Have HR departments evolved into HR&V departments? (hint: voyeurism)
Supposedly, a person’s activity outside their job is their private business, er, matter. Required disclosures should be restricted to relationships involving employees who might influence the work or actions of one or both parties to the detriment of the company. Otherwise, the HR department has no right to knowledge of private matters involving their employees – – – that do not impact the company. Indeed, there are required disclosures for employees to protect the company; e.g. non-compete clauses, conflict of interest disclosures, etc. Expansion of disclosures should meet the tests of legality, purpose, and need to know.
To whom does a member of HR report their personal relationships with company employees?
Still, at the end of the day, it’s still good advice to never sh*t where you eat. I briefly dated a coworker long ago but broke it off before she could discover how sexually repulsive I am. Then I met a woman with very low standards and eventually convinced her to let me disappoint her on a permanent basis.
The term I was inoculated with by a very wise Sr VP was, “Don’t dip your pen in the company ink.”
Jokes aside, I’ve seen maybe 2-3 couplings in 25 years of insurance work prosper and survive in an adult manner but all others created more distraction and lack of production by involved employees than is fair to their equally valued co-workers.
At the end of the day, no matter how much you deny it, one’s personal life is the greatest indicator of their character and the type of person that they are. There can be no artificial bifurcation between one’s personal and public lives. If your CEO is willing to pursue an extramarital affair with a subordinate and lie about it to everyone around them, it is pretty safe to assume there are other things going on. This CEO lied to his wife, lied to his company and lied to himself. CEO’s should be subjected to a higher moral standard than anyone in the company. Leadership is a privilege and the CEO/President sets the moral and ethical tone for the entire company. The author of this article is—very ironically—looking down on those holding to “Victorian morality” but then foisting her own moral views on everyone else. By the way, saying “adultery at work is OK” is a moral view and is not in anyway more objective than saying “adultery is not OK.” The purveyor’s of moral laxity need to come to grips with the fact that they are trying to shove their lack of ethics down others’ throats (oh, the irony).
The author’s main point that “‘Victorian’ HR Policies That Try to Ban Sex Won’t Work” is correct. However, just because a law or rule doesn’t “work,” it doesn’t mean that that rule or law should be abolished. For example, the laws forbidding murder, company embezzlement or theft are not really “working,” but it would be fairly myopic to advocate that those laws shouldn’t exist. Ultimately laws and rules do serve to dissuade the vast majority of employees.
You are making the assumption that the CEO is married, or that he/she has entered into an immoral / illegal relationship.
Try : unmarried male worker / unmarried female worker neither in a position of authority over the other.
That shouldn’t be a problem, but some companies think so.
In all fairness, the author’s main point of the article is correct: “HR Policies That Try to Ban Sex Won’t Work.” However, just because certain ethical or moral restrictions don’t “work,” it doesn’t mean that they should be done away with. For example, we have a law against committing murder. I would also argue, that isn’t “working,” but it is not something we should abolish. Since employees embezzle money, should we go away and say that rules against embezzlement “don’t work,” and do away with them?…
Father told me “don’t get your meat where you get your bread”. But, when individuals are overcome with the warm electric tingle of desire, it is hard to follow one’s aphorisms and not follow one’s instincts. Thankfully, I’ve never been smitten at work but I know others who were smitten. It wasn’t their fault. Their feelings were too strong to ignore. Humans pairing up is our animal heritage. You’ll never banish the phenomenon.
The author’s main point that “‘Victorian’ HR Policies That Try to Ban Sex Won’t Work” is correct. However, just because a law or rule doesn’t “work,” it doesn’t mean that that rule or law should be abolished. For example, the laws forbidding murder, company embezzlement or theft are not really “working,” but it would be fairly myopic to advocate that those laws shouldn’t exist. Ultimately laws and rules do serve to dissuade the vast majority of employees.
