Ship of Fools: Sex/relationships with co-workers, harassment, codes of conduct etc

Thread: Sex/relationships with co-workers, harassment, codes of conduct etc Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028821

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

In the Parliament of Canada, two Liberal MPs have been suspended from their caucus due to allegations of sexual harassment (exactly what it is remains to be seen). There has been no code of conduct regarding this.

As shocked as I was to learn of no code of conduct regarding personal relationships in the parliamentary workplace, this leads me to ask more generally about what you think the rules should be. I wonder if they also try to have sex with constituents when they drop by to discuss issues at Parliament or at constituency offices (okay that's a little flip, but one wonders).

Perhaps general prohibition of the development of relationships is in order? Seeing as parliament is not a dating club. Notwithstanding the Cdn parliament's egregious negligence to not have a code of conduct and harassment guidelines - what's wrong with this heavily lawyer-staffed chicken coup parliament anyway? busily making rules for everyone else. Should rules in general prohibit sexual and intimate relationships among co-workers? Where does the relationship end and exploitation and harassment start?

In my profession it is prohibited completely for supervisors and bosses to have relationships or intimacies with supervisees and customers. A full two year break in the work or professional relationship must elapse if a relationship occurs, though with customers, two years is indicated to likely not be sufficient if any professional advice is still operative. Coworkers must not have relationships or date unless it is fully disclosed and the organization can make arrangements.

A story from my experience:

Some 30 years ago, before such codes of conduct existed, I had a coworker discuss with me a particular file and customer, and the work that third coworker had previously done. My second conversation with this coworker was aggressive on my part because I learned he was sleeping with the third coworker: "did you discuss this with <third coworker> in the office or over pillows last night?". And I reported it thereafter, the management tried to see my comments as inappropriately aggressive, to which I had to respond additionally aggressively and screw myself for remaining in this workplace, so I understand some of the problems. The coworkers were separated in the workplace. I resigned about 18 months later; this was one of the factors.

So what do you think? Should co-workers refrain in general from developing relationships and then fill out a form if they start something? I think there should be a legal requirement for a harassment code in all workplaces additionally.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Work is where a very great many people meet their life-partners.

If such relationships are carried out with propriety during office hours, it's none of the employer's business whatsoever. I'm certain we all have horror stories to tell of when relationships within a workplace become inappropriate, but we also have stories of people meeting, falling in love, and living happily ever after.

Employers pay people to work for them during the hours they work. With a few notable exceptions, that ought to be the end of their control over their employees.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

There is usually a conflict of interest when someone enters into a romantic entanglement with a direct subordinate. My employer will reassign people so that a romantic partner is not in their direct line management. The new couple usually gets to choose which one of them gets moved.

That being said, we have plenty of couples who have met at work and are happily married. They just aren't allowed to be responsible for reviewing each others' performance and recommending pay increases.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I was as shocked as was Inspector Renault on learning that there was gambling on the premises at Rick's Café. Provincial and federal labour standards never applied on legislatures, partly as conditions (such as 70-hour work weeks) were so inhuman to begin with.
Another factor, perhaps never spoken out loud, was that partisan feelings were sufficiently strong at times that it was impossible to manage a dispute or abuse resolution mechanism. The presence of lawyers (although the House is not overwhelmingly lawyered) is not a plus, as most of them have worked in small offices where staff procedures were informal and have carried that approach into running their own offices. And, as one unkind colleague of mine once noted, some lawyers believe that a knowledge of the law exempts them from obeying it.

Some political parties instituted internal procedures, almost none of which ever seemed functional to me, with the exception of the NDP in Ottawa with a recognized staff association which I gather operates fairly well (while I know of one instance where it didn't, that is the exception rather than the rule).

Several attempts to institute procedures in Parliament have collapsed as the Internal Economy Committee has never ever agreed on the desireability of such. I hope that the current situation-- which is plenty confused-- helps bring them to a more mature realization.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Unless there is a possibility of the misuse of status being involved, I'm with Doc Tor on this.

Three other things on this example, as recounted.

First I don't give the representative of one political party the benefit of the doubt when I speculate as to his or her likely motives for complaining about the behaviour of a representative of either their own or another party.

