There is a world of difference between a consensual relationship and a nonconsensual relationship.
I recognize that a hierarchical power differential can blur the lines between consensual and nonconsensual. But the common corporate HR "zero-tolerance" policy regarding consensual relationships seems needlessly heavy handed. Forcing someone to move to a different division of a company -- most likely into a role that they would not have otherwise chosen and is not as good of a fit as the one they were in -- seems like a real "cut off the nose to spite the face" kind of policy. It's bad for the employees who are allegedly being "protected" and it's bad for the company.
I think a better solution would be to approach this sort of thing on a case-by-case basis, guided by some overarching principles, and then do what seems to make the most sense in each case. This would require some thoughtful consideration on the part of management, which is perhaps why it doesn't happen more often. Many managers want all their employees to be interchangeable pawns on the big management chessboard. They are loathe to actually *manage* anything.
And yeah -- maybe approaching things case-by-case means dealing with a few more lawsuits, but the optimal number of lawsuits is not zero.
At most companies, allowing a supervisor to date a subordinate is asking for trouble. It's impossible to be completely impartial when judging someone's work, when deciding compensation, when assigning work, etc. These sorts of relationships are unfair not just for the subordinate but also for that person's co-workers. It's not much different from a professor-student relationship. If you want the relationship, you have to adjust other parts of your life. That's not unreasonable.
Now I'm talking about direct supervisor-subordinate relationships. Less direct relationships are easier to compensate for (e.g., if I'm dating someone who works for a peer of mine), with proper controls.
I don't disagree that the issues you raise exist and need to be addressed.
My complaint is to address them with a one-size-fits all, heavy-handed policy that treats everyone as guilty without evidence.
Moving someone to an entirely different division of the company because they are in a relationship with someone above them in the chain of command is using a hacksaw rather than a scalpel. A less extreme solution could involve a little extra oversight from HR and providing a mechanism for employees to raise issues without fear of reprisal. IF there's evidence that the senior person in the relationship is doing something inappropriate, THEN take action. But don't just assume that every human who engages in a consensual romantic relationship is incapable of handling it in the workplace.
edit -- one other thought -- doesn't the logic of relationship policing apply to other relationships, too? I certainly know of people who have received years of benefits due to non-romantic friendships with more senior people. I've also known of divorced couples who have received no scrutiny at all from HR. I've got news for HR -- divorced people ARE in a relationship with each other -- it's often a hostile, adversarial relationship.
The bottom line for me is -- sure, there can be issues with people in relationships. We don't want unfair behavior. But don't assume everyone is guilty -- deal with real problems as they come up ,not with imaginary problems that have no basis in fact.
Maybe Rubin is out because the phone he designed was a disappointment. The fraternization issues mentioned in the article would have been dealt with by Google many years ago.
If there are any women reading these comments let me apologize for the men that can only imagine what it is like to be a man, lactk any empathy and think that when a boss or coworker makes sexual advances those being harassed should be flattered. Guys try for second to imagine being at the other end of unwanted sexual advances, and complaining can cost you your job, promotion or being black listed in your profession. If you can't perhaps Apple will develop an App using augmented reality which puts you in an office situation with a boss that makes sexual comments all day and is constantly grabbing at your crotch.
Did you even read the article, or the comments, or were you too busy climbing on your soap box? I think your assumption of insensitivity and/or lack of empathy is somewhat presumptuous and misplaced. The article is in reference to a consensual relationship, not sexual harassment. There is a BIG difference. I read through all of the comments and do not see any insensitivity toward sexual harassment. Most comments are in reference to a consensual relationship. If a workplace relationship is consensual and violates company policy, I feel both people involved are equally culpable and should receive equal consequences. If we want equality in the work place, we need to practice what we preach.
A few years back I was in a consensual relationship with someone I worked with. It was not against company policy, so there were no issues. But FYI, she was the one who made the advances and pursued the relationship. I'm sure the majority of the time that is not the case, but I think we need to remember that when it comes to consensual workplace relationships, it takes two to tango.
And can you believe he got 5 likes for being off topic and bashing men? goes to show we have a long way to go for equality when men are afraid they’ll lose their jobs if they don’t like an anti-male comment. LOL
I bet those likes were weak beta-males hoping it gets them laid or married men who have their wives hand wrapped around their fragile throats.
