4 ms·

Isn’t it pretty simple to just say that Page and Brin shouldn’t have ever dated anyone in the entire organization?

lixtra 8y ago
But why? The fact that they date someone in their organization becomes only problematic if they coerce their partner into something using their position. Or if the partner accuses them of such. Ruling out theses intra company relationships is like saying that you cannot date a physically weaker partner because you are in a better position to physically force him int things he doesn’t want.
- wpietri 8y ago
  It's a problem whether or not there's explicit coercion, because the subordinate will always have a reasonable suspicion of retaliation. But how do you plan to prove that no explicit coercion took place? Should they just video-record all of their interactions so that an impartial review board can regularly review goings on to make sure no harm is happening? Or is instead your plan to place a burden on the junior person to report? If that's the case, you should do a little research on what percentage of problems are reported, which of those reports are taken seriously, and which of the seriously-taken reports see appropriate action. In those numbers you'll find your answer as to why it won't work.
  - lixtra 8y ago
    > But how do you plan to prove that no explicit coercion took place? How do you do that on regular dates? Do you record them? What’s the difference? Proving is always difficult. You just have to take contextual evidence. > Or is instead your plan to place a burden on the junior person to report? Of course the burden of proof is on the accuser. The fact that two people are in a relationship is not a proof. But creepy comments about polyamorism is good evidence. And yes, the superior is in a weaker position if accused of coercion. So the higher level partner should take a higher risk if the case is brought to court.
    - wpietri 8y ago
      Regular dates don't happen in a context where a company has given significant power to one person over another person. A company a) has a responsibility to make sure that power is not abused, and b) has an obligation to avoid legal liability for misuse of that power. Your theory that "contextual evidence" will be enough to ensure fair outcomes is absurd. Either you haven't paid much attention to how this works in the real world or you are willfully ignoring the experiences of people who go through this. Both from press reports and from what I hear personally, the average outcome of someone reporting sexual misconduct in a work context is a) the accuser is put through the wringer, b) nothing happens to the accused, and c) the accuser eventually has to leave a poisonous environment.
      - lixtra 8y ago
        Do you know of some data that relationships within companies (and in particular where one person has power over the other) are significantly more abusive than the average? That's what it would take for me to reconsider my belief that relationships within companies are not to be regulated by policies. My experience is that there is a) no significant difference and b) that sexual predators won't be stopped by a policy (but it makes it easier to remove them). I actually have difficulties why we have to discuss relationships and sexual misconduct in the same thread.
        wpietri 8y ago
        Ok? I guess you're welcome to have any beliefs you like. But many companies have a rule like the one I describe, and they do it purely for business reasons. They don't need the hassle, and it's part of the normal course of business to make sure that managerial power isn't misused. If you think there should be some sort of law preventing companies from having this sort of rule, I guess that's your prerogative. But you'll have to make an argument why companies shouldn't have the freedom to make what they see as reasonable and necessary decisions about how to run their business.
- CalChris 8y ago
  CEO Bob is dating underling Alice who works alongside underling Ted. Should Alice and Ted have conflict, Alice can always play the Bob card. The rule of thumb in the military (I don't know if it's the law) is not to date someone in your chain of command.
  - lixtra 8y ago
    Bob and Alice can be connected in many different ways. They could be highschool friends, follow the same faith, be of the same ethnicity (different from Ted). Why single out a romantic relationship? Professional employees will handle it professionally. If you don’t have that trust - maybe don’t hire them. The military is so different in many ways that I don’t think it’s worth discussing here.

But why? The fact that they date someone in their organization becomes only problematic if they coerce their partner into something using their position. Or if the partner accuses them of such. Ruling out theses intra company relationships is like saying that you cannot date a physically weaker partner because you are in a better position to physically force him int things he doesn’t want.

wpietri 8y ago
It's a problem whether or not there's explicit coercion, because the subordinate will always have a reasonable suspicion of retaliation. But how do you plan to prove that no explicit coercion took place? Should they just video-record all of their interactions so that an impartial review board can regularly review goings on to make sure no harm is happening? Or is instead your plan to place a burden on the junior person to report? If that's the case, you should do a little research on what percentage of problems are reported, which of those reports are taken seriously, and which of the seriously-taken reports see appropriate action. In those numbers you'll find your answer as to why it won't work.
- lixtra 8y ago
  > But how do you plan to prove that no explicit coercion took place? How do you do that on regular dates? Do you record them? What’s the difference? Proving is always difficult. You just have to take contextual evidence. > Or is instead your plan to place a burden on the junior person to report? Of course the burden of proof is on the accuser. The fact that two people are in a relationship is not a proof. But creepy comments about polyamorism is good evidence. And yes, the superior is in a weaker position if accused of coercion. So the higher level partner should take a higher risk if the case is brought to court.
  - wpietri 8y ago
    Regular dates don't happen in a context where a company has given significant power to one person over another person. A company a) has a responsibility to make sure that power is not abused, and b) has an obligation to avoid legal liability for misuse of that power. Your theory that "contextual evidence" will be enough to ensure fair outcomes is absurd. Either you haven't paid much attention to how this works in the real world or you are willfully ignoring the experiences of people who go through this. Both from press reports and from what I hear personally, the average outcome of someone reporting sexual misconduct in a work context is a) the accuser is put through the wringer, b) nothing happens to the accused, and c) the accuser eventually has to leave a poisonous environment.
    - lixtra 8y ago
      Do you know of some data that relationships within companies (and in particular where one person has power over the other) are significantly more abusive than the average? That's what it would take for me to reconsider my belief that relationships within companies are not to be regulated by policies. My experience is that there is a) no significant difference and b) that sexual predators won't be stopped by a policy (but it makes it easier to remove them). I actually have difficulties why we have to discuss relationships and sexual misconduct in the same thread.
      - wpietri 8y ago
        Ok? I guess you're welcome to have any beliefs you like. But many companies have a rule like the one I describe, and they do it purely for business reasons. They don't need the hassle, and it's part of the normal course of business to make sure that managerial power isn't misused. If you think there should be some sort of law preventing companies from having this sort of rule, I guess that's your prerogative. But you'll have to make an argument why companies shouldn't have the freedom to make what they see as reasonable and necessary decisions about how to run their business.
CalChris 8y ago
CEO Bob is dating underling Alice who works alongside underling Ted. Should Alice and Ted have conflict, Alice can always play the Bob card. The rule of thumb in the military (I don't know if it's the law) is not to date someone in your chain of command.
- lixtra 8y ago
  Bob and Alice can be connected in many different ways. They could be highschool friends, follow the same faith, be of the same ethnicity (different from Ted). Why single out a romantic relationship? Professional employees will handle it professionally. If you don’t have that trust - maybe don’t hire them. The military is so different in many ways that I don’t think it’s worth discussing here.