5 ms·

" Up front, you explain that the policy is one word: don't. If it ever happens, you fire the higher-level person promptly. No excuses, no second chances." In t

" Up front, you explain that the policy is one word: don't. If it ever happens, you fire the higher-level person promptly. No excuses, no second chances." In the real world, it's not that easy. Things happen. Also, it's probably illegal, or it wouldn't hold up in court. VP of Customer Service falls in love with one of the help-desk assistants, they get married, VP gets fired - that's a lawsuit.

tptacek 8y ago
No contract any VP of Customer Service is going to have will insulate them from being fired for cause, which is what would be happening if they violated a basic HR handbook rule about dating subordinates. And that's assuming the "VP of Customer Service" has a negotiated contract in the first place. Most employees, even managers, don't have negotiated contracts; they have the default handbook contract, which I guarantee you restates and maintains the US default, which is termination at will.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Termination at will doesn't cover things that violates people's rights, and a whole host of other things. You can't fire someone because they are black, or gay, or Mormon, or get sick - and probably not because they fall in love with each other either.
  - nradov 8y ago
    Most US employers absolutely can legally fire an employee because of who they fall in love with, as long as the action isn't based on a policy which disproportionately impacts a protected class.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      Maybe you're right, but I'm doubtful. I wonder how it would hold up in a big supreme court challenge (or maybe it has already ... I'm not an expert)
      - tptacek 8y ago
        You think maybe employment at will is just waiting to be tested in the Supreme Court?
        richardknop 8y ago
        Maybe it should.
        sonnyblarney 8y ago
        "You think maybe employment at will is just waiting to be tested in the Supreme Court?" It's in court right now. And it always will be.
      - dionidium 8y ago
        On what grounds are you doubtful? The concept of protected classes is well-defined and well-tested and "office lovebirds" aren't one of those classes.
        haikuginger 8y ago
        For fuck's sake, "being gay" isn't even one of those classes.
        CalChris 8y ago
        Federal protected class, no. But in CA, yeah, it is. https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/what-are-californias-protected-classes-in-employment.shtml https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/what-are-c...
      - FireBeyond 8y ago
        About the same as "employee says controversial thing in personal life". In other words, employer has absolutely every right to fire them for their self-expression.
        8y ago
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - Itaxpica 8y ago
    Yes but "rights" are legally defined, not just 'well I feel like I have a right to this'. Employees dating their subordinates is not a protected class, so "and probably not because they fall in love with each other either" is factually incorrect.
- ashelmire 8y ago
  It appears that this is not settled case law, with the most recent case in the 9th district court (basically all of the west coast) ruling that at least public officials have the right to have affairs with coworkers: https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Police-can-t-be-fired-for-having-affairs-with-12576868.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Police-can-t-be-fir... Other appeals courts have ruled otherwise, but the 9th district court has had a couple of precedents in the past, according to the article. Personally, I think it's an interesting issue. If the company fires the higher ranked employee, they are probably losing more value. It's also interesting that I think everyone would agree that it would be absurd to fire any employee if they were a married couple - yet absent the (mostly religious and tax related) binds of marriage, there's some moral judgment cast upon the participants. It seems so puritanical and absurd. What if the two employees got married before anyone found out about the affair? I bet they'd be protected both legally and in terms of moral or business implications. It appears many states actually prevent firing based on marital status: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111041550490175318 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111041550490175318 From that one, "One reason is that about 20 states and many cities ban employment discrimination on the basis of marital status. If a married employee who has an affair is fired and an unmarried employee who has an affair isn't, the fired employee in those states conceivably could claim illegal discrimination, attorneys say. Thus, many employers turn a blind eye to marital cheating."
  - tptacek 8y ago
    We're not talking about marital status, nor do we care that Drummond was married at the time the affair began. We care about the fact that he had the affair with a subordinate.
    - ashelmire 8y ago
      You seem to not get it. Situation 1: Person A and B are married and have a sexual relationship. A is a VP, B is just a regular worker. Nobody has a problem with this, and policies generally don't have any problem with coworkers being married. Situation 2: Person A and B are not married and have a sexual relationship. A is a VP, B is just a regular worker. Some people have a problem with this, and policies often have a problem with coworkers being married. That's called discrimination based on marital status (or lack thereof).
- baq 8y ago
  termination for no reason is not the same as termination for any reason.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
brown9-2 8y ago
A lawsuit for what? You can’t just allege “someone will file a suit”, that is meaningless.
Jare 8y ago
> In the real world, it's not that easy. Things happen. No, things don't "happen". People make them happen, and should own up to the consequences of their actions. If the policy is "don't", then you can choose to 1) do not, no matter how much you would like to; 2) move / leave so you can do freely; or 3) do and (if/when found) you get smacked in the face with the policy.
- lixtra 8y ago
  A lot of policies, contract clauses, and even laws exist only to be applied in certain situations, not rigerously. I can accept that google wants to avoid trouble at the work place and love dramas can cause trouble. And sexual harassment is already forbidden by law. But it is not automatically harassment when two consenting adults of different levels start a love affair mostly happening outside work. This is as much google’s business as what sex I prefer, what party I vote for or to which god I may pray - none. The protection against possible harassment does not justify to limit the freedom of adult citizens. For children the limits do make sense, though. When there is no harassment claim and no other disturbance of peace at work the state should protect me against overreaching policies.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  Employer says: 1 "don't be gay" 2 "don't fall in love" 1 is illegal obviously, 2 is legal? Seriously?
mynameisvlad 8y ago
> Also, it's probably illegal, or it wouldn't hold up in court. Most states in the US are at-will employment. You can be fired for literally any reason whatsoever outside of a very very limited number of protections against discrimination. Hooking up with a subordinate is not one of those protections.
wpietri 8y ago
I didn't say it was easy. It is, however, simple. Please provide evidence for your claim that it's illegal to fire someone for banging the help. In an at-will state, people can generally be fired for any reason or no reason as long as some specific employee protection isn't violated. I have worked at companies, including a publicly traded company, that have rules like that, and the didn't see any problem with it. You're right that there could be a lawsuit. People can sue for anything. But it's much more likely that a company will see a lawsuit for failing to protect employees from predatory managers and execs. So if lawsuits are the problem, then this rule would be a huge help in reducing the total number, as well as the PR risk.
- lawnchair_larry 8y ago
  I think the fact that you refer to Bill and Melinda as a case of “banging the help” says a lot about your understanding of decent human relationships and is probably why you are failing to see the nuaunce that applies to many of these situations. If your understanding of relationships is that simple, then it’s not surprising that you think there is a simple solution. It also seems a little insulting to imply that women have no agency, but I’ll let them decide if they want to be offended.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    I am not referring to Bill and Melinda Gates. I am referring to the broad problem. I am not denying human relationships are nuanced. I am proposing a very simple rule, one that many companies already have on the books, because a) the deep ambiguity is managerially untractable, and b) as we see in many examples including this article, more nuanced rules are easily interpreted to let powerful men off the hook. I am not implying women have no agency. There's nothing in this rule about men and women, or even about straight relationships. If you are inferring that women have no agency, maybe that's you.