Oh, you're one of those guys -- you believe in "beta-males" and cucks and alphas, etc. In my experience reading commenters on the interwebs, "beta" is an adult male who still resides in the same room he grew up in while self-proclaimed "alphas" have graduated to the full basement suite at mom's. Rock on, alpha-male, rock-on.
There is a world of difference between a consensual relationship and a nonconsensual relationship.
I recognize that a hierarchical power differential can blur the lines between consensual and nonconsensual. But the common corporate HR "zero-tolerance" policy regarding consensual relationships seems needlessly heavy handed. Forcing someone to move to a different division of a company -- most likely into a role that they would not have otherwise chosen and is not as good of a fit as the one they were in -- seems like a real "cut off the nose to spite the face" kind of policy. It's bad for the employees who are allegedly being "protected" and it's bad for the company.
I think a better solution would be to approach this sort of thing on a case-by-case basis, guided by some overarching principles, and then do what seems to make the most sense in each case. This would require some thoughtful consideration on the part of management, which is perhaps why it doesn't happen more often. Many managers want all their employees to be interchangeable pawns on the big management chessboard. They are loathe to actually *manage* anything.
And yeah -- maybe approaching things case-by-case means dealing with a few more lawsuits, but the optimal number of lawsuits is not zero.
No. A boss cannot have a sexual relationship with his direct report(s). It creates a very clear conflict of interest, and it doesn't matter what size company. As a contractor I've worked for small companies and Fortune 100 and 500, in each this policy is pretty universal -- if you enter a romantic or sexual relationship with a report, one of you has to move teams. The reason should be obvious, but it's so that the report isn't pressured to maintain the sexual relationship w/ the boss in order to protect his/her job, and that co-workers aren't treated unfairly compared to the involved worker.
You would be insane to eliminate this policy as it would expose you to lawsuits, and rightly so.
So this is how women will finally achieve diversity with men in the workplace? There won’t be any men left! <extreme sarcasm>
I know it sarcasm...however I guess it could potentially deter a workplace from hiring a woman. Do I, myself think this is ethical? Hell no! You should always hire the best person for the job whether its male, female, whatever race, religious belief, or sexual orientation. Great people will make you and your company look awesome in the end with great products as long as they're managed properly.
A company actually did an experiment where they only hired women(imagine the lawsuits if the opposite were true) and all hell broke loose. This stupid meme that all women are delicate flowers is utter BS pushed by weak beta-males who think putting women and bi***es on a pedestal will get them laid.
If there are any women reading these comments let me apologize for the men that can only imagine what it is like to be a man, lack any empathy and think that when a boss or coworker makes sexual advances those being harassed should be flattered. Guys try for second to imagine being at the other end of unwanted sexual advances, and complaining can cost you your job, promotion or being black listed in your profession. If you can't perhaps Apple will develop an App using augmented reality which puts you in an office situation with a boss that makes sexual comments all day and is constantly grabbing at your crotch.
CONSENSUAL. The article says it right there. Dont tell me you’re one of those feminists who want to classify staring and farting as “rape”.(these feminist classifications actually exist)
Men get sexually harassed all the time and if they complain? They’re told to “DEAL WITH IT” or “man up”. Look up the story on the Amazing Atheist who was sexually harassed OPENLY at work and they called him “gay” for complaining.
In what world does a women complaining cost HER her job? Because every article, news story and reality shows the man gets fired and the woman is let off scot-free.
Wow some guys here are real knuckle draggers. It's like none of you have sisters or mothers, tell them to "man up" when their boss slips a hand between their legs.
Did you even read the article, or the comments, or were you too busy climbing on your soap box? I think your assumption of insensitivity and/or lack of empathy is somewhat presumptuous and misplaced. The article is in reference to a consensual relationship, not sexual harassment.
I think YOU need to read the article again. The woman in question filed a complaint with the company. It’s Rubin’s “Spokesman” who claimed the relationship was consensual...
Actually YOU need to read the article again. It states that she filed a complaint and also reads "However, the specific nature of the complaint filed by the woman weren't detailed by the sources." For all we know the complaint may have nothing to do with sexual harassment. The article also states, "Rubin was reportedly told that his behavior not only violated company policy, but was "improper and showed bad judgement" according to The Information." This sounds more indicative of a consensual relationship between a supervisor and subordinate than sexual harassment. If it were sexual harassment I would think the findings would have been worded much stronger, he would have been fired immediately, and not given the opportunity to resign. If it was sexual harassment, then he should do jail time.
