Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A note from Keith

keithrabois.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: A note from Keith

#121

Post by danso »

255martyn wrote: post #103
jacalata wrote: post #8

It's interesting that he says Square had no knowledge of the relationship until the lawsuit. I've heard of companies requiring that you tell HR if you are in a relationship with another employee- seems that level of disclosure would be very smart for someone at the top of the company, at least.

I don't fully understand why this makes me so angry, but it does. The company you work for has no right to know anything about your personal life. To be expected to disclose things to HR is ridiculous.

Are you serious? Did you read the OP? Did you read the part where he describes encouraging his lover to apply for a job -- and oh, what a coincidence, his lover happens to beat out numerous applicants for a job at a highly respected startup -- and how his lover has just filed a lawsuit accusing the OP of sexual harassment and even attempted, according to the OP, to extort millions from the OP?

And if you read that, you're still asking why HR has any right to know if their executives are in a possible enanglement with a subordinate?

OK, maybe you have a reflexive hate of HR. don't fixate on them. Instead, pretend you were in the shoes of Square's founders or major investors, and you're reading a lawsuit that accuses your COO of sexual harassment, the kind of sexual harassment allegation that can only come from a COO who broke standard operating procedure (I.e. not informing HR of this)

Would you think the investors and partners are more angrier or less angrier than you right now?

Re: A note from Keith

#122

Post by chollida1 »

danilocampos wrote: post #93
tlogan wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this impossible position is given: he fucked up. He was C-level executive, his partner got hired, but he did not tell a word to HR (or company) about their relationship. Now, you have impossible position. If the company and HR knew about their relationship then his position might not be so impossible.

Relationships are nebulous, unpredictable things. Sometimes it feels like even talking about a relationship to other people can effect the state of that relationship. It's easy in hindsight to say, hey, you shouldn't have done it this way. But maybe at certain points it looked like it was about to dissolve itself, but didn't... who knows. I can see a few reasons why I wouldn't want to say anything, especially if this…

> I can see a few reasons why I wouldn't want to say anything, especially if this person wasn't a direct report.

Really?

The guy was the COO, almost by definition everyone else in the company reports to him through some direct line.

The guy admitted to having a physical relationship. There is absolutely no gray area here as far as HR would be concerned.

Your a C level exec, you have a physical relationship with someone else at the company, whether or not it stopped before that person arrived, you report it the first moment you know that person starts working at your company.

I agree relationships are messy and life has lots of gray areas. This, however, is not one of them. This is HR 101 and if your still not convinced he admitted he knew this and should have reported it.

Re: A note from Keith

#123

Post by cwb71 »

tlogan wrote: post #89
danilocampos wrote: post #16

What an impossible position. On the one hand – work has become such a big part of our lives. If we make it impossible for romance and work to co-exist, that reduces a lot of surface area for finding long-term romantic partners. On the other – at a certain level of authority and prominence, you just shouldn't have sex with someone you're working with. There's too much that can go wrong. This is the nightmare scenario…

I'm not sure if this impossible position is given: he fucked up. He was C-level executive, his partner got hired, but he did not tell a word to HR (or company) about their relationship. Now, you have impossible position. If the company and HR knew about their relationship then his position might not be so impossible.

Everyone seems to agree that not disclosing this to HR was a huge mistake, but I am not sure I understand how that would have helped.

You still have a sexual relationship between two people in the same organization with a big power differential between them.

Shouldn't the proper HR response just be "you need to absolutely not do that?" What can HR do beyond "keeping an eye on things?"

Re: A note from Keith

#124

Post by jhull »

felideon wrote: post #28
jjb123 wrote: post #21

Am I the only one that was confused about that last line of "already working on something new and hope to announce that in February"... He's gone through something as traumatic as a lawsuit, a resignation, potential for trial, potential embarrassment of family, friends, colleagues all in the last two weeks... And his sign-off is that he has, in the midst of it all, already begun to work on a new startup?

Maybe that's his therapy for coping. Would you rather him tear his clothes and put sackcloth on his waist?

or he's just capitalizing on a post that he know will get lots of attention to plug his next gig

Re: A note from Keith

#125

Post by danilocampos »

chollida1 wrote: post #122
danilocampos wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relationships are nebulous, unpredictable things. Sometimes it feels like even talking about a relationship to other people can effect the state of that relationship. It's easy in hindsight to say, hey, you shouldn't have done it this way. But maybe at certain points it looked like it was about to dissolve itself, but didn't... who knows. I can see a few reasons why I wouldn't want to say anything, especially if this…

> I can see a few reasons why I wouldn't want to say anything, especially if this person wasn't a direct report. Really? The guy was the COO, almost by definition everyone else in the company reports to him through some direct line. The guy admitted to having a physical relationship. There is absolutely no gray area here as far as HR would be concerned. Your a C level exec, you have a physical relationship with someo…

You are absolutely, 100% right.

