Democracy, ethics, discrimination and the sex industry

Last week at our Monday morning team stand-up meeting, some of the guys said that they didn't approve of us continuing to do more work for an old client who we had helped with their website and online marketing.

The client's business is an escort agency. Whilst any money that changes hands between the girls and customers is officially for their 'time and company', and that anything more than that is an act between two consenting adults, the industry is associated with prostution (which is legal in the UK, but illegal for a company or 'pimp' to make money from.)

When we first began talking to this client a few years ago, concerns were quickly raised by members of the team about whether this was the type of company that we wanted to work for. As a democratic company, we sought to find out more and then put it to the vote.

We contacted the Sex Worker's Union who represent the rights and interests of people in sex industry globally and they looked into the company for us. They were registered for VAT and appeared to be a legitimate business. They could find no mention of any causes for concern from any of their members. They said that as far as they were concerned, there were no reasons for us to not do business with them. When it came to the vote, a few people said that they did not want to work on the site, but the majority said that we should take the client on and so we did. We have been able to service the client without making someone who didn't want to work on it do so.

That was all several years ago, and we have a mostly new team since then who weren't a part of the original decision. Since several people shared the concerns I explained how we reached the decision to take the client on originally, but that I was prepared to put it to the vote again, and stop working for the client should the team want us to.

The arguments put forward for dropping the client were that an escort agency is off-brand for us and that we wouldn't want to case study the work or shout about our involvement. They also said that they wouldn't feel proud of their work or be able to get passionate about working for a business like this. Some members of the team were also concerned about our reputation: "What if person X from client Y knew that we did work for an escort agency - what would they think of us?"

This time around, the vote went the other way by a large majority and so I called the client to explain that we were unable to continue working for them.

Initially in favour of continuing to work for the client based on what the Sex Worker's Union had said, and also my liberal worldview, I actually voted against continuing to work for the client this time. My personal reason was that I could see from the faces of the team, they didn't want to work for this client, and that was more important to me then the loss of one client and some revenue.

However, it hasn't quite felt right to me since then. I'm concerned that what we have done is to effectively discriminate against sex workers. Are we different from a shop with a sign outside saying 'No Irish, no blacks, no dogs?' Are we discriminating because of our fears about the prejudices of others? Is it the same as the shop keeper saying, 'Some of my favourite customers don't like blacks, so I don't have them in my shop.'

Or are there flaws in this analogy, and is it actually an ethically sound decision? Perhaps it's fair enough to simply not want to look at and think about an escort agency whilst you're at work.

What do you think?

Comments

[Telmo Carlos]

Hi,

I think it was the right decision.

For me the decision was based in personal values and beliefs.

Every time I worked on the client's website I just wanted to get it done and dusted and move on... it did not feel right.

I consider the team at NixonMcInnes well informed and far from discrimination against any industry.

The analogy is strong and might apply from a "discrimination" point of view, but I believe the real reason was that the NixonMcInnes mission of "changing the world" is stronger than ever.

It feels natural that issues regarding individuals, clients and even partners that are not aligned with our mission are going to come up to be resolved.

We are definitely on the right direction.

Telmo

[Simon]

What is important is that your team had the strength of character to stand up and voice an opinion, the opinion was then sanity checked through some research, and a democratic vote took place. I think you should be proud of the process and that you were strong enough to make a tough decision in a tough economic climate because you believed in something as a team - rare in the business world! If you look too closely you have the danger in finding discrimination in a lot of decisions - where you are not hurting anyone/causing unjust disadvantage and they still have the choice to work with another agency, then I think you can sleep soundly at night!

[Rachel Frost]

I think it's a shame the agency has been
dropped... but I'm not actually going to condemn your doing so. Your
company can choose to work with whomever the team likes, or not - and
putting it to a democratic vote like you have done is the best way. If I
was running a web company, I would not take on a slaughterhouse as a
client, as being vegetarian it would repulse me. If your colleagues find
the idea of working with an escort agency distasteful then I don't feel
they should be forced to do that work.

Where problems WOULD arise, would be if for example you were a
government-funded web design agency intended for ALL legitimate small
businesses, and would not work with the escort agency. That would be
discrimination.

As I say I do think it's a shame, but it's a reflection of society's
overall view of the industry. Your company isn't discriminating because of
the fears of others but also due to the distaste which your workers feel
(you say they felt they would not be able to feel proud of or passionate
about the work). The main thing that worries me is that opinion is more
negative than it was several years ago - I would have hoped society (as
reflected by your colleagues) would have become more broad-minded, not
less!