Second, those active in political circles aren't usually quiet, mousy, put-upon-people. I'd expect them to raise their own complaints rather than for some other politician do it for them.

In this case, it isn't even clear whether the ladies in question have actually asked anyone to take up the cudgels on their behalf. It rather reads as though one politician spontaneously took up their causes as a convenient knife to stick in a fellow politician's back.

Third, I'd accept that identities should not be made public, but it isn't even clear that they have been disclosed confidentially.

In a different context, some years ago, I told someone who was trying to delate somebody else for financial dishonesty and insisted on doing so anonymously that so long as he insisted on remaining anonymous, I was not prepared to listen to his complaint. I did not propose to do anything about it. I still take the view that I was right to do so. For one thing, if his delation was anonymous, it would never be capable of being investigated or used as evidence.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

I met, dated, and married my husband while he was a congregant in the church I pastored, so am probably guilty of coming right up to if not crossing the line myself. It's messy. But then, relationships are always messy. Things can go horribly wrong-- but then, things can always go horribly wrong. But with most of us working 50, 60, 70 hours a week, where would you meet someone if not at work? I say go into it knowing the pitfalls, avoid them as best you can, be transparent and disclosing about the relationship, and avoid being in direct supervision of those you're pursuing a romantic relationship with. And be prepared for life to get... messy. Because it always does.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Work is where a very great many people meet their life-partners.

At my workplace, stuffed with IT staff, scientists and engineers, where else are many of them going to do so?

quote:

If such relationships are carried out with propriety during office hours, it's none of the employer's business whatsoever. I'm certain we all have horror stories to tell of when relationships within a workplace become inappropriate, but we also have stories of people meeting, falling in love, and living happily ever after.

And that is the key. There have been problems, particularly when people at different levels of the 'management chain' have 'informal' relationships. The really serious problems arise when these end.

[ 29. November 2014, 17:49: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Define propriety please. If a relationship is unknown, what then? This stuff has been going on forever I think. My almost 90 year old father spoke of a colleague who seemed to know a lot about an unrelated department in the mid-1960s, and lobbied for budget decisions for it, only for them to learn later that the colleague was in a relationship with the head of that department. The consequences for both were significant once it was disclosed.

Therefore, I can only disagree when people suggest that it is none of management's business who is in a relationship with whom - or perhaps this is not what you mean? If the people have any form of possible dual relationship, i.e., personal and business, and not just when there is supervisory relationship should it be disclosed I think. At the very least, the relationship partners need to disclose the relationship's existence and recuse themselves in situations of any form of conflict of interest I should think.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
If the people have any form of possible dual relationship, i.e., personal and business, and not just when there is supervisory relationship should it be disclosed I think.

If you're in public office in the UK, you have to sign a declaration of your interests - owning land, shares, professional relationships, directorships, club memberships, so on and so forth.

It seems odd, not to mention half-baked, to require employees to register their personal relationships without all the other matters that may affect their day-to-day work.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

Certainly people have had to fall on their swords because of dual relationships here in NZ.

NZ has quite strong codes of conduct around relationship behaviour, and we have recently had a high profile case where a government CEO was pushed to resign because of inappropriate sexual and patronising comments to women on his staff. Another CEO, a woman, was removed from office last year after a series of sexually charged bullying incidents with other women on her staff.

During the last election we had a lot of debate around the communications between senior members of the government and bloggers - who may or may not have been implicated in smear campaigns on behalf of the government against the opposition. The PM, just last week, had to apologise for lying about such contact, and the Minister for Justice lost her cabinet portfolio just before the election because of it.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
If you're in public office in the UK, you have to sign a declaration of your interests - owning land, shares, professional relationships, directorships, club memberships, so on and so forth.

This made me remember a standard item on the agenda of Boards of Examiners I used to sit on when I was a lecturer - called 'conflict of interest'. The idea was that any member of the board who felt compromised (in the context of this thread, one imagines some putative sexual relationship with someone / half the class) might speak up and sit out any discussion of the particular student(s).

Notwithstanding the fact that the institution steadily eroded to nothing the discretion of the board to consider individual cases by anything other than mechanistic procedure, when the chair said 'conflict of interest?' I always felt like saying 'yeah, what about the fact that if we fail to pass 95%+ of these poor farmed f*ckers, the institution will beat us with a big stick and threaten to close our courses / remove our livelihoods?'.

