9 ms·

Really? If he's _just_ hired him, I presume any probationary period would be ongoing and you can let the guy go consequence free? Thus, the most obvious least

Really? If he's _just_ hired him, I presume any probationary period would be ongoing and you can let the guy go consequence free? Thus, the most obvious least path of resistance is just to let him go and not really give him cause. I'm not from the US, thus I'm genuinely asking the question. With that said, aren't we potentially overreacting here? Quite a lot of romances spark in the office. The guys tried it on, he's been rubuked, hopefully he got the point and will settle down. If he doesn't, then I you do have a problem, but the reaction here seems to be like he's just ran over your dog.

Splines 10y ago
> With that said, aren't we potentially overreacting here? Quite a lot of romances spark in the office. The guys tried it on, he's been rubuked, hopefully he got the point and will settle down. I see your point, but if you're an employee and you're sharing that "so and so texted me this <shows phone>", what's the motivation behind that? She said she doesn't want to cause problems, but if it's something between two adults and not involving work, I would imagine she would just not say anything, particularly to management. OP needs to read into their conversation, it's hard to armchair quarterback this over the internet. At the end of the day it's ultimately easier for us to say fire for a multitude of reasons, many of which are likely valid.
- ownagefool 10y ago
  > I see your point, but if you're an employee and you're sharing that "so and so texted me this <shows phone>", what's the motivation behind that? She said she doesn't want to cause problems, but if it's something between two adults and not involving work, I would imagine she would just not say anything, particularly to management. I think you're dangerously into all women are always resonable logic there. It's entirely possible, that the female employee, as an employee of a startup, is inflected by the same hyper-sensitivity that plagues communities such as ourselves. Conversely it's also entirely possible that male employee is a complete and utter dickhead. I wouldn't bet my life on either one being the truth. > OP needs to read into their conversation, it's hard to armchair quarterback this over the internet. At the end of the day it's ultimately easier for us to say fire for a multitude of reasons, many of which are likely valid. Well yeah, the OP hasn't given us enough info to really comment and he'll need to use his own personal judgement on whether the messages were over the line or whether he was just being a guy. I'm just trying to remind people that whilst we should be professional at work, we aren't automatons and normal people are going to continue dating and bonking their colleagues or attempting to do so and whilst that's sexual, it doesn't necessarily constitute harassment.
  - Splines 10y ago
    > I think you're dangerously into all women are always resonable logic there. Uhh... seriously? I hope I'm misreading what you wrote here.
    - ownagefool 10y ago
      Why? Your no smoke without fire argument relies on the lady in question not being touchy or unresonable. I'd argue donglegate shows that, despite having an army of men willing to defend them, sometimes this is the case. It's also poor form to skip the context like that.
      - nurettin 10y ago
        Dunno, I'd kinda assume people are being reasonable by default. That's how societies are built by the majority so that a minority of cynics can find the luxury to make sexist remarks within that established framework.
        ownagefool 10y ago
        Well, no. You're assuming the woman is reasonble by default and thus the man must be at fault. This is actually a sexist point of view.
        louduh 10y ago
        You forgot "actually" after your "Well"
        nurettin 10y ago
        Except I wouldn't ignore textual evidence "because women can be unreasonable" or "men can be assholes".
        Chris2048 10y ago
        Straw-man. Or possibly framing the original argument stereotypically/in bad-faith. Concluding you only have one side of the story, is not the same as, nor necessitates ignoring it. One alternative is getting the other side of the story. I also find the phrasing "because women can be unreasonable" to be suspicious - there is no reason to put it this way rather than "people can be unreasonable"; OP made no claim that only women should be treated with skepticism. - are you trying to invoke the historical meme of women being dismissed as irrational?
bskap 10y ago
In the US, almost all employment is at-will. There's no probationary period and any one can be let go at any time without notice for any reason (or no reason) except for a certain list of protected things (gender, race, marital status, and the like). Also, from the description, it seems like the conversation was way more than just "would you like to get a drink" and the guy already didn't back down.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > from the description, it seems like Exactly, nothing that any HN observer can come to any conclusion with.
emodendroket 10y ago
Probationary periods are basically fictional unless you've laid out some formalized termination process.
- Sharlin 10y ago
  Perhaps fictional in the US. They are very much legal fact in (most of?) Europe where at-will employment isn't really a thing.
  - emodendroket 10y ago
    I assumed this story took place in the US, where people talk about "probationary periods" all the time despite basically your entire term of employment being "probationary" in this sense. Yes, if you're in Europe it's a totally different story.
cortesoft 10y ago
Referring to someone as a MILF at work is inappropriate at work, even if you are trying to 'spark a romance'. You don't get a free pass to try anything once. If you are trying to spark a romance, you have to do it in a professional way that leaves the other person an out before you take it to an inappropriate level.
- ownagefool 10y ago
  See I think this is a culutre thing, but I imagine it doesn't work for the entire USA but is locked down to the left politically correct spectrum, because to me it's not all that bad a word. Point being, I could quite happily call someone from work a MILF in a semi-serious / semi-jokey way and get away with it. In fact, I've said worse and had success because if the woman likes you, she'll like the fact you said it. Now where the problem lies in this example is the guy should have read the signals that she wasn't interested and not just try it on anyways. Then again, I'm not sure why she'd move over to a private medium if she wasn't acting interested. But I get it, you're outraged at a couple of tidbits of information that aren't guaranteed to be in order and are largely without context of the conversation. I can't really argue with that.
  - tobz 10y ago
    > had success That's a really gross way of describing your overbearing behavior in a work setting. As if spitting out sexually-charged comments is some sort of win/not-quite-lose scenario. Yeah, let's just keep calling women MILFs, or calling guys DILFs, or whatever the pickup line du jour is, until it "succeeds", and until then, well, just keep trying. That doesn't sound like a creepy, overbearing trait to exhibit at all. /sarcasm
    - ownagefool 10y ago
      There's a difference between me calling you a DILF either in jest, as an actual compliment or because I want to see how you react than repeating it ad nauseam. Also you seem to be imagining that everyone's doing this during working hours and that there's no context to the comments. If I just walked into work and started yelling such things at people, I imagine folks would quite rightly pause, but the "had success" point was that there is obviously situations where this is appreciated.
joantune 10y ago
Yes, ownagefool, I think that this thread, the more extreme reactions come from an oversensitized USA to the sexual harassment. One has barely any info other than the attitude of the guy made the CEO upset [and we don't know exactly if that translate to harassment, improper conduct or maybe latent feelings (consider all of these)], yet, everyone is saying fire him. The asking for a whatsapp and she saying 'only as friends in a work context' can't be seen as a first advance, so it can't be seen as he got rebuked the first time, he got it clear with the MILF remark, she probably rebuked him, if he continued, it is harassment, if not, I wouldn't call it that.

