您,因為您不是王室的有薪雇員?!?/p>
梅根說:“我給他們發(fā)電郵,希望他們幫幫我,我說得很明確:‘我十分擔憂自己的心理健康狀況。’”人事部門的工作人員都同意她的說法,即她所受的攻擊“異??膳隆?,但他們沒有采取任何行動。
梅根說,她想去看醫(yī)生,但沒有白金漢宮的首肯,她就無法這么做?!耙溃斘壹尤肽莻€家庭時,那是我最后一次……看到我的護照、駕照和鑰匙。后來我什么也看不到了。”她說。
梅根稱,沒有白金漢宮的支持,夫婦倆就不得不自尋出路。最終,他們決定放棄自己的皇室職責,離開英國。
白金漢宮沒有立即回應《財富》雜志對“梅根控訴人事部門”的置評要求。
梅根被人事部門拒絕的經歷是有跡可循的。近年來的訴訟顯示,對那些在工作中感覺受到歧視或威脅的員工,人事部通常是他們尋求幫助的第一步,但該部門常常解決不了什么問題。這種不作為是由各種因素造成的,而在過去的一個世紀中,約束用人單位的法規(guī)越來越多,幾乎達到泛濫的地步,這也就意味著,總的來說,現代人事部門的目的是來保護公司等用人單位及其執(zhí)行團隊,使他們免于擔責,即便這要付出失去一名員工的代價。
這種現實依然在員工身上應驗著。2018年的一項調查發(fā)現,只有26%的工人相信,自己的雇主會迅速采取行動來處理職場中的問題或丑聞。
平等就業(yè)機會委員會(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)在2016年發(fā)布的一份報告中,描繪了一幅尤為糟糕的職場現狀:在與職場騷擾有關的問題上,雇主的權力遠大于員工。大約有70%受到騷擾的人從未與主管、經理或工會代表交流過這一問題,部分原因是他們“預料到、并會擔心由此產生的諸多反應——其他人會懷疑他們的說辭;對他們的控訴無動于衷;被指責這種控訴具有冒犯性;遭到社會報復(包括羞辱和孤立)以及職業(yè)報復,例如對職業(yè)生涯和聲譽的損害等?!眻蟾嬷姓f。
不過,即使對人事部的行為感到萬分委屈,也還是不得不去找他們求助——就像梅根一樣,因為實在沒有其他地方可以去了。梅根說,在她的“老東家”有工會代表,這可能說的是在她還是名女演員的時候,有一個美國影視演員協會(Screen Actors Guild),這段經驗告訴她,人事部可能會有所幫助。
但是梅根說,白金漢宮的人事部門在這種情況下卻沒有采取任何行動,因為她——公爵夫人嚴格意義上不屬于該部門的職權范圍。這也是人事部門的一個職能局限:非正式的雇傭安排、人員設置,都常常讓員工投訴無門。
作為英國王室成員,梅根可以說是最特立獨行的一位,但是她向人事部門求助卻被拒絕的經歷對人們來說,實在太熟悉不過了。(財富中文網)
編譯:陳聰聰
Oprah Winfrey’s long-awaited interview with Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex on March 7 night, delivered bombshell after bombshell to the millions of viewers who likely tuned in.
Among the details that the couple spilled: Meghan harbored suicidal thoughts as a result of “the daily onslaught of vitriol”; the two secretly got married before their public ceremony; their second child will be a girl; and someone at the palace raised concerns about how dark son Archie’s skin color would be. Winfrey responded to that last disclosure with disbelief. “What?” she asked.
But one anecdote that Meghan shared might have resonated with viewers more than the others. She said she went to the palace’s human resources department when the racist and sexist news coverage in U.K. tabloids led her to suicidal thoughts.
Meghan told Winfrey that those she talked to were sympathetic, but they told her, “There’s nothing we can do to protect you, because you’re not a paid employee of the institution.”
“This was emails and begging for help, saying very specifically, ‘I am concerned for my mental welfare,’” Meghan said. Those in HR agreed that the attacks she faced were “disproportionately terrible,” but they took no action.
Meghan said she wanted to seek medical help but couldn’t do so without the palace’s support. “You have to understand as well, when I joined that family, that was the last time…that I saw my passport, my driver’s license, my keys. All that gets turned over,” she said.
Without the palace’s backing, the couple had to find their own solution, Meghan said. They ultimately decided to leave behind their royal duties and Britain.
Buckingham Palace did not immediately return Fortune’s request for comment on Meghan’s HR complaint.
Meghan’s experience of being rebuffed by HR is relatable. Lawsuits in recent years reveal that HR is often a first stop for employees who feel discriminated against or threatened at work, but too often, HR fails to adequately solve the issue at hand. That inaction is due to myriad factors, but the proliferation of workplace regulation in the past century means that, in general, the purpose of modern human resources departments is to protect a company or institution and its executive team from liability, even if it comes at the expense of an individual worker.
This reality is not lost on employees. A 2018 survey found that just 26% of workers had faith that their employer would take swift action to handle workplace issues or scandals.
A 2016 report from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission painted an especially damning image of employer resources as they relate to workplace harassment. Roughly 70% of individuals who experienced harassment never talked with a supervisor, manager, or union representative about the conduct, in part, because they “anticipate and fear a number of reactions—disbelief of their claim; inaction on their claim; receipt of blame for causing the offending actions; social retaliation (including humiliation and ostracism); and professional retaliation, such as damage to their career and reputation,” the report said.
Still, the aggrieved turn to HR, as Meghan did, because there are few other places to go. The duchess said she had union representation at her “old job,” seemingly a reference to when she worked as an actress, represented by the Screen Actors Guild, and that that prior experience taught her HR might be able to help.
But the palace’s HR failed to take action in this instance, Meghan said, because the duchess technically didn’t fall under the department’s purview. That too is a shortcoming of the HR model: Unorthodox employment arrangements and settings often leave workers without formal means to wage complaints.
As a member of the British royal family, Meghan had the most unique of roles, but her experience of asking HR for help and coming up empty is all too familiar.