I tried it (in less colourful language) once or twice, to much shuffling and eye-rolling. I may as well have been actually, as opposed to metaphorically, f*cking the students.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

When I was very important, I ran a cultural grants jury and, in opening remarks, I had to point out that the Canadian literary scene was very small--- some would even say incestuous (laughter)-- so that if, for any reason, a member felt that they could not fairly assess an applicant or their work on personal or other grounds, they should excuse themselves from the room and not vote.

At every session, most of the members would leave the room and take a break, asking me to call them back when we had done with a file. Over the years, I figured out that over half of the recusals had to do with (generally disastrous) intimate relationships.

But people cannot always be trusted to do the right thing, even when codes are written out and are clear. At a staffing exercise, I found that one of the board members was voting to promote his inamorata. This was a well-known relationship and the board chair did nothing about it; at coffee, I spoke with her privately, and she was furious that I would (her words) "interfere with her job." Now that the topic had been raised, even informally, she had to deal with it, and the board was closed down. My manager was told to rebuke me and, to his credit, refused to do so, insisting on written direction. I'm still surprised I was allowed into the Christmas party that year.

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

I think there is a massive difference between sexual harassment and having a relationship. One is non consensual, the other is unproblematic. The only rule in my workplace is that you can't have a relationship with someone who is in your line management chain. All that means is that if you start going out with your boss you get moved to a different line manager.

At my work we're all adults. Why is it anyone's business who is sleeping with who?

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

This sounds like a most workable policy for consensual relationships in the work place and would tend to head off bosses who might bully their way into an unwanted "relationship". Even if they later tried to claim the relationship was mutual, it would still be against policy.

But as stated above, harassment is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I was as shocked as was Inspector Renault on learning that there was gambling on the premises at Rick's Café. Provincial and federal labour standards never applied on legislatures, partly as conditions (such as 70-hour work weeks) were so inhuman to begin with.
Another factor, perhaps never spoken out loud, was that partisan feelings were sufficiently strong at times that it was impossible to manage a dispute or abuse resolution mechanism. The presence of lawyers (although the House is not overwhelmingly lawyered) is not a plus, as most of them have worked in small offices where staff procedures were informal and have carried that approach into running their own offices. And, as one unkind colleague of mine once noted, some lawyers believe that a knowledge of the law exempts them from obeying it.

Some political parties instituted internal procedures, almost none of which ever seemed functional to me, with the exception of the NDP in Ottawa with a recognized staff association which I gather operates fairly well (while I know of one instance where it didn't, that is the exception rather than the rule).

Several attempts to institute procedures in Parliament have collapsed as the Internal Economy Committee has never ever agreed on the desireability of such. I hope that the current situation-- which is plenty confused-- helps bring them to a more mature realization.

The NDP's Caucus Services staff are flat out unionized; they are a recognized Local of the United Food and Commercial Workers. All Federal NDP Candidates must sign an undertaking to hire through the Collective Agreement and recognize the union, or else they lose their NDP endorsement. They also have to donate the limit ($1,200 yearly) to both the Federal Party and their respective Riding Association. They also pledge to uphold, in full, the latest Policy Book as revised after each biennial Convention.

But the main issue is that Parliament retains much of its ethos as the "best gentlemen's club in the land". MP's are all supposed to be equals in theory (yes, I know, but still) and thus there aren't the controls or processes in place which one would expect.

And the Board of Internal Economy is itself a dirty word, Augustine. [Disappointed]

In reality, I suspect it functioned as long as it did because Parliament consisted predominantly of white middle-aged men for so many decades. Of course the Orange Wave turned that on its head and brought MP's to the hill who were younger than many staffers, who are themselves often referred to as "the kids in short pants".

Something like this was bound to happen sooner or later. It's still disappointing that it did. Unlike you, I would not describe the situation as described by one victim as "murky" or "confused". The man was a cad who took advantage of a female MP who had consumed alcohol. He ought to have kept his pants on, and I will say that is what I did when I was in a similar situation with a lady friend who had far too much to drink one evening and who wanted to express her fondness for me.