My initial reaction is still valid. Spice-Boy's post was worded as if the comments were indicative of a bunch of insensitive jerks who have no capacity for empathy when it comes to sexual harassment. In my opinion I think his assessment of the comments borders on hyperbole and his lecture was not warranted based on the comments posted.
If there are any women reading these comments let me apologize for the men that can only imagine what it is like to be a man, lactk any empathy and think that when a boss or coworker makes sexual advances those being harassed should be flattered. Guys try for second to imagine being at the other end of unwanted sexual advances, and complaining can cost you your job, promotion or being black listed in your profession. If you can't perhaps Apple will develop an App using augmented reality which puts you in an office situation with a boss that makes sexual comments all day and is constantly grabbing at your crotch.
Did you even read the article, or the comments, or were you too busy climbing on your soap box? I think your assumption of insensitivity and/or lack of empathy is somewhat presumptuous and misplaced. The article is in reference to a consensual relationship, not sexual harassment. There is a BIG difference. I read through all of the comments and do not see any insensitivity toward sexual harassment. Most comments are in reference to a consensual relationship. If a workplace relationship is consensual and violates company policy, I feel both people involved are equally culpable and should receive equal consequences. If we want equality in the work place, we need to practice what we preach.
A few years back I was in a consensual relationship with someone I worked with. It was not against company policy, so there were no issues. But FYI, she was the one who made the advances and pursued the relationship. I'm sure the majority of the time that is not the case, but I think we need to remember that when it comes to consensual workplace relationships, it takes two to tango.
Uh, not to belabor this constant talk of office sex, but I think the reason the guy got reprimanded is because he is a BOSS, you know? A superior to the other person? whether male or female, that is a lopsided relationship with power dynamics that are really bad for the other person and the department. That is all.
I agree with you 100%. A supervisor/subordinate relationship is always a bad idea, whether it violates company policy or not, but it does not automatically equate to sexual harassment. Based on the information provided in the article, to me this sounds like a consensual office relationship that turned sour rather than sexual harassment.
Just to be clear, even if you have a personality as lousy as Andy Rubin's, you should be able to find someone to date who's career you can't negatively influence. If you can't do that then you're inherently abusive. His defence is that if she doesn't report to him it's fine. The problem is that Andy Rubin for whatever reason was highly influential in some circles and could nuke someone's career easily. And given what I've seen of him in interviews, he'd probably think he was doing the right thing if he screwed somebody over, because it would make him feel happy.
I mean this is the same guy that ripped off the iPhone UI and pretended he didn't. This guy is an entitled prick who's head looks like a penis. I've known he was a grade A douche for years, and am not the least bit surprised he pressured some poor woman who was much lower on the food chain than him into dating and probably sex. I imagine a thief like Ruben probably isn't big on consent either.
There is a world of difference between a consensual relationship and a nonconsensual relationship.
I recognize that a hierarchical power differential can blur the lines between consensual and nonconsensual. But the common corporate HR "zero-tolerance" policy regarding consensual relationships seems needlessly heavy handed. Forcing someone to move to a different division of a company -- most likely into a role that they would not have otherwise chosen and is not as good of a fit as the one they were in -- seems like a real "cut off the nose to spite the face" kind of policy. It's bad for the employees who are allegedly being "protected" and it's bad for the company.
I think a better solution would be to approach this sort of thing on a case-by-case basis, guided by some overarching principles, and then do what seems to make the most sense in each case. This would require some thoughtful consideration on the part of management, which is perhaps why it doesn't happen more often. Many managers want all their employees to be interchangeable pawns on the big management chessboard. They are loathe to actually *manage* anything.
And yeah -- maybe approaching things case-by-case means dealing with a few more lawsuits, but the optimal number of lawsuits is not zero.
No. A boss cannot have a sexual relationship with his direct report(s). It creates a very clear conflict of interest, and it doesn't matter what size company. As a contractor I've worked for small companies and Fortune 100 and 500, in each this policy is pretty universal -- if you enter a romantic or sexual relationship with a report, one of you has to move teams. The reason should be obvious, but it's so that the report isn't pressured to maintain the sexual relationship w/ the boss in order to protect his/her job, and that co-workers aren't treated unfairly compared to the involved worker.
