Progressive Ideology

[MDlaxfan76]

So today, a boss and a subordinate get married. What is the appropriate societal response? Stoning? Neutering one, both? Death? This Brave New World.

The bare fact you make light of what for most is an awful, life-altering, no-way-out, imbalanced power-dynamic sexual relationship should (but likely will not) make you stop and reset. For the few who get 'married' out of the equation, countless more can never forget the terrible choices they were forced to take.

Oh the outrage.

I’ll remember to quote you when you come up with the next BS thing you’re complaining about.

One of the first things I was taught by my first boss - “Don’t $_it where you eat.” It was appropriate then and it’s appropriate now.

The no dating rule should apply across the board and not just between management and staff. Too many dynamics can occur within and after a relationship that can negatively affect an workplace and not just the two people directly involved.

It's a good rule, one that keeps a lot of trouble from potentially happening, if followed.

But many a high powered consultant has married another high powered consultant, a doctor and doctor or doctor and nurse, or executive and executive, executive and secretary, etc.

You can sure bet that if you put folks into a high stress, long hours environment, sexual attraction will occur, relationships will develop. The 'rule' helps avoid stepping over the line, creating all sorts of not necessarily intended consequences.

But the serious question is when someone utilizes their relative power to coerce another person sexually. That's the issue of #METOO, not some extreme anti-sex position, whether from the rabid left or the rabid right.

[MDlaxfan76]

So today, a boss and a subordinate get married. What is the appropriate societal response? Stoning? Neutering one, both? Death? This Brave New World.

The bare fact you make light of what for most is an awful, life-altering, no-way-out, imbalanced power-dynamic sexual relationship should (but likely will not) make you stop and reset. For the few who get 'married' out of the equation, countless more can never forget the terrible choices they were forced to take.

Oh the outrage.

I’ll remember to quote you when you come up with the next BS thing you’re complaining about.

One of the first things I was taught by my first boss - “Don’t $_it where you eat.” It was appropriate then and it’s appropriate now.

The no dating rule should apply across the board and not just between management and staff. Too many dynamics can occur within and after a relationship that can negatively affect an workplace and not just the two people directly involved.

Make the prohibition global, makes a lot more sense, fairer. However, the enforcement is akin to a law prohibiting bumble bees from crossing state lines. It is a nightmare for the employer - practically - it is a don't get caught rule, mostly ignored by individuals and likely to negatively impact the bottom line in my experience. Two of the best most productive employees I have ever had, were married to each other (common law). They worked in different parts of the company. Never a real problem with either. Shame if a company has a rule that would prohibit employing both.

These kinds of rules disrespect "innocent people" in an attempt to address a problem or set of problems that may lead to issues among a small subset of "immoral" individuals. These rules are just an attempt to keep management from having to address actual hard issues when situations arise.

As for Peanut Butters outrage, I'll save mine for an occasion when there is actual claimed abuse, not some made up by an outside observer, what could have been that didn't actually take place.

+1

[ABV 8.3%]

So today, a boss and a subordinate get married. What is the appropriate societal response? Stoning? Neutering one, both? Death? This Brave New World.

The bare fact you make light of what for most is an awful, life-altering, no-way-out, imbalanced power-dynamic sexual relationship should (but likely will not) make you stop and reset. For the few who get 'married' out of the equation, countless more can never forget the terrible choices they were forced to take.

Oh the outrage.

I’ll remember to quote you when you come up with the next BS thing you’re complaining about.

One of the first things I was taught by my first boss - “Don’t $_it where you eat.” It was appropriate then and it’s appropriate now.

The no dating rule should apply across the board and not just between management and staff. Too many dynamics can occur within and after a relationship that can negatively affect an workplace and not just the two people directly involved.

It's a good rule, one that keeps a lot of trouble from potentially happening, if followed.

But many a high powered consultant has married another high powered consultant, a doctor and doctor or doctor and nurse, or executive and executive, executive and secretary, etc.

You can sure bet that if you put folks into a high stress, long hours environment, sexual attraction will occur, relationships will develop. The 'rule' helps avoid stepping over the line, creating all sorts of not necessarily intended consequences.

But the serious question is when someone utilizes their relative power to coerce another person sexually. That's the issue of #METOO, not some extreme anti-sex position, whether from the rabid left or the rabid right.

HIGH powered? What kind of quality of life does one have if they work LONG hours ? Plus two hours in the car ?

Great line from Peaky Blinders last episode :

"....I have three gardeners, spanning generations. No ambition what so ever. But, they are happier than I ever will be "

High Powered ? Yup, nothing better than being house poor and spending time with the "kids" consists of being couped up in an airplane to Turks/Caco's and sharing a ferry or launch, maybe a few diners.....but not much else time with the "kids"........still glued to your phone, b/c, after all it IS a satellite phone. "what, YOU don't have one" ?

[MDlaxfan76]

huh?
I have no issue with someone sitting in their mom's basement, toking up a storm, fatty.

It's irrelevant to me.

I'm just saying that if folks are working long hours together, side by side, to accomplish a common objective, it's inevitable that relationships will occur.