A woman who has pain when sitting down for three days after the incident was not in a "confused" situation.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
... The NDP's Caucus Services staff are flat out unionized; they are a recognized Local of the United Food and Commercial Workers. All Federal NDP Candidates must sign an undertaking to hire through the Collective Agreement and recognize the union, or else they lose their NDP endorsement. They also have to donate the limit ($1,200 yearly) to both the Federal Party and their respective Riding Association. They also pledge to uphold, in full, the latest Policy Book as revised after each biennial Convention. ...

And there was I thinking our Labour Party was the unions' poodle.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

SPK writes:

quote:
Unlike you, I would not describe the situation as described by one victim as "murky" or "confused".

Where did I say this?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

For clarity, I was referring to the procedural situation. There is no procedure to deal with complaints nor is it clear, at least after having heard the interview, if there had been a formal complaint. And the Board of Internal Economy, having spent years ensuring that staff have little or no recourse, is not a body which could or would address a complaint.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Your post, my dear Augustine, appeared to refer to the situation as described by the victims, which would hopefully spur the Commons to action. Thank you for the clarification.

Still, as I said, the Board of Internal Economy is a dirty word. It has spent years saying "do as I say, not as I do" with regards to staffing recourse. And don't get me started on the deplorable behaviour of some of its members. I wouldn't hold out hope for change.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
... The NDP's Caucus Services staff are flat out unionized; they are a recognized Local of the United Food and Commercial Workers. All Federal NDP Candidates must sign an undertaking to hire through the Collective Agreement and recognize the union, or else they lose their NDP endorsement. They also have to donate the limit ($1,200 yearly) to both the Federal Party and their respective Riding Association. They also pledge to uphold, in full, the latest Policy Book as revised after each biennial Convention. ...
And there was I thinking our Labour Party was the unions' poodle.

There was a nonsensical court case in Canada in the 1980's where it was determined that Parliamentary Staff, due to the "utmost necessity for undivided loyalty" from their employees, could not unionize. [Projectile]

In response, the government of the day (in its last throes of being "Progressive Conservative" instead of just the latter) passed the Parliamentary Employees Staff Relations Act, which allows most parliamentary employees to unionize, except Minister's staff, MP's Parliamentary Office staff and Riding Office Staff.

The NDP allows its staff from those "exempt" categories to unionize and in order to bypass the court ruling, has its MP's sign an undertaking.

The NDP is, quite proudly, the only unionized political party in North America.

[ 30. November 2014, 14:56: Message edited by: Sober Preacher's Kid ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I think there is a massive difference between sexual harassment and having a relationship. One is non consensual, the other is unproblematic. The only rule in my workplace is that you can't have a relationship with someone who is in your line management chain. All that means is that if you start going out with your boss you get moved to a different line manager.

At my work we're all adults. Why is it anyone's business who is sleeping with who?

Because some adults are more powerful than others, and some of the more powerful have the possibility of promoting the careers of the less powerful. The less powerful often don't realize that the more powerful also want to have sex with them, until the more powerful actually make the advance. Then the prior relationship is contaminated and the less powerful inevitably pay for it. They don't have to be in the same supervisory-management chain.

[ 30. November 2014, 18:51: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

So the only possible solution is that nobody ever has a relationship with someone at work? I find that strange.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Not to mention impossible to enforce and illegal to boot.

Relationships are going to happen wherever people have a pulse. The point is to protect the vulnerable (and I include the company's balance sheet in that category) from inappropriate exploitation, and treat everyone else like adults.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Certainly relationships can and do happen at work. They should be disclosed, and in some cases people will be reassigned based on the duality of relationship. Or will be recused from some decision making. Not sure what might be illegal about.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Certainly relationships can and do happen at work. They should be disclosed, and in some cases people will be reassigned based on the duality of relationship. Or will be recused from some decision making. Not sure what might be illegal about.

Well, there is the slight problem that management likes to assign staff on the basis of the needs of the business and the abilities of the employee. But hey, what's that compared to twue wuv?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Certainly relationships can and do happen at work. They should be disclosed, and in some cases people will be reassigned based on the duality of relationship. Or will be recused from some decision making. Not sure what might be illegal about.
Well, there is the slight problem that management likes to assign staff on the basis of the needs of the business and the abilities of the employee. But hey, what's that compared to twue wuv?

