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

141–150 of 165 posts

Re: A note from Keith

#141

Post by spuz »

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?"

Again, this is a situation where there is a conflict of interest that could happen whether there is a romantic relationship between the two employees. Would HR really have the ability to stop such a promotion knowing that at the same time they must keep and relationship confidential?

In the UK, I've never been asked by a company to disclose any office relationships. Usually such relationships are had in the open even between different level employees.

Re: A note from Keith

#142

Post by spuz »

danso wrote: post #121
255martyn wrote: post #103

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…

Someone who is sexually harassing another employee is not exactly in what I would call an ordinary romantic relationship. Who in their right mind is going to go to HR and say hey you know me and that employee over there well he's giving me sexual favours in return for his position at this company.

A person no matter what level he is at who has a genuine consensual relationship with another employee should not cause the company any issues which HR would need to resolve so I still don't understand the need to declare all such relationships to them.

For what it's worth, in the UK it's perfectly OK to have a secret office romance and such things are not required to be declared. It could be that our cultural differences are the main reason for this difference in opinion.

Re: A note from Keith

#143

Post by spuz »

brown9-2 wrote: post #109
spuz wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It strikes me as odd that a company should be automatically given privilege to the personal relationships of its employees. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situation here but I cannot see any reason for why an employee's relationship with another employee should be of any concern to the company.

A company would want to know of a relationship outside of work in case there are conflicts at work between the two employees in the future. And because a reporting relationship between sexual partners is a bad idea. "I think we need to let X go" could take on a whole new context if the speaker was just dumped by X.

OK, but I still don't see what HR could do in those cases with prior knowledge that they could not do with knowledge at the time an issue is raised.

For example, if I have just been fired by the manager who I just dumped, I go to HR and have them resolve the situation then and explain the conflict of interest given that we were in a relationship. The manager is given a talking to, I keep my job and the situation is resolved. Please explain how this situation plays out differently under your rules.

Re: A note from Keith

#144

Post by Volpe »

MartinCron wrote: post #67
swalberg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's from criminal law, this seems to be a civil act. Also, while we're there, the burden of proof is different -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities. (IANAL, I just remember this from an engineering law class)

That's from criminal law It's not just criminal law, it's a fundamentally decent way to treat people.

No it isn't, I can think of heaps of counter examples where the assumption of guilt is a good way to act...

Re: A note from Keith

#145

Post by SeoxyS »

I have been refusing to recommend my otherwise perfect-fit girlfriend for a position at my company for precisely this reason. You never know what might happen; and while I love her, I know it's best to keep professional and personal lives apart. You don't shit where you eat. It might sound cliché, but there's truth to it.

Re: A note from Keith

#146

Post by tomjen3 »

neltnerb wrote: post #128
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 oth…

In this case he didn't have an evaluatory position, so why is its HRs business?

Re: A note from Keith

#147

Post by tomjen3 »

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?"

A great argument for not telling anybody.

Re: A note from Keith

#148

Post by bksenior »

danso wrote: post #120
bksenior wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is wildly dogmatic and not really based in reason. The risks of a relationship are evident, but what about the upside? Imagine the chance to vet someone over time for cultural and professional fit for a role that they might excel in. When a company gets large enough where there is zero interaction day to day are there no possibilities that this might work? Setting aside a lack of disclosure, is the leverage so g…

Wait...let me get this straight. You're asking "..is the leverage so great that someone is a liability" for having a relationship? And you're asking this in a thread in which the OP describes how his ex-lover's attempt at extortion (if we believe the OP) has forced him out of the company? I guess the answer to your question is...yes?

Nope. The leverage was in his lack of reporting it, not the action of hiring a sig' other. The only thing that would serve as leverage would be emotional grief supposing that professional protocol was followed.

Re: A note from Keith

#149

Post by brown9-2 »

spuz wrote: post #143
brown9-2 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company would want to know of a relationship outside of work in case there are conflicts at work between the two employees in the future. And because a reporting relationship between sexual partners is a bad idea. "I think we need to let X go" could take on a whole new context if the speaker was just dumped by X.

OK, but I still don't see what HR could do in those cases with prior knowledge that they could not do with knowledge at the time an issue is raised. For example, if I have just been fired by the manager who I just dumped, I go to HR and have them resolve the situation then and explain the conflict of interest given that we were in a relationship. The manager is given a talking to, I keep my job and the situation is r…

You could reassign employees so that there is no reporting relationship which is a universally bad idea.

Re: A note from Keith

#150

Post by largesse »

danilocampos wrote: post #34
johndevor wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 t…

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?

Post reply on HN