Splines 10y ago

> With that said, aren't we potentially overreacting here? Quite a lot of romances spark in the office. The guys tried it on, he's been rubuked, hopefully he got the point and will settle down. I see your point, but if you're an employee and you're sharing that "so and so texted me this <shows phone>", what's the motivation behind that? She said she doesn't want to cause problems, but if it's something between two adults and not involving work, I would imagine she would just not say anything, particularly to management. OP needs to read into their conversation, it's hard to armchair quarterback this over the internet. At the end of the day it's ultimately easier for us to say fire for a multitude of reasons, many of which are likely valid.

ownagefool 10y ago
> I see your point, but if you're an employee and you're sharing that "so and so texted me this <shows phone>", what's the motivation behind that? She said she doesn't want to cause problems, but if it's something between two adults and not involving work, I would imagine she would just not say anything, particularly to management. I think you're dangerously into all women are always resonable logic there. It's entirely possible, that the female employee, as an employee of a startup, is inflected by the same hyper-sensitivity that plagues communities such as ourselves. Conversely it's also entirely possible that male employee is a complete and utter dickhead. I wouldn't bet my life on either one being the truth. > OP needs to read into their conversation, it's hard to armchair quarterback this over the internet. At the end of the day it's ultimately easier for us to say fire for a multitude of reasons, many of which are likely valid. Well yeah, the OP hasn't given us enough info to really comment and he'll need to use his own personal judgement on whether the messages were over the line or whether he was just being a guy. I'm just trying to remind people that whilst we should be professional at work, we aren't automatons and normal people are going to continue dating and bonking their colleagues or attempting to do so and whilst that's sexual, it doesn't necessarily constitute harassment.
- Splines 10y ago
  > I think you're dangerously into all women are always resonable logic there. Uhh... seriously? I hope I'm misreading what you wrote here.
  - ownagefool 10y ago
    Why? Your no smoke without fire argument relies on the lady in question not being touchy or unresonable. I'd argue donglegate shows that, despite having an army of men willing to defend them, sometimes this is the case. It's also poor form to skip the context like that.
    - nurettin 10y ago
      Dunno, I'd kinda assume people are being reasonable by default. That's how societies are built by the majority so that a minority of cynics can find the luxury to make sexist remarks within that established framework.
      - ownagefool 10y ago
        Well, no. You're assuming the woman is reasonble by default and thus the man must be at fault. This is actually a sexist point of view.
        louduh 10y ago
        You forgot "actually" after your "Well"
        nurettin 10y ago
        Except I wouldn't ignore textual evidence "because women can be unreasonable" or "men can be assholes".
        Chris2048 10y ago
        Straw-man. Or possibly framing the original argument stereotypically/in bad-faith. Concluding you only have one side of the story, is not the same as, nor necessitates ignoring it. One alternative is getting the other side of the story. I also find the phrasing "because women can be unreasonable" to be suspicious - there is no reason to put it this way rather than "people can be unreasonable"; OP made no claim that only women should be treated with skepticism. - are you trying to invoke the historical meme of women being dismissed as irrational?