Larger businesses assign staff based on what makes the most money, at least this is trend since the neoliberal experiment since ~1980.

The following is a paraphrase of what I heard an "HR Professional" say when I asked about employee assignment: 'Employees are like widgets, they are assigned based on skills, knowledge and abilities (SKAs) as attested to by objective markers, with the individual differences between employees with the same SKA rating being the least interesting thing about them.' Thus, being in love is a reason to go to the next employee with the next highest rating.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Certainly relationships can and do happen at work. They should be disclosed, and in some cases people will be reassigned based on the duality of relationship. Or will be recused from some decision making. Not sure what might be illegal about.
Well, there is the slight problem that management likes to assign staff on the basis of the needs of the business and the abilities of the employee. But hey, what's that compared to twue wuv?

Yep. Life is messy. Love in particular is messy. And as much as our corporations would like to keep things neat and clean and sanitized and risk-free, up until they've replaced us all with autotrons, they're going to have to accept that the messiness comes with it-- and has always been so. And to some degree, the problem being addressed here is directly related to modern corporate culture which wants to lay claim on our lives 24/7-- thus leaving no non-work arenas to find or pursue a romantic relationships. There are some things that corporations and individuals will want to do to avoid certain kinds of risk with direct lines of supervision, etc., but in the end, it will be messy. It always has been, and always will be.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

It seems to me that for it to be a truly dual relationship there has to be a power differential. Practically everyone I know who is romantically involved with someone first knew their sweetheart under different auspices. As long as it's not an ongoing relationship where one of them has more power than the other (priest/parishioner, doctor/patient, professor student), then I can't imagine how it's anyone else's business.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It seems to me that for it to be a truly dual relationship there has to be a power differential. Practically everyone I know who is romantically involved with someone first knew their sweetheart under different auspices. As long as it's not an ongoing relationship where one of them has more power than the other (priest/parishioner, doctor/patient, professor student), then I can't imagine how it's anyone else's business.

As noted above, I didn't even pass that bar.
[Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As long as it's not an ongoing relationship where one of them has more power than the other (priest/parishioner, doctor/patient, professor student), then I can't imagine how it's anyone else's business.

How does that work? All the married priests I've ever known have had their spouse as one of their parishioners.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
As long as it's not an ongoing relationship where one of them has more power than the other (priest/parishioner, doctor/patient, professor student), then I can't imagine how it's anyone else's business.
How does that work? All the married priests I've ever known have had their spouse as one of their parishioners.

Well, their spouses may attend church in their parish. But I doubt any of those priests hear their spouse's confessions. They certainly shouldn't be in that position.

And a priest who's on the market shouldn't be using his parish as a dating pool, either.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, there is the slight problem that management likes to assign staff on the basis of the needs of the business and the abilities of the employee. But hey, what's that compared to twue wuv?

As I mentioned, my employer reassigns people who form romantic entanglements to ensure that a romantic partner is not in another's line management.

In some cases, that can't happen - suppose both partners have specialized skills that only equip them to work in one particular group. In that case, the partners get to choose between themselves which one of them quits.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, there is the slight problem that management likes to assign staff on the basis of the needs of the business and the abilities of the employee. But hey, what's that compared to twue wuv?
As I mentioned, my employer reassigns people who form romantic entanglements to ensure that a romantic partner is not in another's line management.

In some cases, that can't happen - suppose both partners have specialized skills that only equip them to work in one particular group. In that case, the partners get to choose between themselves which one of them quits.

And I'm absolutely certain this would be constructive dismissal, and therefore illegal under UK law. I'm willing to bet that covers the whole EU too.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Can you expand on that please Doc Tor - I don't understand the concept. Perhaps it's because I've been self-employed for 40 years.

As to Fr Weber's comment about a priest not using his Parish as a dating pool: that is exactly what happened in Newcastle diocese, the next north to Sydney (and very different). A priest there was in an entirely consensual relationship with a woman parishioner, single and without that sort of complication. It ended, she complained to the Bishop, and after a Tribunal hearing he was defrocked.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Constructive Dismissal

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, there is the slight problem that management likes to assign staff on the basis of the needs of the business and the abilities of the employee. But hey, what's that compared to twue wuv?
As I mentioned, my employer reassigns people who form romantic entanglements to ensure that a romantic partner is not in another's line management.

