Affairs in the Workplace (CNN)

[Tripper]

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.)

 

Yeah, but the problem is defining fraternization. Is it a working lunch?? How about a couple of drinks after work on a Friday night?? Does it apply to opposite sex couples only?? You open a big can of worms.

 

Romantic involvement is easier to define.

[Tripper]

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.

 

Why not both?? Because the policy is set and people are advised at time of hire. I've given them the choice or who goes.. Actually in practice I've found that when one leaves the other follows within a few months.

 

I personally don't care whether it's a male or female or senior or junior...

[Tripper]

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.

 

Yep and therein lies the dilemma... you make the best decision you can with the information you have.

Like the old says the only certainty you have is death and taxes.

[michaelk]

Yeah, but the problem is defining fraternization. Is it a working lunch?? How about a couple of drinks after work on a Friday night?? Does it apply to opposite sex couples only?? You open a big can of worms.

 

Romantic involvement is easier to define.

 

We could easily get into a semantic battle here, because 'romantic involvement' is pretty fuzzy too. Essentially what I'm saying is that if two coworkers become emotionally or physically intimate, then you've got a potential workplace problem.

[Tripper]

We could easily get into a semantic battle here, because 'romantic involvement' is pretty fuzzy too. Essentially what I'm saying is that if two coworkers become emotionally or physically intimate, then you've got a potential workplace problem.

 

Agreed, semantics can start wars.. however I think we both understand what's being said.

 

And here's a twist... last month we just went through an investigation over a rumor that a married sales vp was involved with a marketing manager. The rumor was simply that... started by a pissed off subordinate of the vps and spread like wildfire through the NA sales team.

[OpenBook]

And here's a twist... last month we just went through an investigation over a rumor that a married sales vp was involved with a marketing manager. The rumor was simply that... started by a pissed off subordinate of the vps and spread like wildfire through the NA sales team.

 

And it's "twists" like that which make me even more strongly opposed to company policy dictating who can (and cannot) sleep with whom. Vengeful types can wreak havoc with the professional reputations of others (whether they're guilty or innocent) with anti-frat policies like that on the books. Not to mention exposing the company to a Pandora's box of lawsuits for defamation of character, harassment, etc.

[michaelk]

And it's "twists" like that which make me even more strongly opposed to company policy dictating who can (and cannot) sleep with whom. Vengeful types can wreak havoc with the professional reputations of others (whether they're guilty or innocent) with anti-frat policies like that on the books. Not to mention exposing the company to a Pandora's box of lawsuits for defamation of character, harassment, etc.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'll point out that vengeful types can already wreak havoc with things like false accusations of sexual harassment.

[Green]

Im with what JOHAN said... didnt u just have a relationship with some young girl you met at work?

[Tomcat33]

Gael Garcia Bernal, yum!

 

sorry couldn't resist that last photo!!

[justice]

I think it's a good idea since the workplace is where a majority of cheating takes place. And you know my sitch. That was where the ex h met his ow. I still think there should be some law that makes cheating punishable and fines should be imposed. Sort of a "If you do the crime, you do the time" type of thing.

[Tripper]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'll point out that vengeful types can already wreak havoc with things like false accusations of sexual harassment.

 

...whether there are policies in place or not.

[nella]

BAD IDEA! Stop taking away people's freedoms and let them act the way they want to. If you tell someone not to do something it just intices them to do the opposite. Most likely if an affair or some other type of infidelity is going to happen, its going to happen whether it be in the workplace or somewhere else. Treat people like adults and not little kids who have to get a pass from their teacher to go to the bathroom. An office is like a football team. Several different people with different skills come together to accomplish success. But just because you play offense (being a man) or defense (being a woman) does not mean you should ever be made not to talk or congregate with each other. In the long run it hurts the team more than it helps it.

[Tomcat33]

An office is like a football team. Several different people with different skills come together to accomplish success. But just because you play offense (being a man) or defense (being a woman) does not mean you should ever be made not to talk or congregate with each other. In the long run it hurts the team more than it helps it.

 

 

Uhm yeah but the most basic fact of coaching is that you should discourage your team from having sex before games, and even MORE so to have sex with each other. We all know that sex before games can tear and wear down the preformance of an athlete.

Unless of course you want to have a losing team, then advocate it....:laugh:

[Woggle]

I hate cheating but I don't agree with a big brother policy. In order to change things people will have to change their mentality and no rule or law can do that.

[Tripper]

In order to change things people will have to change their mentality and no rule or law can do that.

 

 

And that's exactly why rules and laws are made and penalties are levied.

Organizations like society have the right to protect themselves and the individuals making up the group.

You may not like it, I may not like it but in either case I'm glad that there are laws and penalties so that amoral people don't take advantage of others.

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world... what's your alternative...?? Anarchy??

[Woggle]

And that's exactly why rules and laws are made and penalties are levied.

Organizations like society have the right to protect themselves and the individuals making up the group.

You may not like it, I may not like it but in either case I'm glad that there are laws and penalties so that amoral people don't take advantage of others.

Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world... what's your alternative...?? Anarchy??

 

Society has the right to pass laws against things like murder, rape and robbery but not affairs. A betrayed spouse should be able to walk away from a marriage scott free and with no obligations whatsoever to the cheater but that is where it should end. Passing laws will not change the fact that we have become a very self centered society.