bskap 10y ago

In the US, almost all employment is at-will. There's no probationary period and any one can be let go at any time without notice for any reason (or no reason) except for a certain list of protected things (gender, race, marital status, and the like). Also, from the description, it seems like the conversation was way more than just "would you like to get a drink" and the guy already didn't back down.

Chris2048 10y ago
> from the description, it seems like Exactly, nothing that any HN observer can come to any conclusion with.

emodendroket 10y ago

Probationary periods are basically fictional unless you've laid out some formalized termination process.

Sharlin 10y ago
Perhaps fictional in the US. They are very much legal fact in (most of?) Europe where at-will employment isn't really a thing.
- emodendroket 10y ago
  I assumed this story took place in the US, where people talk about "probationary periods" all the time despite basically your entire term of employment being "probationary" in this sense. Yes, if you're in Europe it's a totally different story.

cortesoft 10y ago

Referring to someone as a MILF at work is inappropriate at work, even if you are trying to 'spark a romance'. You don't get a free pass to try anything once. If you are trying to spark a romance, you have to do it in a professional way that leaves the other person an out before you take it to an inappropriate level.

ownagefool 10y ago
See I think this is a culutre thing, but I imagine it doesn't work for the entire USA but is locked down to the left politically correct spectrum, because to me it's not all that bad a word. Point being, I could quite happily call someone from work a MILF in a semi-serious / semi-jokey way and get away with it. In fact, I've said worse and had success because if the woman likes you, she'll like the fact you said it. Now where the problem lies in this example is the guy should have read the signals that she wasn't interested and not just try it on anyways. Then again, I'm not sure why she'd move over to a private medium if she wasn't acting interested. But I get it, you're outraged at a couple of tidbits of information that aren't guaranteed to be in order and are largely without context of the conversation. I can't really argue with that.
- tobz 10y ago
  > had success That's a really gross way of describing your overbearing behavior in a work setting. As if spitting out sexually-charged comments is some sort of win/not-quite-lose scenario. Yeah, let's just keep calling women MILFs, or calling guys DILFs, or whatever the pickup line du jour is, until it "succeeds", and until then, well, just keep trying. That doesn't sound like a creepy, overbearing trait to exhibit at all. /sarcasm
  - ownagefool 10y ago
    There's a difference between me calling you a DILF either in jest, as an actual compliment or because I want to see how you react than repeating it ad nauseam. Also you seem to be imagining that everyone's doing this during working hours and that there's no context to the comments. If I just walked into work and started yelling such things at people, I imagine folks would quite rightly pause, but the "had success" point was that there is obviously situations where this is appreciated.

joantune 10y ago

Yes, ownagefool, I think that this thread, the more extreme reactions come from an oversensitized USA to the sexual harassment. One has barely any info other than the attitude of the guy made the CEO upset [and we don't know exactly if that translate to harassment, improper conduct or maybe latent feelings (consider all of these)], yet, everyone is saying fire him. The asking for a whatsapp and she saying 'only as friends in a work context' can't be seen as a first advance, so it can't be seen as he got rebuked the first time, he got it clear with the MILF remark, she probably rebuked him, if he continued, it is harassment, if not, I wouldn't call it that.