You would be insane to eliminate this policy as it would expose you to lawsuits, and rightly so.
Nice to know that there are people willing to defend the “one-size-fits-all; guilty until proven innocent” position. /s
There are arguably all kinds of “very clear” conflicts of interest. I think it’s a cultural obsession with and immaturity regarding s-e-x (!) that makes this the thing where everyone throws reason out the window. I have seen all kinds of “relationships” between people at work that involve conflicts of interest and unfairness. There are all kinds of “favors” that don’t ivnovle s-e-x (!).
I work in a company with a multi-dimensional matrix management structure. On top of that, it’s employee-owned. So one way or another, everyone is going to be everyone else’s boss at some point. We had an outside person brought in as HR director trying to implement the kind of pre-fabricated HR policy you are advocating. it lasted about 3 months and then collapsed under the weight of its absurd thoughtlessness. The thing that killed the policy is that the policy was going to cause us to lose work — splitting up a husband and wife, when the client wanted both people working on the project. Management decided that winning work was more important than enforcing a draconian, thoughtless, puritanical, infantile, cookie-cutter HR policy. But it was a close call — HR almost won. But guess what? It’s been several years since HR lost this battle and the world has not come to an end. Clients are happy, employees are happy.
People need to grow up and chill out regarding s-e-x(!)
Did you even read the article, or the comments, or were you too busy climbing on your soap box? I think your assumption of insensitivity and/or lack of empathy is somewhat presumptuous and misplaced. The article is in reference to a consensual relationship, not sexual harassment.
I think YOU need to read the article again. The woman in question filed a complaint with the company. It’s Rubin’s “Spokesman” who claimed the relationship was consensual...
Actually YOU need to read the article again. It states that she filed a complaint and also reads "However, the specific nature of the complaint filed by the woman weren't detailed by the sources." For all we know the complaint may have nothing to do with sexual harassment. The article also states, "Rubin was reportedly told that his behavior not only violated company policy, but was "improper and showed bad judgement" according to The Information." This sounds more indicative of a consensual relationship between a supervisor and subordinate than sexual harassment. If it were sexual harassment I would think the findings would have been worded much stronger, he would have been fired immediately, and not given the opportunity to resign.
Sadly Google didn't begin to handle interoffice misconduct seriously until 2014, around the time that Brin's romantic involvement with a young female Googler was publicly revealed. Google has put the hammer down on it now but that wasn't always the case
There is a world of difference between a consensual relationship and a nonconsensual relationship.
I recognize that a hierarchical power differential can blur the lines between consensual and nonconsensual. But the common corporate HR "zero-tolerance" policy regarding consensual relationships seems needlessly heavy handed. Forcing someone to move to a different division of a company -- most likely into a role that they would not have otherwise chosen and is not as good of a fit as the one they were in -- seems like a real "cut off the nose to spite the face" kind of policy. It's bad for the employees who are allegedly being "protected" and it's bad for the company.
I think a better solution would be to approach this sort of thing on a case-by-case basis, guided by some overarching principles, and then do what seems to make the most sense in each case. This would require some thoughtful consideration on the part of management, which is perhaps why it doesn't happen more often. Many managers want all their employees to be interchangeable pawns on the big management chessboard. They are loathe to actually *manage* anything.
And yeah -- maybe approaching things case-by-case means dealing with a few more lawsuits, but the optimal number of lawsuits is not zero.
No. A boss cannot have a sexual relationship with his direct report(s). It creates a very clear conflict of interest, and it doesn't matter what size company. As a contractor I've worked for small companies and Fortune 100 and 500, in each this policy is pretty universal -- if you enter a romantic or sexual relationship with a report, one of you has to move teams. The reason should be obvious, but it's so that the report isn't pressured to maintain the sexual relationship w/ the boss in order to protect his/her job, and that co-workers aren't treated unfairly compared to the involved worker.
You would be insane to eliminate this policy as it would expose you to lawsuits, and rightly so.
Nice to know that there are people willing to defend the “one-size-fits-all; guilty until proven innocent” position. /s
There are arguably all kinds of “very clear” conflicts of interest. I think it’s a cultural obsession with and immaturity regarding s-e-x (!) that makes this the thing where everyone throws reason out the window. I have seen all kinds of “relationships” between people at work that involve conflicts of interest and unfairness. There are all kinds of “favors” that don’t ivnovle s-e-x (!).
