Under-reported sexual harassment at work in Lithuania: What's the problem represented to be
Author
Matulis, Skirmantas
Term
4. term
Education
Publication year
2020
Submitted on
2020-05-29
Abstract
Denne afhandling undersøger, hvorfor seksuel chikane på arbejdspladsen er underindberettet i Litauen, ved at analysere, hvordan problemet er repræsenteret i arbejdslovens artikel 26. Studiet kombinerer kvalitativ indholdsanalyse af politik- og lovtekster (1998–2020) med interviews (ustrukturerede spørgsmål til politirepræsentanter og et ekspertinterview med en senior menneskerettighedsspecialist) og anvender Bacchis What’s the problem represented to be?-tilgang samt et top-down europæiseringsperspektiv. En opgørelse over kun 77 klager til myndighederne i perioden 2000–2020 understøtter antagelsen om underindberetning. Analysen viser, at litauiske beslutningstagere formelt har fulgt EU-retningslinjer og placerer et forebyggelsesansvar hos arbejdsgivere, men at den juridiske ramme er vag og efterlader fortolkningsrum, idet konkrete handlinger, der udgør seksuel chikane, ikke er klart defineret i arbejdsloven. Dette gør sager svære at bevise og medfører fortsatte problemer som lav offentlig bevidsthed, risiko for sekundær viktimisering og institutionelle tavsheder; hverken ansvarlige myndigheder eller national politik anerkender eksplicit underindberetning som et problem.
This thesis examines why workplace sexual harassment is under-reported in Lithuania by analyzing how the issue is represented in Labour Code Article 26. The study combines qualitative content analysis of policy and legal texts (1998–2020) with interviews (unstructured questions to police representatives and an expert interview with a senior human rights specialist), and draws on Bacchi’s What’s the problem represented to be? approach and a top-down Europeanisation perspective. A tally of only 77 complaints to authorities between 2000 and 2020 supports the premise of under-reporting. Findings indicate that while Lithuanian policymakers have formally followed EU guidelines and assign prevention duties to employers, the legal framework remains vague and open to interpretation, with no clear specification of actions that constitute sexual harassment in the Labour Code. This makes cases difficult to prove and sustains issues such as low public awareness, risks of secondary victimisation, and institutional silences; neither the responsible authorities nor national policy explicitly recognise under-reporting as a problem.
[This summary has been generated with the help of AI directly from the project (PDF)]
Documents