Tougher to say that'll happen in mom's basement.

[Peter Brown]

So today, a boss and a subordinate get married. What is the appropriate societal response? Stoning? Neutering one, both? Death? This Brave New World.

The bare fact you make light of what for most is an awful, life-altering, no-way-out, imbalanced power-dynamic sexual relationship should (but likely will not) make you stop and reset. For the few who get 'married' out of the equation, countless more can never forget the terrible choices they were forced to take.

Oh the outrage.

I’ll remember to quote you when you come up with the next BS thing you’re complaining about.

One of the first things I was taught by my first boss - “Don’t $_it where you eat.” It was appropriate then and it’s appropriate now.

The no dating rule should apply across the board and not just between management and staff. Too many dynamics can occur within and after a relationship that can negatively affect an workplace and not just the two people directly involved.

Make the prohibition global, makes a lot more sense, fairer. However, the enforcement is akin to a law prohibiting bumble bees from crossing state lines. It is a nightmare for the employer - practically - it is a don't get caught rule, mostly ignored by individuals and likely to negatively impact the bottom line in my experience. Two of the best most productive employees I have ever had, were married to each other (common law). They worked in different parts of the company. Never a real problem with either. Shame if a company has a rule that would prohibit employing both.

These kinds of rules disrespect "innocent people" in an attempt to address a problem or set of problems that may lead to issues among a small subset of "immoral" individuals. These rules are just an attempt to keep management from having to address actual hard issues when situations arise.

As for Peanut Butters outrage, I'll save mine for an occasion when there is actual claimed abuse, not some made up by an outside observer, what could have been that didn't actually take place.

I’m not certain if you purposely don’t understand this issue or you’re simply not able. The issue is not about ‘peer to peer’, it’s about “superior to subordinate”. Given that MDLax approved of your post, I’m thinking he too does not understand the power dynamic concerns of MeToo.

[holmes435]

Given that MDLax approved of your post, I’m thinking he too does not understand the power dynamic concerns of MeToo.

Funnily enough, the power dynamic concerns of MeToo are exactly what was wrong with your statement about Trump "having a type." And along with it the despicable comment that we shouldn't believe the many, many alleged victims of Trump who may not be the "model" look Trump wants beside him when he's being photographed.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[a fan]

I’m not certain if you purposely don’t understand this issue or you’re simply not able. The issue is not about ‘peer to peer’, it’s about “superior to subordinate”.

Peer to peer sexual involvement doesn't fix the meetoo dynamic. You understand that, right?

[foreverlax]

I’m not certain if you purposely don’t understand this issue or you’re simply not able. The issue is not about ‘peer to peer’, it’s about “superior to subordinate”.

Peer to peer sexual involvement doesn't fix the meetoo dynamic. You understand that, right?

Evidently not...

[Peter Brown]

Given that MDLax approved of your post, I’m thinking he too does not understand the power dynamic concerns of MeToo.

Funnily enough, the power dynamic concerns of MeToo are exactly what was wrong with your statement about Trump "having a type." And along with it the despicable comment that we shouldn't believe the many, many alleged victims of Trump who may not be the "model" look Trump wants beside him when he's being photographed.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

There’s a wide chasm between ‘don’t believe’ (your interpretation of my comments) and ‘slow your roll believing’ (my interpretation of my comments).

MeToo gets it wrong when they say blindly accept all allegations. Crystal Mangum would have put away for life 3 innocent Duke kids if that was the standard.

For all I know every single one of Trump’s accusers is honest, or lying; my guess is half are onto something and half are looking for fame/money. Looking at facts (such as: Trump has a type, fact) is honesty. If that offends your sensitivities, go work for ABC.

[Peter Brown]

I’m not certain if you purposely don’t understand this issue or you’re simply not able. The issue is not about ‘peer to peer’, it’s about “superior to subordinate”.

Peer to peer sexual involvement doesn't fix the meetoo dynamic. You understand that, right?

Completely unclear what your point is.

[a fan]

You can't concoct hundreds of situations where a relationship is started between two peers in a company, and power dynamics plays out over that relationship? And after that relationship is over?

You want to avoid these issues, it's cold turkey.

[holmes435]

There’s a wide chasm between ‘don’t believe’ (your interpretation of my comments) and ‘slow your roll believing’ (my interpretation of my comments).

Here are your words:

One tell is when a rather homely woman comes to the surface on this issue, it’s fair to not believe her words. Trump has a look as we all know.

No slow rolling there.

[Peter Brown]

You can't concoct hundreds of situations where a relationship is started between two peers in a company, and power dynamics plays out over that relationship? And after that relationship is over?

You want to avoid these issues, it's cold turkey.

I still have no idea what you are trying to say. If you date 'peer to peer' and over time one becomes more powerful in the company? Look, I agree with MDlax that when people spend time together, 'things' are bound to happen no matter what rules we have in force; that's why really intelligent people make the mistake knowing full well it is wrong. The better rule is to try your best to never date anyone inside the same company you work for.