[Trialbyfire]

I hate cheating but I don't agree with a big brother policy. In order to change things people will have to change their mentality and no rule or law can do that.

That's why non-frat rules are a good idea, instead of a law. The employer can decide on a case-by-case situation, if the fraternization is disruptive or not the type of image, the employer wants to project. For companies that are public-sensitive, it can be key, particularly in the upper-echelons.

[Woggle]

I don't even know if I agree with that. Just tell people to keep their personal business personal and if they can't do that there will be consequences. I have a big issue with any type of big brother policy.

[Trialbyfire]

Without the proper policies in place, firing anyone, is asking for a civil suit.

[Woggle]

Without the proper policies in place, firing anyone, is asking for a civil suit.

 

This is why we need change the laws about that type of thing in general. This is a whole nother issues though.

[Tripper]

Society has the right to pass laws against things like murder, rape and robbery but not affairs. A betrayed spouse should be able to walk away from a marriage scott free and with no obligations whatsoever to the cheater but that is where it should end. Passing laws will not change the fact that we have become a very self centered society.

 

 

Woggle, I'm not advocating a civil law against affairs. I'm advocating a workplace policy where romantic involvement and/or extra marital affairs are not allowed. It becomes HR policy and the employee is informed at time of hire as they would be about other policies.

[Nguy16]

I googled for an hour. CNN.com does not seem to have it. Anyone have a clue as to where I can find this video online.

[silktricks]

Woggle, I'm not advocating a civil law against affairs. I'm advocating a workplace policy where romantic involvement and/or extra marital affairs are not allowed. It becomes HR policy and the employee is informed at time of hire as they would be about other policies.

 

Have you personally worked at a company that had a rule like this? They do not work well. It's all fine and good in concept, but the reality doesn't work. In fact the company I worked for that had this rule in place had more EMA's going on than anywhere else I've ever worked. Having the rule creates the atmosphere of hiding - which in turn fosters EMA's....

 

Most companies work at Team Building. Team building at its essence is getting people to work together and bond. That is the beginning of fraternization.

 

Forget (for the moment) about ema's. Think of the singles working at the company. Most of their awake time is at work. Where do they meet the most people? at work. Where do they see people in their most "real"? at work. So there are a couple of people who develop a friendship. They enjoy talking to each other, pretty soon they want to do something outside the company together. They are friends. The friendship maybe grows into more. It happens. Romance happens. Unfortunately, sometimes it's between people it shouldn't be between, but fixing that is not the job of the company.

 

The only real way to stop office romances is to stop it from within each person. Rules and laws will never stop it.

[Tripper]

Have you personally worked at a company that had a rule like this? They do not work well. It's all fine and good in concept, but the reality doesn't work.

 

Well, ST, we may have to agree to disagree. I've worked for both and both romantic (singles) and extramarital affairs occurred in both organizations.

Where it was allowed, esp EMA, there was a loss of respect for the "affairees" and moral in general. Also confidential information was at the point of being compromised.

Whether or not having the policy would prevent this is dubious, but what it does is give you the out to terminate fairly and safeguard the rest of the organization and information.

 

 

 

 

Think of the singles working at the company. Most of their awake time is at work. Where do they meet the most people? at work. Where do they see people in their most "real"? at work. So there are a couple of people who develop a friendship. They enjoy talking to each other, pretty soon they want to do something outside the company together. They are friends. The friendship maybe grows into more. It happens. Romance happens. Unfortunately, sometimes it's between people it shouldn't be between, but fixing that is not the job of the company.

 

The problems arise if the relationship ends badly. I've seen this several times and people have had to work together.

Personally I do my fishing elsewhere. I have absolutely no desire to be involved with a fellow worker. Friends for golf or skiing ok, but romantically uh uh... clouds the issues... but hey, that's me...

 

The only real way to stop office romances is to stop it from within each person. Rules and laws will never stop it.

 

Well, c'mon, you and I know that won't happen because you can't legislate common sense. All you can do is legislated an enforcible penalty..

 

Anyway, Happy New Year to all reading this thread...

[OpenBook]

So there are a couple of people who develop a friendship. They enjoy talking to each other, pretty soon they want to do something outside the company together. They are friends. The friendship maybe grows into more. It happens. Romance happens. Unfortunately, sometimes it's between people it shouldn't be between, but fixing that is not the job of the company.

 

The only real way to stop office romances is to stop it from within each person. Rules and laws will never stop it.

 

Amen, Silk! It's not the company's responsibility (nor should it be) to stop inappropriate relationships from occurring. Businesses are NOT social clubs... although it DOES feel that way sometimes!! People spend more time at work than they do with their own families. Of course friendships (and sometimes more) are going to happen.

 

I believe the best way for a company to handle fraternization is to not allow personal relationships (dating, living together, or marriage) within the same chain of command... and if it happens, to transfer one of them into another department/role, pronto. In the majority of places where I've worked, this was an unwritten rule that was silently enforced via "social etiquette". It would be unseemly - and managers would lose respect professionally - if they allowed it or engaged in it. I think it mostly depends on the human decency of the management team, from the top down.

 

And as far as EMA's in the workplace, well... from what I've seen, they kinda "take care of themselves." One (or both) parties involved usually end up leaving because it just gets too difficult to work there - nobody gives them any cooperation or respect, and they get "hung out to dry." It's not a pretty sight.

 

Best career advice I've ever gotten: Don't sh*t where you eat.