What if she can only pretend to be interested in the club that meets from 6 to 7 of Friday night? She should try to substitute a relationship based on falsehood for one that would have been good and proper but is forbidden because it started at work?
The negatives of allowing power-imbalance relationships in workplaces and educational settings (I’ve personally seen multiple examples of every single one of these in my own work and school experience):
*Favoritism or reasonable perception of favoritism
*Pressure to submit to advances, or reasonable perception of such pressure
*Higher chance of low-power partner reasonably feeling victimized
*Higher chance of emotional drama affecting the mission
(feel free to add more)
The positives of allowing power-imbalance relationships in workplaces and educational settings:
*Workaholic executives will have a much easier time finding sexual partners
…
…anything else?
I’m sorry this executive lives in such a barren wasteland that no clubs pique her interest on Friday night. I live in a tiny town in Maine and can go to multiple club meetings every night of the week if I wanted to.
Is your"broad generalization" that women can only find themselves attracted to a busy executive if they work for him?
I’m pretty sure that “pressure to submit to advances, or reasonable perception of such pressure” is considered by some to be a positive.
ETA - I don’t mean some people here - I mean that I’m pretty sure that the people perpetrating this sort of thing see the pressure to comply as a perk.
Threads on work relationships surprise me, because they are often imagined as predatory and unusual.
But meeting through work is one of the most common ways people hook up. And because situations aren’t static, it’s easy to end up in a situation where you’re in a subordinate or superior role to someone you’re dating: through promotions, being moved to different teams, maybe you knew them before they even became an employee, etc etc.
I’m not saying that that makes it all A-OK, just that simplistic ideas of “don’t date someone at work” ignores how easily and frequently this happens in the real world, and how disruptive a complete prohibition can be.
Disclaimer: I’m dating someone I met at work.
What **Mijin **said; it’s unrealistic to expect men and women to interact with each other 7-9 hours a day, five days a week, 200+ days a year, and *not *expect feelings to develop in the workplace.
A relationship cannot ever be good and proper when it starts with coercion. When will you men ever get it into your heads that women are people not property? (Yes, I am aware that there a few women that like being slaves, but there are already plenty of message boards where those people can interact. They don’t need to bring it into the workplace.)
Female supervisors are also prohibited from dating male subordinates in most places.
Female professors are also prohibited from dating male students.
Hey, he’s a high powered executive, man - I heard he has 100 people in his downline. He’ll be a Double Diamond any day now! He’s far too busy attending the swinger party at the De Moines Radisson with the lady from RE/MAX and Jerry Lundegaard from Fargo.
Um, not all men?
If you mean when will all men see women as people (or even enough men that the exceptions are exceptional), then goddammit, I wish I could give you an encouraging answer. I really do.
Using that logic married men should never be allowed to work with or interact with women other than their wives since after all they could develop feelings that could lead to adultery. Being adult means being able to prioritize a career or job over “feelings”.
Have you ever met a woman? Have you ever met a busy executive?
Your broad generalization is bizarre. Where ever you read this weird and completely wrong information, you need to see if you can get your money back. I’ve walking into a meeting room, a church, a bar, a bus and heard a laugh, saw a reaction, or any number of other things and thought “that one. I want to know more about that one.”
- Workplace relationships are fraught with pitfalls to begin with.
a. You can become “an item”, a distraction, and a detriment to the professional atmosphere of your workplace.
b. Love and/or the bitterness of a breakup can not only affect each individual’s efficiency and production, but damage the overall process as well.
c. If there is a breakup, what then? You have to come to work every day and see your “ex” for 8 hours. Pretty stressful and can probably lead to one or the other quitting.
-
It’s hard to say “no” to your boss if he asks you out. You immediately fear insulting him and the reprisals that can come with that. You fear for your job. No one should have to do that.
-
I don’t blame companies for having a blanket “no fraternization” policy. I think they’re doing everyone a favor, not just themselves.
As I mentioned upthread, I’m dating someone I met at work. We’ve been going out for over a year now and things are going well.
In my office of ~120 people there are 5 public couples (2 married, another 2 lived together for many years), plus the boss is married to a former employee.
Now, I’m not saying there is no potential for problems with work relationships. But many in this thread are implying the exact opposite: that they are always, or mostly, exploitative and cause problems. I just can’t relate to that.
There is always the potential to cause problems. The potential increases significantly when the couple are directly above/below each other in the corporate hierarchy, and in fact the entire relationship itself becomes suspect because of coercion issues. It would not surprise me to hear of workplaces where relationships are allowed except for boss/minion situations. Similarly I could entirely understand a company banning all interemployee relationships simply due to the fact they want to prevent drama and don’t have any interest in their companies being happily coupled with anyone.
I don’t recall if you’ve said whether the happy uncoerced relationships in your office are boss/minion relationships or not.
There are plenty of resources for busy rich folk:
[Are you a successful single who makes over $200K/year and wants to meet attractive singles?](’ https://www.millionairematch.com/')
I have no affiliation with this website, nor any similar ones.
Well, I now have a reason to put in for a raise. Thanks for the link!
There is something here that everyone is missing, and that is the CEO got caught violating company policy. If he does not get punished, who should get punished?
I used to work for Intel, and it is not a let it all hang out place. At my orientation they said that if you loved the military you’d love Intel. I thought, oh shit, and was gone in 15 months.
I don’t remember taking the class talking about harassment there, but I’ve taken it in other big companies, and the policy is very clear. It does not matter that this relationship was consensual. It might well have started without anyone hitting on anyone else. But it still violated policy.
He ain’t the first to go. Remember, Mark Hurd got fired from HP for falsifying expense accounts for expenses accrued while he was hitting on a contractor (and failing.)
So the Intel case really isn’t #Metoo related, but is something that any ethical company would do.
Even if we accept that those things are usually true, it’s more complicated than that. Some places operate on the idea that you have to be above even the appearance of impropriety. It’s not enough that you don’t exploit your subordinates or play favorites, you don’t want to give anyone reason to even wonder if you’re doing those things. If a CEO wants the money and the perks that go with that position, he can accept the restrictions as well.
Yes, but not every relationship is evidence of coercion. Ideally, both people get more out of it than they put in; it doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game.
If a company wants to ban relationships between employees because it fears the appearance of favoritism, or they don’t want the burden of investigating conflicting claims, I can understand that. But I don’t assume that every workplace relationship is necessarily coerced.