In some cases, that can't happen - suppose both partners have specialized skills that only equip them to work in one particular group. In that case, the partners get to choose between themselves which one of them quits.
And I'm absolutely certain this would be constructive dismissal, and therefore illegal under UK law. I'm willing to bet that covers the whole EU too.

Is it illegal or merely something that might sued about? Here, if the employment contract* specifies a harassment, relationship and fraternization policy, unless it is contrary to natural justice (I think is the term) and represents reasonable restrictions on personal rights and freedoms, it is absolutely enforceable. Seen it.

* meaning among other things, the terms the company informed the worker on hiring, and additional terms of employment imposed or negotiated from time to time.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I'm reasonably certain (IANAL) that any employer who tried to enforce such clauses would find themselves on the wrong side of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been adopted into UK law, specifically Articles 8, 12 and 14.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And a priest who's on the market shouldn't be using his parish as a dating pool, either.

In the diocese of New Hampshire twenty years ago there was a flat rule that a priest should not date a parishioner. I know of one priest who violated this rule and lost her job.

In my parish, the assistant rector fell in love with a parishioner; the parishioner started attending a different church and didn't come back until after they were married.

Moo

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm reasonably certain (IANAL) that any employer who tried to enforce such clauses would find themselves on the wrong side of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been adopted into UK law, specifically Articles 8, 12 and 14.

Don't think that is necessarily true. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a similar document. Courts interpret reasonable restrictions, well, as reasonable.

I found this on a UK site, written by a lawyer from Nottingham:

quote:
"...if the employer has a clear policy at the outset, based on sound business reasons and is fair, consistent and reasonable in applying it, then employees will have no basis upon which to argue that their right to privacy has been infringed."

It goes on to say, parallel to the Canadian situation that so long as employers do it properly and implement etc in reasonable ways, it is not contrary to the EHRC.

quote:
So how can employers deal with relationships at work?
…a policy setting out the concerns around relationships at work, why they are relevant and what will happen in such situations is important in order for the employer to be able to address any concerns around relationships which have formed at, and which impact on, the working environment

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And a priest who's on the market shouldn't be using his parish as a dating pool, either.
In the diocese of New Hampshire twenty years ago there was a flat rule that a priest should not date a parishioner. I know of one priest who violated this rule and lost her job.

In my parish, the assistant rector fell in love with a parishioner; the parishioner started attending a different church and didn't come back until after they were married.

Moo

Again, I fall short of the standard.
[Hot and Hormonal]

Although my congregants seemed rather delighted with the way it all worked out, rather than offended. Of course, I recognize it could very easily have gone the other way.

[ 04. December 2014, 00:02: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thanks for the link Dinghy Sailor. Having read that, I am not sure about the absolute manner in which Doc Tor's opinion is expressed. No Prophet etc's comment sound a much more likely outcome.

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

Whilst I can understand the wariness about clergy dating within their flock, I still get rather frustrated about the presumptions that clerics are (or should be, in a perfect world) either married or celibate, and not 'looking.'

If an Anglican cleric is in the parish six days a week, where are they supposed to meet a potential spouse on their one day off? Trawling singles bars? Teh intarwebz? Speed-dating? Tindr?

Because it seems to me the results of those are far more likely to end up in a mess than someone who attends Evensong once a month...