tptacek 8y ago

No contract any VP of Customer Service is going to have will insulate them from being fired for cause, which is what would be happening if they violated a basic HR handbook rule about dating subordinates. And that's assuming the "VP of Customer Service" has a negotiated contract in the first place. Most employees, even managers, don't have negotiated contracts; they have the default handbook contract, which I guarantee you restates and maintains the US default, which is termination at will.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
Termination at will doesn't cover things that violates people's rights, and a whole host of other things. You can't fire someone because they are black, or gay, or Mormon, or get sick - and probably not because they fall in love with each other either.
- nradov 8y ago
  Most US employers absolutely can legally fire an employee because of who they fall in love with, as long as the action isn't based on a policy which disproportionately impacts a protected class.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    Maybe you're right, but I'm doubtful. I wonder how it would hold up in a big supreme court challenge (or maybe it has already ... I'm not an expert)
    - tptacek 8y ago
      You think maybe employment at will is just waiting to be tested in the Supreme Court?
      - richardknop 8y ago
        Maybe it should.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        "You think maybe employment at will is just waiting to be tested in the Supreme Court?" It's in court right now. And it always will be.
    - dionidium 8y ago
      On what grounds are you doubtful? The concept of protected classes is well-defined and well-tested and "office lovebirds" aren't one of those classes.
      - haikuginger 8y ago
        For fuck's sake, "being gay" isn't even one of those classes.
        CalChris 8y ago
        Federal protected class, no. But in CA, yeah, it is. https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/what-are-californias-protected-classes-in-employment.shtml https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/what-are-c...
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      About the same as "employee says controversial thing in personal life". In other words, employer has absolutely every right to fire them for their self-expression.
      - 8y ago
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Itaxpica 8y ago
  Yes but "rights" are legally defined, not just 'well I feel like I have a right to this'. Employees dating their subordinates is not a protected class, so "and probably not because they fall in love with each other either" is factually incorrect.
ashelmire 8y ago
It appears that this is not settled case law, with the most recent case in the 9th district court (basically all of the west coast) ruling that at least public officials have the right to have affairs with coworkers: https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Police-can-t-be-fired-for-having-affairs-with-12576868.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Police-can-t-be-fir... Other appeals courts have ruled otherwise, but the 9th district court has had a couple of precedents in the past, according to the article. Personally, I think it's an interesting issue. If the company fires the higher ranked employee, they are probably losing more value. It's also interesting that I think everyone would agree that it would be absurd to fire any employee if they were a married couple - yet absent the (mostly religious and tax related) binds of marriage, there's some moral judgment cast upon the participants. It seems so puritanical and absurd. What if the two employees got married before anyone found out about the affair? I bet they'd be protected both legally and in terms of moral or business implications. It appears many states actually prevent firing based on marital status: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111041550490175318 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111041550490175318 From that one, "One reason is that about 20 states and many cities ban employment discrimination on the basis of marital status. If a married employee who has an affair is fired and an unmarried employee who has an affair isn't, the fired employee in those states conceivably could claim illegal discrimination, attorneys say. Thus, many employers turn a blind eye to marital cheating."
- tptacek 8y ago
  We're not talking about marital status, nor do we care that Drummond was married at the time the affair began. We care about the fact that he had the affair with a subordinate.
  - ashelmire 8y ago
    You seem to not get it. Situation 1: Person A and B are married and have a sexual relationship. A is a VP, B is just a regular worker. Nobody has a problem with this, and policies generally don't have any problem with coworkers being married. Situation 2: Person A and B are not married and have a sexual relationship. A is a VP, B is just a regular worker. Some people have a problem with this, and policies often have a problem with coworkers being married. That's called discrimination based on marital status (or lack thereof).
baq 8y ago
termination for no reason is not the same as termination for any reason.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

