8 ms·

All very true, but this needs to be handled in-house. I think that's the big issue here. Square should have the right to enforce its own policies, not be subjec

All very true, but this needs to be handled in-house. I think that's the big issue here. Square should have the right to enforce its own policies, not be subjected to legal harassment.

danilocampos 14y ago
There's so much implicit wrongness in your statement my mind doesn't know where to lock on to respond. Sorry. edit: I figured it out. You seem to desire a world where Square is exalted to some sort of sovereign status, answerable to no law beyond their own policies and procedures. Which is a horrifying state of affairs. If something happened here that is against the law, I am heartened that a legal framework exists to provide remedies. If it did not, I am similarly heartened to note that the accused at least has resources sufficient to mount a defense. We can argue the injustice of a false accusation, if indeed it turns out the accusation was so, but the accused admits maintaining a physical relationship was in poor judgment. This is one of the realities that comes from that level of success. It's a cost of doing business that you must be much, much more cautious in the deployment of your genitals.
- johndevor 14y ago
  I guess I just don't see who, other than the couple in question, was harmed here. Is the author being intentionally vague about what really happened? Was Square harmed? Was a third party harmed? You seem to desire a world where Square is exalted to some sort of sovereign status, answerable to no law beyond their own policies and procedures. Which is a horrifying state of affairs. Why would it be a horrifying state of affairs? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand!
  - jacalata 14y ago
    Imagine a company with the official policy that feeding your kids is not important. Can employees off that company now starve their children without fear of legal consequence? How about beating up fellow employees - oh too bad, you should have worked somewhere with a policy against assault?
  - danilocampos 14y ago
    > Why would it be a horrifying state of affairs? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand! Well. It would mean that corporations would exist outside of laws to govern their behavior. And we've already figured out that's a bad idea. Society, generally, wants it to be illegal to force people to fuck you to keep a job, in an extreme example. Generally, it wants it to be legal to blow the whistle on illegal activity. Generally, it wants it to be illegal to prioritize profits over the safety of workers. Being successful and making lots of money shouldn't relieve your company of accountability under the law. > Was Square harmed? Square's reputation would have been harmed by a protracted and public legal battle. > I guess I just don't see who, other than the couple in question, was harmed here. There's not a couple here. There's an accuser, who claims that Rabois sexually harassed him and that Square covered for it. Where it gets complicated for Rabois, I suspect, comes with this line: "exchanged intimate, personal information, as people in similar relationships often do." This suggests to me that the accuser has sufficient proof that Rabois can't deny a sexual relationship continuing after the hire. Given the asymmetry of power between these two sexual partners, consent starts to get very muddy to sort out. So he had to leave, given the very real legal issues this opened for the company.
  - csense 14y ago
    So managers should be allowed to require their employees to have sex with them as a condition of their continued employment? I'm not saying that's what happened here; rather, the laws against this sort of arrangement are what the alleged "victim" is invoking to bring a case against Mr. Rabois.
- largesse 14y ago
  You seem to desire a world where Square is exalted to some sort of sovereign status, answerable to no law beyond their own policies and procedures. Which is a horrifying state of affairs. Well, we seem to have done that with sports. Or, has Lance Armstrong been indicted yet?
kragen 14y ago
Yours is a remarkable position. The accuser asserts that he was coerced into sex by Keith, who (simplifying slightly) ran the company and set the policies. Do you think someone like Keith should have the authority to set policies that allow him to coerce his employees into sex? Like a US slave owner before the Civil War? I'm not asserting that Keith did what he's accused of. But many, many other people have, and if we have to choose, I'd rather see the state monopoly on violence used to protect the victims, not the perpetrators.

All very true, but this needs to be handled in-house. I think that's the big issue here. Square should have the right to enforce its own policies, not be subjected to legal harassment.

danilocampos 14y ago

There's so much implicit wrongness in your statement my mind doesn't know where to lock on to respond. Sorry. edit: I figured it out. You seem to desire a world where Square is exalted to some sort of sovereign status, answerable to no law beyond their own policies and procedures. Which is a horrifying state of affairs. If something happened here that is against the law, I am heartened that a legal framework exists to provide remedies. If it did not, I am similarly heartened to note that the accused at least has resources sufficient to mount a defense. We can argue the injustice of a false accusation, if indeed it turns out the accusation was so, but the accused admits maintaining a physical relationship was in poor judgment. This is one of the realities that comes from that level of success. It's a cost of doing business that you must be much, much more cautious in the deployment of your genitals.

johndevor 14y ago
I guess I just don't see who, other than the couple in question, was harmed here. Is the author being intentionally vague about what really happened? Was Square harmed? Was a third party harmed? You seem to desire a world where Square is exalted to some sort of sovereign status, answerable to no law beyond their own policies and procedures. Which is a horrifying state of affairs. Why would it be a horrifying state of affairs? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand!
- jacalata 14y ago
  Imagine a company with the official policy that feeding your kids is not important. Can employees off that company now starve their children without fear of legal consequence? How about beating up fellow employees - oh too bad, you should have worked somewhere with a policy against assault?
- danilocampos 14y ago
  > Why would it be a horrifying state of affairs? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't understand! Well. It would mean that corporations would exist outside of laws to govern their behavior. And we've already figured out that's a bad idea. Society, generally, wants it to be illegal to force people to fuck you to keep a job, in an extreme example. Generally, it wants it to be legal to blow the whistle on illegal activity. Generally, it wants it to be illegal to prioritize profits over the safety of workers. Being successful and making lots of money shouldn't relieve your company of accountability under the law. > Was Square harmed? Square's reputation would have been harmed by a protracted and public legal battle. > I guess I just don't see who, other than the couple in question, was harmed here. There's not a couple here. There's an accuser, who claims that Rabois sexually harassed him and that Square covered for it. Where it gets complicated for Rabois, I suspect, comes with this line: "exchanged intimate, personal information, as people in similar relationships often do." This suggests to me that the accuser has sufficient proof that Rabois can't deny a sexual relationship continuing after the hire. Given the asymmetry of power between these two sexual partners, consent starts to get very muddy to sort out. So he had to leave, given the very real legal issues this opened for the company.
- csense 14y ago
  So managers should be allowed to require their employees to have sex with them as a condition of their continued employment? I'm not saying that's what happened here; rather, the laws against this sort of arrangement are what the alleged "victim" is invoking to bring a case against Mr. Rabois.
largesse 14y ago
You seem to desire a world where Square is exalted to some sort of sovereign status, answerable to no law beyond their own policies and procedures. Which is a horrifying state of affairs. Well, we seem to have done that with sports. Or, has Lance Armstrong been indicted yet?

kragen 14y ago

Yours is a remarkable position. The accuser asserts that he was coerced into sex by Keith, who (simplifying slightly) ran the company and set the policies. Do you think someone like Keith should have the authority to set policies that allow him to coerce his employees into sex? Like a US slave owner before the Civil War? I'm not asserting that Keith did what he's accused of. But many, many other people have, and if we have to choose, I'd rather see the state monopoly on violence used to protect the victims, not the perpetrators.