131–140 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That struck me as odd too. When I saw someone I had a single date with was interviewing at the company I worked for, as she left the building I went to HR and told them so that there would be no surprise later. And that was just a single date, not an ongoing relationship.
I'm from the UK and that strikes me as bizarre although I understand there is greater concern about these areas in the US. Unless you have hiring responsibility or they are on your direct reporting line I would see no need to report anything (even an ongoing relationship). That may change in the future if things are reorganized and a more direct business relationship is established. Even then with a single date I wou…
The more disclosure, the less likely that it would escalate. At the very least, there would be records that either party could use if something improper happened. For instance, there would now be written records if later on the person with more power did attempt to influence promotions that they should have explicitly not been allowed to be involved in that process.
I don't know why the UK would be different from the US from a legal standpoint, except perhaps just generally that the US is a more litigious society lately.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, y…
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.
Was he openly gay/bi? I could see him not wanting to disclose a same sex relationship and outing himself.
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…
Wrong order. He had a romantic relationship, THEN recommended him to Square for a job (without disclosing the relationship). Not an impossible position at all-- more of an abuse of trust.
Keith wrote, “I recommended that he interview at Square.”
The first is a recommendation given to Square. The second is a recommendation given to the thus-far-anonymous party. Big difference.
Perhaps it will come out that Keith did put in a good word at Square, but thus far Keith is denying this.
His judgement was bad? Enough to fire him over?
Or this another case of a corporation putting overly politically correct perception and avoidance of risk beyond taking care of their own?
If you believe Mr. Rabois' story, he did nothing wrong, and the allegations are baseless.
So, why is Square peeved enough to let him go? I don't believe for an instance that Mr. Rabois is leaving out of altruistic ideals for Square.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand. Maybe we have different professional cultures. Why is having an undisclosed relationship with another employee the worst possible business decision? (Certainly in my culture I can think of much worse decisions one person could make).
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"