I work in a company with a multi-dimensional matrix management structure. On top of that, it’s employee-owned. So one way or another, everyone is going to be everyone else’s boss at some point. We had an outside person brought in as HR director trying to implement the kind of pre-fabricated HR policy you are advocating. it lasted about 3 months and then collapsed under the weight of its absurd thoughtlessness. The thing that killed the policy is that the policy was going to cause us to lose work — splitting up a husband and wife, when the client wanted both people working on the project. Management decided that winning work was more important than enforcing a draconian, thoughtless, puritanical, infantile, cookie-cutter HR policy. But it was a close call — HR almost won. But guess what? It’s been several years since HR lost this battle and the world has not come to an end. Clients are happy, employees are happy.
People need to grow up and chill out regarding s-e-x(!)
Congratulations on working for the only company in the world where it's impossible to not have bosses and direct reports sleeping together. Here in the rest of the professional world we understand why it's unethical and problematic, for the reasons I've described as clearly as possible. Regardless of your refusal to understand them, we're discussing Google and IT firms at large, and not your 10 person hippie commune.
There is a world of difference between a consensual relationship and a nonconsensual relationship.
I recognize that a hierarchical power differential can blur the lines between consensual and nonconsensual. But the common corporate HR "zero-tolerance" policy regarding consensual relationships seems needlessly heavy handed. Forcing someone to move to a different division of a company -- most likely into a role that they would not have otherwise chosen and is not as good of a fit as the one they were in -- seems like a real "cut off the nose to spite the face" kind of policy. It's bad for the employees who are allegedly being "protected" and it's bad for the company.
I think a better solution would be to approach this sort of thing on a case-by-case basis, guided by some overarching principles, and then do what seems to make the most sense in each case. This would require some thoughtful consideration on the part of management, which is perhaps why it doesn't happen more often. Many managers want all their employees to be interchangeable pawns on the big management chessboard. They are loathe to actually *manage* anything.
And yeah -- maybe approaching things case-by-case means dealing with a few more lawsuits, but the optimal number of lawsuits is not zero.
No. A boss cannot have a sexual relationship with his direct report(s). It creates a very clear conflict of interest, and it doesn't matter what size company. As a contractor I've worked for small companies and Fortune 100 and 500, in each this policy is pretty universal -- if you enter a romantic or sexual relationship with a report, one of you has to move teams. The reason should be obvious, but it's so that the report isn't pressured to maintain the sexual relationship w/ the boss in order to protect his/her job, and that co-workers aren't treated unfairly compared to the involved worker.
You would be insane to eliminate this policy as it would expose you to lawsuits, and rightly so.
Nice to know that there are people willing to defend the “one-size-fits-all; guilty until proven innocent” position. /s
There are arguably all kinds of “very clear” conflicts of interest. I think it’s a cultural obsession with and immaturity regarding s-e-x (!) that makes this the thing where everyone throws reason out the window. I have seen all kinds of “relationships” between people at work that involve conflicts of interest and unfairness. There are all kinds of “favors” that don’t ivnovle s-e-x (!).
I work in a company with a multi-dimensional matrix management structure. On top of that, it’s employee-owned. So one way or another, everyone is going to be everyone else’s boss at some point. We had an outside person brought in as HR director trying to implement the kind of pre-fabricated HR policy you are advocating. it lasted about 3 months and then collapsed under the weight of its absurd thoughtlessness. The thing that killed the policy is that the policy was going to cause us to lose work — splitting up a husband and wife, when the client wanted both people working on the project. Management decided that winning work was more important than enforcing a draconian, thoughtless, puritanical, infantile, cookie-cutter HR policy. But it was a close call — HR almost won. But guess what? It’s been several years since HR lost this battle and the world has not come to an end. Clients are happy, employees are happy.
People need to grow up and chill out regarding s-e-x(!)
I am with @StrangeDays on this. @StrangeDays clearly laid out the conditions which are prohibited and the reasoning is NOT rocket-science for ANYONE to understand. Even the specific situation that you mentioned - about a husband and wife in same project did NOT clearly mention the ROLES that they were supposed to perform in the assignment. Were they playing the roles of one person being a Boss and other person as Sub-ordinate? Were they peers reporting to a different person as a manager? If it is the former, it is a clear case of "conflict of interest" (if you understand the term) AND prohibited.