But isn’t the main difference between humans and other animals that we have a more highly developed brain that allows us to better distinguish between right and wrong? I’ve had hundreds of women working for me I found attractive, but believed a relationship with a subordinate was simply wrong, so I ignored the attraction and kept my relationship with them professional. (Let’s not consider the fact that most of them probably did not find me attractive…) It’s not really that hard to do the right thing.
I agree that it’s not really that hard to do the right thing but sometimes its easier to do the wrong thing. I’ve always found a lack of opportunity to do the wrong thing is the easiest way to do the right thing:-)
Vox, so no one is at fault and can’t be expected to practice restraint in the workplace (or when they’re attracted physically to someone else’s wife or husband) because we all have a sex drive? Shallow thinking. If we all cast aside our inhibitions and fulfill every urge (whatever they might be) this world would be a lawless place. Oh, wait. That has already happened and the left’s solution is to ban guns, support abortion, force third graders to undergo sex education in school, etc. No morals whatsoever in anyone’s life because no body can be expected to think of others before they satisfy their urges.
IJ/Andrew, did you change your rules regarding comments? I am trying to post an addendum to my initial comment, but it won’t post. Could you please clarify if comment rules have changed? Thanks!
Regardless of your stance if the company policy should have been in effect in the first place, is there ANYONE who thinks it’s not only acceptable to willingly violate an agreement you entered into with your employer, but also that those who don’t adhere to the company policy should not be punished for violating such an agreement?
Putting this out there…. looking for a Part Time CSR. Got an interested party -very cute gal Talking Model cute. Something seems unusual – why would some seemingly average Jane from small town IL have 1200 followers and no friends from all over the place on Face Book?
Have HR departments evolved into HR&V departments? (hint: voyeurism)
Supposedly, a person’s activity outside their job is their private business, er, matter. Required disclosures should be restricted to relationships involving employees who might influence the work or actions of one or both parties to the detriment of the company. Otherwise, the HR department has no right to knowledge of private matters involving their employees – – – that do not impact the company. Indeed, there are required disclosures for employees to protect the company; e.g. non-compete clauses, conflict of interest disclosures, etc. Expansion of disclosures should meet the tests of legality, purpose, and need to know.
To whom does a member of HR report their personal relationships with company employees?
Very good point, Yogi.
Still, at the end of the day, it’s still good advice to never sh*t where you eat. I briefly dated a coworker long ago but broke it off before she could discover how sexually repulsive I am. Then I met a woman with very low standards and eventually convinced her to let me disappoint her on a permanent basis.
The term I was inoculated with by a very wise Sr VP was, “Don’t dip your pen in the company ink.”
Jokes aside, I’ve seen maybe 2-3 couplings in 25 years of insurance work prosper and survive in an adult manner but all others created more distraction and lack of production by involved employees than is fair to their equally valued co-workers.
At the end of the day, no matter how much you deny it, one’s personal life is the greatest indicator of their character and the type of person that they are. There can be no artificial bifurcation between one’s personal and public lives. If your CEO is willing to pursue an extramarital affair with a subordinate and lie about it to everyone around them, it is pretty safe to assume there are other things going on. This CEO lied to his wife, lied to his company and lied to himself. CEO’s should be subjected to a higher moral standard than anyone in the company. Leadership is a privilege and the CEO/President sets the moral and ethical tone for the entire company. The author of this article is—very ironically—looking down on those holding to “Victorian morality” but then foisting her own moral views on everyone else. By the way, saying “adultery at work is OK” is a moral view and is not in anyway more objective than saying “adultery is not OK.” The purveyor’s of moral laxity need to come to grips with the fact that they are trying to shove their lack of ethics down others’ throats (oh, the irony).
The author’s main point that “‘Victorian’ HR Policies That Try to Ban Sex Won’t Work” is correct. However, just because a law or rule doesn’t “work,” it doesn’t mean that that rule or law should be abolished. For example, the laws forbidding murder, company embezzlement or theft are not really “working,” but it would be fairly myopic to advocate that those laws shouldn’t exist. Ultimately laws and rules do serve to dissuade the vast majority of employees.
