Affairs in the Workplace (CNN)

[Rooster_DAR]

CNN is doing a segment stating which shows more employers are adopting anti-affairs in the workplace. They are using a police department as an example that says if your caught messing around with another person and your married, you will be held accountable and face consequences.

 

My first reaction was, YES!!!! finally. But I need to think about this one some more, I don't want to just immediately decide it's a good policy (although my EX cheater with a co-worker) without giving further though to the idea.

 

Your thoughts welcome!

 

Cheers!

[cj1988]

Before I was married, but living with someone a long time ago....I was seeing the BIG boss and I can tell you it was a nightmare. I tried to break it off, he said fine but treated me like crap.....so I said ok we are back on until he found another one to play with.....it should not be allowed !

[jj2007]

I think it is a great idea! It could force people to concentrate on what they are supposed to be doing at work. WORKING!

[Mr. Lucky]

it should not be allowed !

The person that shouldn't allow it is you. Choose your partners wisely and there'e no problem. Common sense would say that the "big boss" would not be a good choice...

 

Mr. Lucky

[johan]

Didn't you meet your last girlfriend at the office?

[Tomcat33]

I think is a great idea and quite frankly not all human beings have the self discipline not to commit a crime or break rules. The idea is that as a married person we are to be trusted with our actions and have the willpower to not break rules, but if that were the case why do cops even exists what is a punishment against robbery and why is theft considered a crime? Shouldn't human being be trusted not to steal?

 

 

Let's face it folks the same people who swear never to break a marriage vow are the same people who would pay consecuences if they were to steal or plagerize or dip into the company finacial fund, hence the criminal laws that exist.

So why would we as human beings be expected to be trusted not to cheat?

 

I think it is a HUGE leap of faith to think another person won't commit that crime. It's like all criminal tendencies some will some won't.

[silktricks]

There is (IMO) too much big-brotherness already going on in our world. I'm not an advocate of police-state morality at any level.

 

I would like very much like to see an increase in self-induced morality, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Maybe the human animal can only be moral if forced by society???

[LucreziaBorgia]

I would think a solid anti-fraternization policy in general would about cover it without having to get into the sticky situation of policing morality.

[Mr. Lucky]

Didn't you meet your last girlfriend at the office?

I have fortunately resisted that temptation ...

 

Mr. Lucky

[Trialbyfire]

I agree with a simple non-frat policy in the workplace, particularly if one party is previously committed. Fire the two, no ifs, ands or buts.

 

Should be interesting for the MM/MW to explain that one to a spouse.

[Tomcat33]

There is (IMO) too much big-brotherness already going on in our world. I'm not an advocate of police-state morality at any level.

 

I would like very much like to see an increase in self-induced morality, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Maybe the human animal can only be moral if forced by society???

 

Yeah but Silktricks to steal or not to steal money from the company pool is also a moral choice that to this day does not go unpunnished if someone is caught doing so.

 

If we were to leave morality up to everyone's free will with no rules then we need to abolish criminal laws all together, afterall all laws are based on a choice of morality.

 

I am sure at some point in our social history, drinking while under the influence was considered a personal moral choice and not punished by law. It wasn't until enough people died or got injuerd due to the irresponsibility of those who did not have the will power to do the right thing that a law was put in to place to control the inability to make a right moral choice by the masses.

 

We could very well be at a social turning point that will mark history in the name of fidelity and free will.

[Rooster_DAR]

Unfortunately I had to leave for work before I caught the segment, but it should repeat every hour until midnight so I will catch it later. If anyone is at home it's on the CNN that has "Robyn in the mornings",not sure which network it is.

 

I have made the comment to some of my friends and their first thought was "It's not the employers responsibility!". To some extent I agree with what they are saying, but seeing that a lot of domestic violence is directly related to infedelity I think at a minimum they should offer an in house mandatory counseling class on these issues.

 

Companies spend so much time with other worthless meetings and agenda's, why don't they offer bi-annual counseling with employees or just add it to their existing ethics training course.

 

Cheers!

[Tripper]

At the risk of sound like an Ethiics 101 class, laws are enacted to level the playing field of moral issues.

Stealing money from an employer is out and out theft. The workplace affair is more insidious in it's impact and ensuing ramifications.

I've worked for companies that have that policy and even if it's only dating one of the partners in the relationship has had to leave.

 

The bottom line is that even animals have enough sense not to eat and crap in the same place.

[Trialbyfire]

The bottom line is that even animals have enough sense not to eat and crap in the same place.

So true...

[johan]

I don't understand. You were dating a girl half your age from your office just recently. Now you're saying companies should have policies against that?

[Tomcat33]

Stealing money from an employer is out and out theft. The workplace affair is more insidious in it's impact and ensuing ramifications.

 

And out and out theft is punishable by law no matter where it happens the point wasn't were it happens the point was that wrongful moral choice is punishable. So making it an offense to have affairs in the work place is an extension of that. Until this day in age we were supposedly trusted to make our own moral choice re. infidelity and we've proven as a whole, to fail in that respect, hence the possible need for the law to step in and remind us of what is acceptable and what is not.

 

 

 

The bottom line is that even animals have enough sense not to eat and crap in the same place.

 

Yeah but dogs eat their own poo, so it all depends what animals we are talking about. And most animals lick their own arses

Semantics really..