Comments
My complaint is to address them with a one-size-fits all, heavy-handed policy that treats everyone as guilty without evidence.
Moving someone to an entirely different division of the company because they are in a relationship with someone above them in the chain of command is using a hacksaw rather than a scalpel. A less extreme solution could involve a little extra oversight from HR and providing a mechanism for employees to raise issues without fear of reprisal. IF there's evidence that the senior person in the relationship is doing something inappropriate, THEN take action. But don't just assume that every human who engages in a consensual romantic relationship is incapable of handling it in the workplace.
edit -- one other thought -- doesn't the logic of relationship policing apply to other relationships, too? I certainly know of people who have received years of benefits due to non-romantic friendships with more senior people. I've also known of divorced couples who have received no scrutiny at all from HR. I've got news for HR -- divorced people ARE in a relationship with each other -- it's often a hostile, adversarial relationship.
The bottom line for me is -- sure, there can be issues with people in relationships. We don't want unfair behavior. But don't assume everyone is guilty -- deal with real problems as they come up ,not with imaginary problems that have no basis in fact.
First page on one simple search:
http://www.kcci.com/article/lawsuit-woman-fired-after-sexual-harassment-complaint/6890642
http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/concordia-employee-says-she-was-fired-after-harassment-complaint-1.3076309
https://pilotonline.com/news/local/crime/suffolk-coffee-company-fired-woman-after-she-complained-about-sexual/article_83a3c911-8250-55bc-9a0b-f2bdef01f188.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/01/tesla-fires-aj-vandermeyden-lawsuit-sexual-harrassment
http://www.houmatoday.com/news/20170712/suit-says-woman-fired-after-sexual-harassment-claim
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Former-Delta-Airlines-Employees-Fired-after-Sexual-Harassment-Complaint-409816125.html
http://1157kia.tumblr.com/post/103131647470/feminism-a-few-thoughts
Oh, you're one of those guys -- you believe in "beta-males" and cucks and alphas, etc. In my experience reading commenters on the interwebs, "beta" is an adult male who still resides in the same room he grew up in while self-proclaimed "alphas" have graduated to the full basement suite at mom's. Rock on, alpha-male, rock-on.
No. A boss cannot have a sexual relationship with his direct report(s). It creates a very clear conflict of interest, and it doesn't matter what size company. As a contractor I've worked for small companies and Fortune 100 and 500, in each this policy is pretty universal -- if you enter a romantic or sexual relationship with a report, one of you has to move teams. The reason should be obvious, but it's so that the report isn't pressured to maintain the sexual relationship w/ the boss in order to protect his/her job, and that co-workers aren't treated unfairly compared to the involved worker.
You would be insane to eliminate this policy as it would expose you to lawsuits, and rightly so.
My initial reaction is still valid. Spice-Boy's post was worded as if the comments were indicative of a bunch of insensitive jerks who have no capacity for empathy when it comes to sexual harassment. In my opinion I think his assessment of the comments borders on hyperbole and his lecture was not warranted based on the comments posted.
Will Schmidt be taking a leave of absence for his inappropriate relationship with Apple during the iPhone development phase?
Heck no! That was beneficial to Google!!
There are arguably all kinds of “very clear” conflicts of interest. I think it’s a cultural obsession with and immaturity regarding s-e-x (!) that makes this the thing where everyone throws reason out the window. I have seen all kinds of “relationships” between people at work that involve conflicts of interest and unfairness. There are all kinds of “favors” that don’t ivnovle s-e-x (!).
I work in a company with a multi-dimensional matrix management structure. On top of that, it’s employee-owned. So one way or another, everyone is going to be everyone else’s boss at some point. We had an outside person brought in as HR director trying to implement the kind of pre-fabricated HR policy you are advocating. it lasted about 3 months and then collapsed under the weight of its absurd thoughtlessness. The thing that killed the policy is that the policy was going to cause us to lose work — splitting up a husband and wife, when the client wanted both people working on the project. Management decided that winning work was more important than enforcing a draconian, thoughtless, puritanical, infantile, cookie-cutter HR policy. But it was a close call — HR almost won. But guess what? It’s been several years since HR lost this battle and the world has not come to an end. Clients are happy, employees are happy.
People need to grow up and chill out regarding s-e-x(!)