VERY well-put, Augustine. CHARACTER MATTERS, ESPECIALLY IN LEADERSHIP.
Unless you want to be the POTUS….
You are making the assumption that the CEO is married, or that he/she has entered into an immoral / illegal relationship.
Try : unmarried male worker / unmarried female worker neither in a position of authority over the other.
That shouldn’t be a problem, but some companies think so.
In all fairness, the author’s main point of the article is correct: “HR Policies That Try to Ban Sex Won’t Work.” However, just because certain ethical or moral restrictions don’t “work,” it doesn’t mean that they should be done away with. For example, we have a law against committing murder. I would also argue, that isn’t “working,” but it is not something we should abolish. Since employees embezzle money, should we go away and say that rules against embezzlement “don’t work,” and do away with them?…
Father told me “don’t get your meat where you get your bread”. But, when individuals are overcome with the warm electric tingle of desire, it is hard to follow one’s aphorisms and not follow one’s instincts. Thankfully, I’ve never been smitten at work but I know others who were smitten. It wasn’t their fault. Their feelings were too strong to ignore. Humans pairing up is our animal heritage. You’ll never banish the phenomenon.
The author’s main point that “‘Victorian’ HR Policies That Try to Ban Sex Won’t Work” is correct. However, just because a law or rule doesn’t “work,” it doesn’t mean that that rule or law should be abolished. For example, the laws forbidding murder, company embezzlement or theft are not really “working,” but it would be fairly myopic to advocate that those laws shouldn’t exist. Ultimately laws and rules do serve to dissuade the vast majority of employees.
So sorry for the duplicate comments! My comments were not posting and I figured it was a glitch on my end!
But isn’t the main difference between humans and other animals that we have a more highly developed brain that allows us to better distinguish between right and wrong? I’ve had hundreds of women working for me I found attractive, but believed a relationship with a subordinate was simply wrong, so I ignored the attraction and kept my relationship with them professional. (Let’s not consider the fact that most of them probably did not find me attractive…) It’s not really that hard to do the right thing.
I agree that it’s not really that hard to do the right thing but sometimes its easier to do the wrong thing. I’ve always found a lack of opportunity to do the wrong thing is the easiest way to do the right thing:-)
Vox, so no one is at fault and can’t be expected to practice restraint in the workplace (or when they’re attracted physically to someone else’s wife or husband) because we all have a sex drive? Shallow thinking. If we all cast aside our inhibitions and fulfill every urge (whatever they might be) this world would be a lawless place. Oh, wait. That has already happened and the left’s solution is to ban guns, support abortion, force third graders to undergo sex education in school, etc. No morals whatsoever in anyone’s life because no body can be expected to think of others before they satisfy their urges.
IJ/Andrew, did you change your rules regarding comments? I am trying to post an addendum to my initial comment, but it won’t post. Could you please clarify if comment rules have changed? Thanks!
Rules have not changed. There is sometimes a delay in posting. I believe yours is public now.
Thank you for the clarification. My apologies for the duplicate comments.
Regardless of your stance if the company policy should have been in effect in the first place, is there ANYONE who thinks it’s not only acceptable to willingly violate an agreement you entered into with your employer, but also that those who don’t adhere to the company policy should not be punished for violating such an agreement?
my company recently decided to ban sax at work. Kenny G is no longer welcome in our building.
Is this prohibition targeted only at sax, or does it apply to woodwind instruments in general? You know how oboists can get …
Putting this out there…. looking for a Part Time CSR. Got an interested party -very cute gal Talking Model cute. Something seems unusual – why would some seemingly average Jane from small town IL have 1200 followers and no friends from all over the place on Face Book?
pass, FFA. Best stay on the safe side. You won’t regret it in the end.
Yes…. RUN AWAY! But ….I’ve never met a movie star face to face….
But my wife would kill me…
She is persistent. Maybe looking for a career change??? With her persistence and my curiosity, I did schedule an interview with her.
“…and perhaps clarify some matters for a few confused MEN” Shame on you for that.