x

AV

[ 04. December 2014, 11:03: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

The whole culture has changed since WW2 - take a look at "Schindlers List" and the arrangement for secretaries... RD Laing considered it not inappropriate to have sexual relations his staff as part of the training process. And it's not very long ago that psychotherapists were the first professional group to officially recognise that this is Not A Good Thing and ban it, because this is in this context a gross violation of boundaries. One of my first girlfriends had lost her virginity to a teacher at her school, and another had in todays terms been "groomed" at 14yo. None of it is right. But there is a disconnect between the PC legalistic response and the media hype that goes with it vs the actual problem. The problem is an over-sexualised society that does not pay appropriate respect personal boundaries. The problem is not whether A has a relationship with B. But because things are so screwed up that we put blanket rules in place to protect everyone, not realising that the excess protection itself doesn't solve the real problem and just adds another tension. Maybe this is a transition, and hopefully it will not last more than a decade. Having had that little rant, there is definitely a problem with authority figures having sexual relationships with people who consider them to be authority figures. Because it's emotionally equivalent to parent-child incest. But as has been pointed out above, the only proper way to make a relationship is to know somebody well over a fairly long period of time - and workplaces are particularly good meeting points in that regard.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thanks for the link Dinghy Sailor. Having read that, I am not sure about the absolute manner in which Doc Tor's opinion is expressed. No Prophet etc's comment sound a much more likely outcome.

Yes, this is probably right (as I said, IANAL).

I would, however, be very wary about joining any company that thought it ought to control my private life.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ahleal V:
Whilst I can understand the wariness about clergy dating within their flock, I still get rather frustrated about the presumptions that clerics are (or should be, in a perfect world) either married or celibate, and not 'looking.'

If an Anglican cleric is in the parish six days a week, where are they supposed to meet a potential spouse on their one day off? Trawling singles bars? Teh intarwebz? Speed-dating? Tindr?

Because it seems to me the results of those are far more likely to end up in a mess than someone who attends Evensong once a month...
x
AV

I was in the odd position recently of a curate in Toronto asking me how she should go about dating-- I advised her to use her day off in useful recreation-- a hiking club or a cross-country group; or perhaps in language classes. Such activities were: a) useful in themselves, b) fun-- at least for her personality, and c) a place where one would be more likely to meet men in a way where one could get to know them, size them up, and assess if there's any mutual attraction.

While I might make an exception for choral evensong (party because a US clerical friend recently married a Mormon who had wandered into vespers as he had misinterpreted directions to a choral group-- her bridal shower speech praised her for bringing a heretic back into the bosom of the church, one bosom at a time), dating in a parish, aside from any guidelines or rules, can be a very bad idea, or just awkward (Barbara Pym novels passim), even if it has worked out well for a few of my clerical friends. Shipmates who are fans of (or just curious about) tindr, can read a Toronto comedian's account of her tindr date with a cleric of the Diocese of Ottawa.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

I hope she's funnier and more replete with pithy observation on stage then in print, or she's in for a short and inglorious career [Smile]

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
The whole culture has changed since WW2 ... RD Laing considered it not inappropriate to have sexual relations his staff as part of the training process. ...

quote:
... The problem is an over-sexualised society that does not pay appropriate respect personal boundaries. ...

That really doesn't look like much of a change to me. If someone claims it's part of their job to fuck their secretary, they clearly don't respect the secretary's personal boundaries.

It's absurd to think that all the shit we talk about in the open today wasn't happening in secret in the past.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Originally posted by itsarumdo

quote:
The whole culture has changed since WW2 - take a look at "Schindlers List" and the arrangement for secretaries... RD Laing considered it not inappropriate to have sexual relations his staff as part of the training process. And it's not very long ago that psychotherapists were the first professional group to officially recognise that this is Not A Good Thing and ban it, because this is in this context a gross violation of boundaries.

All rubbish, else it would have been more open. "Hello, dear wife, just rang to say I'll be home late, so don't wait for me to eat. No, no meeting, just fucking the secretary. Oh, and we might go dogging later, so put the children to bed without me. love you, ta".

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
I hope she's funnier and more replete with pithy observation on stage then in print, or she's in for a short and inglorious career

I have no idea, never having heard her on stage but, as I once was wont to tell graduate students, the written word and the presented message will always be very different, and if this be not the case, then they will fail in communicating. Comedy is a humourlessly unforgiving genre, so if she's getting gigs, I suppose that she's succesful.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
RD Laing considered it not inappropriate to have sexual relations his staff as part of the training process.

Reference please. I cannot find anything to confirm your contention.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think you may be referring to his time at Kingsley Hall? I'm not sure that relationships between staff were exactly promoted when he was with the Tavistock Clinic but then he did work at other places even when nominally at the TC, notably seeing some private patients in a separate unit of Guy's called the York Clinic.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0