4 ms·
From the NYT: > “If I couldn’t meet with my boss one on one, I don’t get that face time to show what I can do to get that next promotion” That's a fascinating
by gpawl 9y ago
From the NYT:
> “If I couldn’t meet with my boss one on one, I don’t get that face time to show what I can do to get that next promotion”
That's a fascinating perspective.
> Any rule about avoiding meetings that applied only to one sex, even if unspoken, would most likely be illegal,
But rules that applied without regard to sex would be legal.
Note that, for all their flaws, heterosexual single-sex workplaces do cleanly avoid the problem of mixing sex with work.
- drewbug01 9y ago> Note that, for all their flaws, heterosexual single-sex workplaces do cleanly avoid the problem of mixing sex with work. Practically impossible, unless you've developed actual gaydar[1]. Joking aside, you can't actually guarantee that unless you're talking about very small companies. Give me a company of 50 single-sex people, and there's probably at least one LGBT person there. [1] In which case I look forward to your forthcoming HN post.
- ec109685 9y agoThe birthday paradox of two heterosexual employees finding love is higher than two LGBT employees finding love, given the relative numbers.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Note that, for all their flaws, heterosexual single-sex workplaces do cleanly avoid the problem of mixing sex with work. Since the “problem of mixing sex with work” extends to work-related contacts that are not employed by the same employers, but who are (or are employed by) customers, suppliers, or other business partners of the firm, it is not at all true that an exclusively heterosexual single-sex workplace avoids the problem, unless all workplaces and their direct customers, etc., are exclusively heterosexual and of the same single sex.