Survival in the tainted workforce: Is morality trumped by need?

Sexual assault effecting the job market

Back to Article
Back to Article

Survival in the tainted workforce: Is morality trumped by need?

Harper Wayne

Harper Wayne

Harper Wayne

Harper Wayne

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

Slowly and with increased following, people are coming out about sexual assault and harassment in the workforce.

Women like Melanie Martinez and men like Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar, and Woody Allen have all been accused of sexual assault. Our own president has been accused of assault as well. So, what happens to all the jobs either held by or created by these famous people?

Either the men are fired and those jobs are eliminated like Harry Weinstein and Larry Nassar or they are like Trump and still working.

In Trump’s case, people are encouraged to take the jobs affiliated with the government (like his cabinet) whereas in most other cases, it is not encouraged.

Men accused, like Weinstein and Allen, create large amounts of jobs for people in the film and tech industry. These men influence more than just actors and actresses as they also hire a network of team members expanding from crew, stunt doubles, catering, and makeup artists.

If these jobs were permanently eliminated, job loss would dip into multiple sections of the economy.

These jobs also have the potential to be filled by up and coming projects that would get funded instead of others pitched by men/women under sexual assault/abuse allegations.

Our economy does not need more jobs taken out of the system. But, are the jobs vital enough to our economy to support intentionally working for these men or women? Or, companies who still employ these men or women?

Without jobs created by sexual assaulting people, there is room for others, not under allegations of assault, to be competitive in the film industry.

But my question lies here: Is it wrong for someone in desperate need of work to accept a job from a man or woman that is under allegations of sexual assault/harassment/abuse? Could the need for money to support yourself or family outweigh supporting these people?

It is easy for anyone who is in a situation where they don’t have to worry about income to say no because then the person accepting the job is supporting the act.

The act of survival often leads people to making job choices they wouldn’t otherwise make due to their circumstances. I thought this might be another moment when a person could recognize that taking this job is an injustice while another person could see it as just trying to put food on the table.

Actor Timothée Chalamet recently posted through his social media addressing his work done with Woody Allen. To justify his work with Allen, who at the time of filming was not yet accused of sexual assault, Chalamet decided the money made through his film will be donated to women empowering foundations like Time’s Up, RAINN, and the LGBT center in New York.

So, does his donation after the movie was produced make his work with Woody Allen justified, or does this just further support people accused of sexual assault since the movie was still produced and in return will create a profit for Allen?

I believe that his donation is an immense support to the charities and that in return, Chalamet shows which side he supports.

But for people that also worked on that film under Woody Allen like the crew, food service, and other actors or actresses; where do they stand on this morality spectrum?

For people living paycheck to paycheck they ultimately are practicing survival, but some of these actors are better off financially and unable to make such an excuse if they already are conscious of allegations.

In the end though, allowing people who are under allegations for rape or any form of sexual abuse to continue creating and working (this includes athletes, CEO’s, and any other form of job holders) could allow for another man or woman to be sexually assaulted.
I understand not every allegation is true, but many of them are, so how does a society decide where these people fall in the workforce especially when they are so well known for their craft? We must balance out an economic kingdom while also holding on to the idea of morality when taking away jobs affecting hundreds of people in order to “punish” one person.

How do we create a cycle that filters out the immoral of the world with people who respect the people they work with? Does such a system exist? Or more, will it ever?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Leave a Comment

Navigate Left
Navigate Right