Career disruption further results in loss of specific job-tenure and access to the social network provided by one’s workplace.Although it is difficult to assign a monetary value to injury , long-term wage loss resulting from workplace harassment can be explained by gaps in employment and reduced hours; both are actions taken by workers to reduce their exposure to an unsafe work environment.Furthermore, harassment in the workplaces can create a hostile work environment for all employees.Although fellow co-workers may not be the target of harassment, their exposure to it nonetheless can have a measurable impact as a workplace stressor.Co-workers can become exposed to sexual harassment by either directly witnessing the behavior or indirectly learning about it through a peer.Glomb and colleagues found that as the prevalence of harassment increased in the work environment, women who were not directly targeted were more likely to report lower job satisfaction and higher distress.Researchers have also found that as workers report greater instances of sexual harassment through personal experience or observation, these experiences are positively associated with greater team conflict among employees.Thus, the ramifications of sexual harassment in the workplace burdens not only targets of sexual harassment but their peers as well.Lastly, individual and interpersonal consequences of sexual harassment also have repercussions for organizations and companies.USMSPB’s report found that in 1994 the costs of lower employee productivity, sick leave,ebb and flow and higher turnover rates related to sexual harassment cost the federal government approximately $327 million , equivalent to $578 million in 2020 when accounting for inflation.
Organizations may also be forced to absorb the financial costs of fees and settlements resulting from legal battles that ensue because of the inappropriate behavior.The possible news coverage tied to an instance of abuse and harassment in the workplace can consequently cost the organization its reputation and particularly in industries such as retail, this can ultimately impact a company’s the bottom-line.Sexual harassment in the workplace is dependent on several factors within an organization that allow for such behavior to occur.In their review of the literature on sexual harassment, Pina and colleagues conclude that the occurrence of harassment in the workplace can be explained by power differentials between victims and perpetuators, sexual permissiveness of the work environment, gendered occupations, as well as the policies that govern the likelihood of harassment and the consequences that follow.Organizational theory of sexual harassment primarily argues that harassment is the result of hierarchical structures created within organizations.The stratification of roles in the work environment and the authority attached to these roles allow supervisors, for example, to sexually coerce their subordinates who are vulnerable to work related consequences if they resist.Vulnerable populations especially who are low-ranking employees face a greater risk of being exploited by a supervisor.Additionally, societal norms attached to power differentials within hierarchies create an expectation that an exertion of power between the powerful and powerless is normal and tolerable.An exertion of power can take many forms including but not limited to sexual harassment.Likewise, power differentials can help explain sexual harassment committed by subordinates as a means to gain power or eliminate the inequality in statuses.In a study on workplace authority, researchers found that female supervisors were more likely to experience harassing behaviors than female employees, particularly from male co-workers , suggesting that sexual harassment was motivated by a threat to traditional gendered power differences.Thus, hierarchies and differences in power are further affected by gender.Although men are more likely to hold leadership positions in their place of work and act as perpetrators of sexual harassment , the introduction of women into leadership positions does not necessarily deter harassment.
Although power differences are often gendered, it is important to acknowledge that despite research findings pointing to men as common perpetrators of harassment against female subordinates , abuse of power in the form of sexual harassment occurs regardless of gender and is bidirectional within a hierarchy.When discussing power differentials and harassment as the manifestation of abuse within organizational theory, researchers cannot ignore the intersection power, gender and race as factors influencing the experience of sexual harassment , as not all victims experience or are targeted for harassment equally.Particularly for women of color, their experiences of harassment are not only rooted in gender discrimination but racial discrimination as well as is evidenced by studies indicating women of color are more often targeted compared to their White counterparts in the workplace.Furthermore, women of color are also more likely to internalize their experiences with harassment and are more hesitant to report such instances.Organizational theory also posits that a work environment’s permissiveness serves as a predictor of workers falling victim to sexual harassment.Such a permissive environment is created through a lack of workplace policies, such as a sexual harassment training, procedures for reporting harassment, protection for workers who report and a no tolerance policy.These policies, when enforced, ideally aid in minimizing the prevalence of sexual harassment.Without them, perpetuators in the workplace are left unchecked, and likewise, victims are left more vulnerable.Permissive work environments are also characterized by a high tolerance for flirting, sexual jokes, and obscene language.Studies investigating sexual harassment through an organizational approach have found that if workers perceive their organization to be tolerant of sexual harassment in the workplace, they are more likely to experience instances of harassment.Co-workers are also less likely to recognize and intervene during an instance of sexual harassment.Studies find that workers weigh the efficaciousness of their actions against the authority of their employer as the sexual permissiveness in a workplace is usually maintained, if not promoted, by managers and higherups.Contributing to a sexually permissive environment is also the idea of working in an overly sexualized work environment.Through the lens of sexualized labor, Warhust and Nick separate sexualization that is inherent to certain workplaces from work that becomes sexualized at the organizational level.