Wouldn't want to say anything isn't the same as wouldn't say anything. We do things all the time where we know it's the wrong call, but we want to do it a certain way anyway.

I doubt there's anyone who believes he should have said something more than he. I just get the mindset that clouded things.

I know I should have gone to the gym this week. I didn't. You can probably understand the thinking, moods and circumstances that made that true, but we'd still agree I made the wrong call. That's all I'm saying.

Re: A note from Keith

#126

Post by MartinCron »

mturmon wrote: post #117
danso wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. "You want to break up with me? oK, you're fired" 2. "Maybe Bob is the better qualified candidate, but I'm going to promote the guy who's having sex with me"

3. "You're the boyfriend of the COO? Congratulations, you're hired into my group as advisor for internal strategy. Can we three have lunch together some time?"

I am embarrassed to say that this scenario is one I hadn't thought of. Fascinating.

Re: A note from Keith

#127

Post by mwetzler »

Can anyone explain why Keith leaving the company absolves Square of a potential lawsuit? If the company actually did something illegal, isn't the damage already done and still punishable? Seems there are quite a few missing pieces to this story. In any case it's a shame for all involved.

Re: A note from Keith

#128

Post by neltnerb »

danilocampos wrote: post #16

What an impossible position. On the one hand – work has become such a big part of our lives. If we make it impossible for romance and work to co-exist, that reduces a lot of surface area for finding long-term romantic partners. On the other – at a certain level of authority and prominence, you just shouldn't have sex with someone you're working with. There's too much that can go wrong. This is the nightmare scenario…

There is a straightforward way to address this situation. It is unfortunate that he either was not aware of it or did not avail himself of it.

Basically any sexual harassment training will tell you that yes, it is in fact okay to have a work place relationship so long as you disclose the relationship, and do not have a "evaluatory position" (meaning that either person is allowed to evaluate the performance of the other).

This was like stuff I was told on day one of working a real job. This sounds like an awful situation, so I hope anyone else in a similar situation realizes that disclosure is the only thing that disarms these sorts of situations.

HR is required to keep such things confidential, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with a work place relationship. And if you do this, what can really go wrong? If your relationship explodes into some dramatic fireball, sure, it sucks, but that's the reason you're in a non-evaluatory role. You may have to work in the same building, but at least you don't have your career path impacted by your ex.

Re: A note from Keith

#129

Post by neltnerb »

cwb71 wrote: post #123
tlogan wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this impossible position is given: he fucked up. He was C-level executive, his partner got hired, but he did not tell a word to HR (or company) about their relationship. Now, you have impossible position. If the company and HR knew about their relationship then his position might not be so impossible.

Everyone seems to agree that not disclosing this to HR was a huge mistake, but I am not sure I understand how that would have helped. You still have a sexual relationship between two people in the same organization with a big power differential between them. Shouldn't the proper HR response just be "you need to absolutely not do that?" What can HR do beyond "keeping an eye on things?"

The proper HR response is to remove the higher ranking officer from an "evaluatory role" and put someone else in charge of determining future promotions, demotions, bonuses, team role, etc.

Let's imagine a horribly messy situation. A professor and a graduate student that works in her lab want to become intimate. That's perfectly fine, so long as the professor gives up the ability to determine if they can graduate, dictate what classes they take, dictate pay, etc. Even cleaner because there is a record that the professor is to not be asked to evaluate performance in the future, so there's less likelihood that the other professor could be influenced.

You at some point do have to assume that people are trying to do things correctly, of course. But the more people there are who are aware of the situation the less likely it is that a conspiracy to cover up abuse of power will occur.

Re: A note from Keith

#130

Post by joshAg »

cwb71 wrote: post #123
tlogan wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this impossible position is given: he fucked up. He was C-level executive, his partner got hired, but he did not tell a word to HR (or company) about their relationship. Now, you have impossible position. If the company and HR knew about their relationship then his position might not be so impossible.

Everyone seems to agree that not disclosing this to HR was a huge mistake, but I am not sure I understand how that would have helped. You still have a sexual relationship between two people in the same organization with a big power differential between them. Shouldn't the proper HR response just be "you need to absolutely not do that?" What can HR do beyond "keeping an eye on things?"

for starters, they could extensively document how the person with more power had absolutely no impact on the other's relationship with the company.
Post reply on HN