Policing sexual "harassment" should not be the responsibility of employers

Pro wrote: "You know that girl in the office you have been admiring from afar for so long? Yes, that's right; the nice, slim, pretty one with one with the outsize breasts. Well, how does she know you find her attractive? She won't unless you let her know." I disagree for we communicate and interact with others mostly by body language/action than actually speaking. Therefore a girl can tell if a male likes her through his body language/actions that can be appropriate which excludes any actions that are viewed as sexual harassment. My opponent also mentioned how the the primary responsibility of a public company is to maximise profits for its shareholders and having to police sexual harassment takes money away from the shareholders. Now, yes I agree the primary responsibility of a public company is to maximise profits for its shareholders, but the action of not policing sexual harassment could also and mostly likely would lead to affecting the shareholders profits too. How? Ok you are an employer of a company and you don't police sexual harassment and therefore it is solely in the hands of your employees. Sexual harassment starts to become an issue in that a good portion of your employees are constantly taking off work to meet with their lawyers and/or you are constantly hiring and firing. These actions as well as the action of policing sexual harassment in the workplace affect the shareholders and their profits. Another statement my opponent mentioned was the law would apply to all companies not having to police sexual harassment and therefore the reputation wouldn't be a concern. Just because something is a law (or not a law) it can still have an impact on the reputation of the company. For example there is no law that says big corporations such as Merck, Glaxosmithkline, Microsoft,Google, etc have to offer its employees services such as having national food chains on site, day care services on site for the employees young children, on site bank(s), and other services. Offering these services keeps the employee happy and in return the employee is more likely to increase his/her work productivity leading to the increase profits for its shareholders. So these factors combined together would affect reputation of the company as far as those who are looking into being an employee and/or investor for that company. So why wouldn't companies have the same attitude and go above and beyond of what is expected of them in relation to sexual harassment, no matter if there is a law stating that employers don't have to police sexual harassment? The last thing I would like to comment on is that my opponent had ask if anyone would want to work in such an Orwellian environment? I hate to say this but we live and I repeat we live in an Orwellian world to a degree. Yes, everyone to a point is under surveillance. Just look at things like Face book where anyone can view what you post (if you allow it) and some have gotten in trouble from their employer for what has been posted on their face book page, despite the fact that the postings occurs while off the job or its something that was part of that person's past. Everything we do, for we have smartphones, tablets, credit and debit cards, and the list grows that tracks our movements and you are worry about being under the microscope while at work? Hell, cameras are becoming smart that not only do they recognized us by our facial features, but there are companies trying to develop or maybe they have already where cameras talk to each other and they can predict where you will likely go next when walking in the streets of a city. Thank you and I hope you are having a good time enjoying the debate.