They argue that organizations utilize the aesthetics of workers as a marketing strategy which then gives rise to sexualized labor and consequently gives perpetuators a sense of justification to enact inappropriate behaviors towards employees.Sexualized labor begins to take form when organizations specifically recruit employees who they consider to be handsome or beautiful as the archaic idea that sex sells remains prevalent.Although the sexualization of workers in no way justifies sexually abusive actions taken against them by co-workers, managers or clients, workers are nonetheless expected to endure unwelcome comments, stares and actions as inevitable consequence.Work environments that lend themselves to becoming overtly sexualized are those that rely heavily on customer interaction and satisfaction such as retail, food, hospitality and casinos.Not surprisingly, these are the same industries who historically have high rates of sexual harassment.Between 2000 and 2015, the combination of these industries made up 28% all sexual harassment charges filed to the EEOC.Such industries put employees at greater risk to experience sexual harassment, especially by customers and clients who sexualize workers and feel entitled to their services.Particularly in service sector industries, there is a prevailing belief in the mantra “the customer is always right” that both allows customers to becoming sexually forward without fear of consequences and employees to respond informally to such behavior as to not upset the customer.A study by the Restaurant Opportunities Center found that women employed in restaurants who earn a sub-minimum wage of $2.13 per hour as tipped workers were twice as likely to experience harassment from supervisors, co-workers and customers, compared to women employed in restaurants who received a sub-minimum wages greater than$2.13 per hour.The large reliance on tips creates an environment where workers, particularly women,dry racks are undervalued and forced to endure injustices for the sake of their income.Additional risk factors for sexual harassment can be identified at the interpersonal and individual level.At the interpersonal level, working in isolation is also associated with reports of harassment and general workplace violence.Environments in which workers are forced to become isolated from peers gives harassers easy access to targets and leaves workers with fewer chances to interact with others in their environment and signal to others if they are in need of assistance.
Additional interpersonal risk factors in the workplace include power differentials and the abuse of power, discussed in more detail below.Individual risk factors associated with a worker’s vulnerability include gender, sexual orientation and age.As previously mentioned, although anyone can experience sexual harassment, women are most often victimized and thus at greater of risk of experiencing harassment than men.Likewise, studies repeatedly indicate perpetuators are most likely to men.Aside from women, individuals who identify as queer, either in their sexual orientation or gender expression, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender folks also face great risks of experiencing general discrimination and sexual harassment.A meta-analysis of 386 studies on the victimization of LGBT individuals found that approximately of 50% of individuals in all samples experience sexual harassment.Although comparative studies examining rates of sexual harassment between heterosexual and LGBT samples have mixed findings determining effect sizes, they lean towards sexual minorities experiencing greater victimization than heterosexual identifying individuals.In addition to the risks posed by one’s gender and sexual orientation, young and unmarried female workers are most often targeted as victims of sexual harassment.Most service sector employees are relatively young adults between the ages of 15-25 years who face greater risks of harm in the workplace.Because of their age, workers are often unaware of their rights which include a safe work environment that is free of harassment as well as entitlement to fair pay.Consequently, they may not be equipped with the information or tools to formally handle an experience of sexual harassment.Responses and coping mechanisms to sexual harassment are just as critical to understanding the context of harassment in the workplace as are the individual and organizational risk factors that predict harassment among vulnerable workers.However, while the majority of studies focus on investigating the frequency and prevalence of harassing behaviors, many do not address how workers react to such behavior.According to the USMSP , individual based responses to behaviors can be categorized as active responses , avoidance and toleration.Among the three categories, the top three behaviors employed by federal workers in response to harassment were asking the harasser to stop, avoiding the harasser, and ignoring the behavior or simply doing nothing.The action, or lack there-of, that an employee takes to address sexual harassment is related to multiple levels of influence: the severity of the incident, the power they as an employee hold in their place of work, the social support provided by their workplace and their own cultural profile.Studies investigating coping mechanisms have found strong connections between both the severity and frequency of the harassment to response patterns.For example, engaging in detached behaviors was associated with significantly lower frequency of unwanted sexual attention than engagement in simultaneous avoidance of the behavior and negotiation with the perpetrator , however the direction of this relationship is ambiguous.
Studies have also found non-assertive actions to address sexual harassment to be more common if the sexually harassing behavior was not considered to be severe.Workers also opt for non-assertive responses when the source was someone other than a supervisor.This is consistent with previous studies which have found workers do not take action against customers to avoid crossing an ambiguous boundary between providing “good customer service” and protecting themselves.Studies have found that workplaces with few policies in place regarding sexual harassment are associated with passive responses to sexual harassment.This is not surprising given a lack of formal venues for filing complaints.Women whose workplace only employed informal policies for addressing harassment, were also less likely to engage in any form of direct response for similar reasons.Finally, cultural and social factors can influence a worker’s reaction and coping to harassment.The study by Cortina and Wasti found that White women more likely to practice detached behaviors compared to Latina women who practiced avoidant-negotiating behaviors and whose culture is historically more patriarchal and communal.Despite cultural differences, both styles of coping are ultimately non-confrontational.This general lack of combative action can also be explained by the shame women are socially taught to feel in response to harassment , as well as the responsibility they feel towards protecting the perpetrator.Understanding that sexual harassment is common in the service sector, the current study seeks to shed light on sexual harassment in the context of cannabis dispensaries, a recently legalized industry, within the context of Los Angeles County.With the passage of Proposition 64 during November 2016, the possession, use and retail of recreational marijuana was decriminalized in California through the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act.Beginning in January 2018, California began to issue licenses for the legal operation of medical and adult use cannabis shops, and by the end of year, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration reported cannabis shops produced $345 million in tax revenue for the state with the highest concentration of shops located in Los Angeles.