brown9-2 8y ago

A lawsuit for what? You can’t just allege “someone will file a suit”, that is meaningless.

Jare 8y ago

> In the real world, it's not that easy. Things happen. No, things don't "happen". People make them happen, and should own up to the consequences of their actions. If the policy is "don't", then you can choose to 1) do not, no matter how much you would like to; 2) move / leave so you can do freely; or 3) do and (if/when found) you get smacked in the face with the policy.

lixtra 8y ago
A lot of policies, contract clauses, and even laws exist only to be applied in certain situations, not rigerously. I can accept that google wants to avoid trouble at the work place and love dramas can cause trouble. And sexual harassment is already forbidden by law. But it is not automatically harassment when two consenting adults of different levels start a love affair mostly happening outside work. This is as much google’s business as what sex I prefer, what party I vote for or to which god I may pray - none. The protection against possible harassment does not justify to limit the freedom of adult citizens. For children the limits do make sense, though. When there is no harassment claim and no other disturbance of peace at work the state should protect me against overreaching policies.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
Employer says: 1 "don't be gay" 2 "don't fall in love" 1 is illegal obviously, 2 is legal? Seriously?

mynameisvlad 8y ago

> Also, it's probably illegal, or it wouldn't hold up in court. Most states in the US are at-will employment. You can be fired for literally any reason whatsoever outside of a very very limited number of protections against discrimination. Hooking up with a subordinate is not one of those protections.

wpietri 8y ago

I didn't say it was easy. It is, however, simple. Please provide evidence for your claim that it's illegal to fire someone for banging the help. In an at-will state, people can generally be fired for any reason or no reason as long as some specific employee protection isn't violated. I have worked at companies, including a publicly traded company, that have rules like that, and the didn't see any problem with it. You're right that there could be a lawsuit. People can sue for anything. But it's much more likely that a company will see a lawsuit for failing to protect employees from predatory managers and execs. So if lawsuits are the problem, then this rule would be a huge help in reducing the total number, as well as the PR risk.

lawnchair_larry 8y ago
I think the fact that you refer to Bill and Melinda as a case of “banging the help” says a lot about your understanding of decent human relationships and is probably why you are failing to see the nuaunce that applies to many of these situations. If your understanding of relationships is that simple, then it’s not surprising that you think there is a simple solution. It also seems a little insulting to imply that women have no agency, but I’ll let them decide if they want to be offended.
- wpietri 8y ago
  I am not referring to Bill and Melinda Gates. I am referring to the broad problem. I am not denying human relationships are nuanced. I am proposing a very simple rule, one that many companies already have on the books, because a) the deep ambiguity is managerially untractable, and b) as we see in many examples including this article, more nuanced rules are easily interpreted to let powerful men off the hook. I am not implying women have no agency. There's nothing in this rule about men and women, or even about straight relationships. If you are inferring that women have no agency, maybe that's you.