btw…
Is Jumbotron a new word. i first heard of it a few days ago in the Strands game
(I had to guess it !) Since then it’s cropped up a couple of times here
on the SDMB ?
1985 ?! How come I’ve never heard it before. Maybe because it’s a
brand name, so most commentators would refer to it as “the big video screen”
or something.
Thanks for the information. That means companies in the US are a little more humane in this regard than I thought!
Humane? What’s inhumane about a policy not allowing undisclosed relationships between a boss and a subordinate?
Oh dear, it seems that all unfortunate circumstances have converged, and the two had a truly unfortunate day. One can genuinely feel sorry for them.
It was their cartoonish reaction that caused it. Had they kissed, or just waved/thumbs-uped the camera no one would have thought it interesting (unless you happened to be there & know them).
Didja ever watch COPS? I can tell you when the go to pull a car over that there’s someone wanted in that car? How do I know that? Because if it was just a routine warning or ticket it wouldn’t be interesting/exciting enough to make the air. Same here, if you’re doing something you shouldn’t be don’t draw attention to yourself.
I think it’s almost a Kleenex, Xerox, or Band-Aid where the brand name becomes the generic name for the product.
Well, I don’t know if with “humane” I have used the correct English word here. I mean, a company has no business interfering in the private lives of its employees.
Of course it does if it affects the company.
A relationship if not disclosed between a boss and a subordinate can lead to all sorts of problems.
Relationship drama leaking into the office
The subordinate being unfairly promoted when they aren’t competent and denying someone else a deserve opportunity (I’ve actually seen this.)
The subordinate wanting to end the relationship and being coerced
Allegations of quid pro quo
Also turning this into another tedious “hurr hurr America bad” when other countries certainly have similar policies in their companies isn’t useful
The company is opening themselves up to a sexual harassment lawsuit when there’s a relationship between employees where one employee has some leverage over another employee. The lower employee can say that they were coerced into the relationship with threats or implications that there would be negative repercussions otherwise. Even if the threats are not explicit, the lower employee may feel that they don’t have the option to reject the advances. For instance, if a manager starts flirting with an employee, the employee may feel they have to go along or else the manager will use their influence to hold the employee back.
If a company does not have a policy about employees dating, that’s only because they have not yet had to deal with the fallout of such relationships. Once there’s a messy workplace breakup or a lawsuit, there will be a policy put into place.
May depend on the state, too. In my company all of us employees have to do state-mandated training on it (*) every other year (managers have to do a longer course) and it’s really drilled in that it’s not okay. (Though I’m not HR and I’m too lazy to check the handbook so I don’t know if it means that the company itself has to have a specific rule about it, or if our company does.)
(*) “it” meaning sexual harassment and how relationships between a superior and subordinate are a fertile ground for sexual harassment. Relationships between two coworkers are fine, as several people have said.
lol, I just realized this happened a few miles from my house, at Gillette Stadium. I’m not sure how I missed that, but I don’t feel like I’m near the epicenter of one of the great internet phenomena of the modern era.
/s.
I had no intention whatsoever of portraying the US or American companies in a bad light (even though there are currently some things in the US that I don’t think are working optimally, but that would be hijacking the discussion). As already mentioned, company policies toward employees also exist in Europe, but they are usually more pragmatic.
In my career there were dozens of workplace relationships many of which went on to marriages and kids. Two or three married two different people from the company. Almost none of them were a problem of any sort nor did they violate a policy
What isn’t pragmatic about a policy regarding sexual or romantic relationships between a manager and a subordinate? It’s been explained exhaustively now why it’s very pragmatic. How to European companies handle it better?
Thanks, sister. 
This whole thing falls in the FAFO category.
It’s mostly dependent on how the legal system reacts to these sorts of lawsuits. If the legal system is lax about holding the company accountable, then the companies will be lax about concern for employee relationships. If the legal system hands out large judgements for lawsuits involving employee relationships, then companies will have more restrictions on those relationships. Even in the US there was a time when companies cared little about workplace affairs between bosses and underlings. It was only once the legal system started handing out large awards for sexual harassment lawsuits that the companies began to care about these kinds of relationships.
Yes, exactly.