[Peter Brown]

There’s a wide chasm between ‘don’t believe’ (your interpretation of my comments) and ‘slow your roll believing’ (my interpretation of my comments).

Here are your words:

One tell is when a rather homely woman comes to the surface on this issue, it’s fair to not believe her words. Trump has a look as we all know.

No slow rolling there.

"It's fair to not believe her words" is not the same thing as saying "I don't believe her words".

[a fan]

I still have no idea what you are trying to say. If you date 'peer to peer' and over time one becomes more powerful in the company?

Sure. That's one way.

Picture all the nasty things that could happen with a breakup....and power imbalances that can occur for their careers as a result.

You've got one move, and one move only if you want to keep from Metoo: no relations allowed. Termination is the penalty.

Now the company is covered.

[Peter Brown]

I still have no idea what you are trying to say. If you date 'peer to peer' and over time one becomes more powerful in the company?

Sure. That's one way.

Picture all the nasty things that could happen with a breakup....and power imbalances that can occur for their careers as a result.

You've got one move, and one move only if you want to keep from Metoo: no relations allowed. Termination is the penalty.

Now the company is covered.

Now I understand what you were saying. Yeah, I mean, you're right.

[MDlaxfan76]

There’s a wide chasm between ‘don’t believe’ (your interpretation of my comments) and ‘slow your roll believing’ (my interpretation of my comments).

Here are your words:

One tell is when a rather homely woman comes to the surface on this issue, it’s fair to not believe her words. Trump has a look as we all know.

No slow rolling there.

"It's fair to not believe her words" is not the same thing as saying "I don't believe her words".

sure, PB, you believe the women, despite them being 'homely', but 'it's fair to not believe the women'...

so, now you believe the 16+ allegations of assault and rape committed by Trump?
Not just half the women?

[MDlaxfan76]

I still have no idea what you are trying to say. If you date 'peer to peer' and over time one becomes more powerful in the company?

Sure. That's one way.

Picture all the nasty things that could happen with a breakup....and power imbalances that can occur for their careers as a result.

You've got one move, and one move only if you want to keep from Metoo: no relations allowed. Termination is the penalty.

Now the company is covered.

Now I understand what you were saying. Yeah, I mean, you're right.

He's right that having the policy covers the company...not that it makes sense in the real world of human relationships.
So, people hide their relationships, instead of being honest and open.

Don't get caught.

Or get the relationship 100% cleared by HR, bosses etc.

[MDlaxfan76]

You can't concoct hundreds of situations where a relationship is started between two peers in a company, and power dynamics plays out over that relationship? And after that relationship is over?

You want to avoid these issues, it's cold turkey.

I still have no idea what you are trying to say. If you date 'peer to peer' and over time one becomes more powerful in the company? Look, I agree with MDlax that when people spend time together, 'things' are bound to happen no matter what rules we have in force; that's why really intelligent people make the mistake knowing full well it is wrong. The better rule is to try your best to never date anyone inside the same company you work for.

That's indeed a good personal rule. Certainly what I would normally advise my son or daughter.

But here's a scenario. Company recruits my son, he accepts offer, and they ask him if he knows anyone else who would be interested in coming to New Zealand (and now Shanghai). He says, how about my girlfriend? They interview and hire her, they move to NZ, working in different areas, but side by side much of the time. Company then asks the two of them to move to Shanghai, help open a new office, grow the business. He's a kid who didn't want to go with his lax buddies to NYC as it was 'too big', claustrophobic...she persuades him to go look, he loves it and they both move. He's now running the fastest growing part of a now $300mm valuation business, a year and a half later, age 26. She's managing a different functional part of the business, same region. Both working their tails off, but also getting to see a part of the world they'd never imagined being part of their life journey.

Oh yeah, the company was founded by a boyfriend (CEO), now 25, and girlfriend (COO) while still in HS in NZ...they remained boyfriend and girlfriend up until recently; that's gonna be interesting ...CEO was a college class grad year with my son at HU (though CEO finished in 3 years with BS and MA degrees, while running the co, Stanford B-school, raised $30mm on $200mm val, Tiger Global, etc). My son was busy playing lax...the slacker!

Point is, this stuff is much more complicated than a simple 'rule' covers. I have difficulty calling relationships that are actually meaningful, loving relationships as something "wrong". Fraught with potential problems, yes, but "wrong" I'd reserve for actual abuse of power situations, harassment, assault, etc.

[DMac]

MDlaxfan76 wrote
Point is, this stuff is much more complicated than a simple 'rule' covers. I have difficulty calling relationships that are actually meaningful, loving relationships as something "wrong". Fraught with potential problems, yes, but "wrong" I'd reserve for actual abuse of power situations, harassment, assault, etc.

To steal a fattyism, exactly.
The rules are a good idea. Blanket policies are generally a bad idea, then enter human nature/instincts and the whole mating game thing and the rules are going to be broken. So a guy could be fired for meeting his wife/life partner at work.
See the little tour of the submarine David Muir brought us? Was pretty good, that thing goes under the water for months. Pretty tight quarters, those men and women are pretty much right on top of each other. Good thing for the rules.