[Becky]

This is a really considered and thoughtful post! I have a great deal of respect both for the transparency of your approach and for the decision to respect the feelings of your team.

To read more about Tactical Tech's advocacy work in this field check out our site http://www.tacticaltech.org/sexworkers and a report we co-authored on Sex Worker Health and Rights Advocates use of ICT http://www.tacticaltech.org/sexwork_ict_report.

[Nick Taylor]

Someone somewhere once said, "everyone has a skeleton in the closet: how the relate psychologically to sex".

In my experience (with arguing with people) you can almost never get a straight answer on the subject of prostitution. Everyone has preconceptions, everyone has baggage, everyone has an opinion. The bigger your team, the more likely it is that you're going to have people who absolutely hate the idea... and it basically becomes untenable for that reason alone.

As for what's going on on the other side of the punter's dollar... you never know. There's an infinite gradiation between lifestyle choice and vicious exploitation... and you never know. The Sex Worker's union is probably the best place to start... but even if you talk to the girls (or boys) themselves you probably aren't going to find out what took them down this road... or how it's working out.

As to whether it's discrimination... I'd say yea, it probably is - you are aiding and abetting a moral climate that says "sex-workers are personae non gratae"... and part of the struggle that sex-worker's unions face (in those few parts of the world where prostitution is legal at all) is for their members to be treated as normal, repectable, contributing members of society. That they not be vilified because of the job they do.

Which ain't going to happen. Well, not in our lifetimes... and your company has got to a size where this sort of association (as you say) is potentially damaging both internally and in terms of brand.

So personally I don't blame you... changing the world is not necessarily achieved by heading straight for the nearest minefield.

[Matthew Pennell]

No, it isn't the same as discriminating against Irish, blacks, or dogs - those are all things that the person being discriminated against can't change. Being Irish or black (or gay, or female; or a dog, for that matter) is not a choice one makes, it is part of who you are.

Your ex-client chose to work in the escort business, as do the women he employs - if you don't want to work with them, that is your choice... not discrimination.

[Mary]

Making hard decisions is never easy. In this case I believe you made the right decision. If your team are unhappy then you have a serious problem. We all take our core values to work with us each day and it is only right that you and your company acknowledge and support them. Thanks for a really great post.

[Andrew]

What about a new slogan - 'No sex please we're NixonMcInnes' ;^) Earnestly - good move.

[Clive Andrews]

Really interesting stuff, which explains further a couple of tweets I remember you making a while back.

Some ethical decisions are obvious, but the sex industry can be seen from various viewpoints, making it harder to know instinctively what to do when faced with a decision like the one taken by your team.

I suppose what's important is not the final result of the vote, but the fact that the vote was taken.

You mention that opinion in the NM seems to have changed. If in future you were approached by another potential client from the sex industry, would the issue be discussed again, to see if people felt differently on that occasion?

(And I have to ask: Was your tongue in your cheek when you wrote the words "we serviced the client"?)

[Beth Granter]

I was going to agree with Matthew that it is not the same as discriminating on the basis of race etc., because of the issue of choice. Thinking about it though, saying the women who work there have done so by 'choice' is simplifying the issue. Personally, whilst I think prostitutes should be fully respected (some of them are my friends), in an ideal society where there are equal opportunities for men and women, no poverty and no drugs trade, I don't think that any person would choose to be a prostitute. I think that in our society, the lack of highly paid alternative work forces people to turn to prostitution - it shouldn't be called a 'choice'. It's a complicated issue and I'm honestly not sure whether it's right or wrong to build a website for an escort agency.

[Pat Parslow]

Always tricky - I think the overall decision is tantamount to discrimination, but your reasons for your choice in voting are perfectly reasonable. On the other hand, your choice could be seen as caving in to peer pressure - is maintaining harmonious relationships always necessarily either a good or a bad thing?
I am never convinced by the argument that removing the social injustices would remove the sex trade. Whilst I have never had transactions in the field, if I were able to make my money that way, and retain enough time to do the (other!) things I enjoy, I am not entirely convinced I would not adopt it as a profession. Removing the drivers for prostitution (poverty, drugs, etc) would make me more likely to consider being a client, however, as I would not have as many concerns about safety or exploitation.

[Forced Crossdressing Cartoons]

I should email my girlfriend about it.