[michaelk]

Either the workplace rule should be against all fraternization, or it shouldn't exist at all. It's not the employer's place to help enforce your marriage vows. They put policies in place to protect their business, and it's office romance in general that threatens productivity and creates conflicts of interest.

 

As for the parallel being drawn to theft or other crimes, even if I agreed with that (which I don't), it's not the employer's job to enforce the laws. If you want to police morality, then pass a law and let the BS sue the WS for breach of contract.

[silktricks]

I've worked for a company that had non-frat rules in place, because of the problems that can arise in the office due to romantic entanglements (whether those entanglements are between married or single people). I won't say that non-frat rules don't work at some level, but what they primarily do is drive the fraterinization underground. It still went on, people just talked about it less.

 

If caught, one of the people involved WILL be let go. Nine time out of ten, it will be the woman who loses her job. Not necessarily because she is the less valuable employee, but because most employers assume (still) that the woman is more likely to quit anyway.

 

As far as companies creating any rules about firing people who commit adultery (I'm not talking about non-frat, I'm talking about adultery with anyone), I think that is just plain crazy. It feels like the inmates are taking over the asylum.

 

Comparing theft to infidelity is not an unusual comparison, and it holds some water, but truly only for the betrayed spouse. It is not and should not be the position of an employer to enforce marital vows, and to compare an employee affair to theft from the company based on the comparitive morality is not valid IMO.

[Tripper]

Comparing theft to infidelity is not an unusual comparison, and it holds some water, but truly only for the betrayed spouse. It is not and should not be the position of an employer to enforce marital vows, and to compare an employee affair to theft from the company based on the comparitive morality is not valid IMO.

 

 

Perhaps I should have expanded on the point I was trying to make. Theft of money or company property is pretty clear cut. The impact is directly on the bottom line.

Workplace affairs affect moral and productivity. Depending on who is involved there can be issues of confidentiality of information.

It's not up to the organization to enforce marital vows, but it is their right to protect there business and they do have a duty of care to all employees to provide a good working environment.

I have yet to see a workplace affair that had a positive impact on either the company or those involved. I've seen enough workplace affairs that have created problems for all. Particularly after break up.

Agreed my observations are not qualitative, but they sure as heck are quantitative and that's why I have a very strong "don't dip your dink in company ink" policy for myself.

If two married people want to have an affair that's their business and I will not make a moral judgment, however if they work for me, one of them is gone; I nor any organization I work for needs the drama or the hassle.

[Tomcat33]

If two married people want to have an affair that's their business and I will not make a moral judgment, however if they work for me, one of them is gone; I nor any organization I work for needs the drama or the hassle.

 

Interesting, which one would be gone?

 

I think we just backed up what Silk was saying in her stat of who gets fired.

 

Why not BOTH of them are gone? Interesting that your choice in words was ONE of the is gone.

[Curmudgeon]

Comparing theft to infidelity is not an unusual comparison, and it holds some water, but truly only for the betrayed spouse. It is not and should not be the position of an employer to enforce marital vows, and to compare an employee affair to theft from the company based on the comparitive morality is not valid IMO.

 

Clearly our increasingly permissive society cares less and less about it as the generations continue. Civility, too, is a fast declining factor. More's the pity!

 

As a member of upper management, I would question the integrity, values and honesty of any employee I knew was cheating on a spouse. If they were doing it in-house I'd also question their intelligence. If they're dumb enough to fish in the company pond, what other stupidities would they be capable of?

[Curmudgeon]

Why not BOTH of them are gone? Interesting that your choice in words was ONE of the is gone.

 

I'd clean house!

[Tomcat33]

Clearly our increasingly permissive society cares less and less about it as the generations continue. Civility, too, is a fast declining factor. More's the pity!

 

As a member of upper management, I would question the integrity, values and honesty of any employee I knew was cheating on a spouse. If they were doing it in-house I'd also question their intelligence. If they're dumb enough to fish in the company pond, what other stupidities would they be capable of?

 

 

That's a very smart observation!

 

What happens though when it is two of the star top executives that are having this affiar, do you think the company is going to risk losing two of their top employees in one go for a moral choice?

 

I feel it would be business first, morality second. Then we'd be back at square one again. If they were low ranking employees I sense it might be easier to enforce this rule but not if it is going to affect the overall wellbeing of the business.

 

Just goes to show you nothing fully works in life.

[michaelk]

Workplace affairs affect moral and productivity. Depending on who is involved there can be issues of confidentiality of information.

It's not up to the organization to enforce marital vows, but it is their right to protect there business and they do have a duty of care to all employees to provide a good working environment.

I have yet to see a workplace affair that had a positive impact on either the company or those involved. I've seen enough workplace affairs that have created problems for all. Particularly after break up.

 

All of these observations are true for both affairs and non-affair workplace relationships. If enforcing morality isn't your goal, and the good of the business is, then you have to exclude all fraternization. (If you do it at all.)

[michaelk]

That's a very smart observation!

 

What happens though when it is two of the star top executives that are having this affiar, do you think the company is going to risk losing two of their top employees in one go for a moral choice?

 

I feel it would be business first, morality second. Then we'd be back at square one again. If they were low ranking employees I sense it might be easier to enforce this rule but not if it is going to affect the overall wellbeing of the business.

 

Just goes to show you nothing fully works in life.

 

In the company I'm working at now, the CEO and the VP of Marketing became romantically involved, she got pregnant, and they just got married - all on the job. Although neither of them were having an affair, you can bet this created conflicts of interest when it came to executive decision making!