4 ms·

No, we're talking about how dredging up an exception to the rule where things worked out for two people is not a a very good argument that it's actually fine mo

No, we're talking about how dredging up an exception to the rule where things worked out for two people is not a a very good argument that it's actually fine most of the time and bosses won't victimize subordinates under the right circumstances. Bill and Melinda Gates's relationship isn't so important to the world that we must allow bosses to date, pressure into a relationship or manipulate subordinates just in case.

SilasX 8y ago
That wasn't tptacek's response, which was effectively "we don't have to worry about implications that make the policy look bad if we're not talking about them". Your claim -- that it's an extreme exception and doesn't outweigh the harm of a blanket prohibition -- would be a relevant response (although suboptimal because you're only replying to that one case and not the general phenomenon).
lawnchair_larry 8y ago
There’s just one problem. Who the hell are you (or anyone else) to tell Bill or Melinda who they should date? You don’t get to sacrifice 2 people’s liberty who mind their own business and did nothing wrong because someone else in another place and time that they have nothing to do with can’t behave themselves.
- reissbaker 8y ago
  > Who the hell are you (or anyone else) to tell Bill or Melinda who they should date? If you're Google, and Bill and Melinda in this universe were Google employees, you'd be their employer. And employers can (and almost always do) ask the managers that work for them to not date their subordinates, for clear reasons: 1. It's easy, given power, for managers to abuse it. Even unknowingly. With these kinds of relationships it's very hard to tell if they are/were abusing it, so it's better for the company if they didn't happen in the first place. 2. Companies don't want articles like this written about them in the New York Times. They're paying you to do your job to promote the company's best interests, part of which is not dating subordinates. If you don't want to do your job you don't have to, and similarly they don't have to pay you. > You don’t get to sacrifice 2 people’s liberty who mind their own business and did nothing wrong... You're not sacrificing anyone's liberty to date. Managers at these companies aren't being coerced into working there, and have the liberty to work elsewhere — that's the law in California. Having a rule banning a behavior at a company isn't like having a law banning a behavior in a country, where you usually can't just up and join a different country on a whim if you don't want to be bound by your country's laws. You can up and join another company on a whim because you don't want to be bound by your company's policies.

SilasX 8y ago

That wasn't tptacek's response, which was effectively "we don't have to worry about implications that make the policy look bad if we're not talking about them". Your claim -- that it's an extreme exception and doesn't outweigh the harm of a blanket prohibition -- would be a relevant response (although suboptimal because you're only replying to that one case and not the general phenomenon).

lawnchair_larry 8y ago

There’s just one problem. Who the hell are you (or anyone else) to tell Bill or Melinda who they should date? You don’t get to sacrifice 2 people’s liberty who mind their own business and did nothing wrong because someone else in another place and time that they have nothing to do with can’t behave themselves.

reissbaker 8y ago
> Who the hell are you (or anyone else) to tell Bill or Melinda who they should date? If you're Google, and Bill and Melinda in this universe were Google employees, you'd be their employer. And employers can (and almost always do) ask the managers that work for them to not date their subordinates, for clear reasons: 1. It's easy, given power, for managers to abuse it. Even unknowingly. With these kinds of relationships it's very hard to tell if they are/were abusing it, so it's better for the company if they didn't happen in the first place. 2. Companies don't want articles like this written about them in the New York Times. They're paying you to do your job to promote the company's best interests, part of which is not dating subordinates. If you don't want to do your job you don't have to, and similarly they don't have to pay you. > You don’t get to sacrifice 2 people’s liberty who mind their own business and did nothing wrong... You're not sacrificing anyone's liberty to date. Managers at these companies aren't being coerced into working there, and have the liberty to work elsewhere — that's the law in California. Having a rule banning a behavior at a company isn't like having a law banning a behavior in a country, where you usually can't just up and join a different country on a whim if you don't want to be bound by your country's laws. You can up and join another company on a whim because you don't want to be bound by your company's policies.