@CalabrianQueen said:

@SpecialFlowers said:

@CalabrianQueen said:

I've dated guys at jobs too Lemons, it's bound to happen . Proximity breeds either attraction or contempt....

And despite popular opinion the most likely place to meet your spouse is at work, more common than any other place.

Yes, I've actually always taken issue with workplaces who have policies against co-workers dating. I don't personally think that a workplace should be able to regulate one's personal life. However, if people do decide to date a co-worker, they should act with professionalism within the workplace and should be subject to disciplinary action if they don't, same as any other types of unprofessional behaviors would lead to.

In other words, if you're going to date a co-worker, leave the mush/PDA until you leave the building.

Bingo. I used to work in a department store, one my first jobs, and we had a really young manager. I knew for a fact he was messing around with half the girls who worked for him.

Now THAT should be zero tolerance because it involves a boss and an employee. Two workers on the same level dating outside shouldn't be scrutinized to that extent unless it has a tangible affect on the workplace.

I like the sound of that; except that too many times it's not the relationship-part which causes hellfire and brimstone to rain down on a workplace, but the after-relationship-part.

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@CalabrianQueen said:

@SpecialFlowers said:

@CalabrianQueen said:

I've dated guys at jobs too Lemons, it's bound to happen . Proximity breeds either attraction or contempt....

And despite popular opinion the most likely place to meet your spouse is at work, more common than any other place.

Yes, I've actually always taken issue with workplaces who have policies against co-workers dating. I don't personally think that a workplace should be able to regulate one's personal life. However, if people do decide to date a co-worker, they should act with professionalism within the workplace and should be subject to disciplinary action if they don't, same as any other types of unprofessional behaviors would lead to.

In other words, if you're going to date a co-worker, leave the mush/PDA until you leave the building.

Bingo. I used to work in a department store, one my first jobs, and we had a really young manager. I knew for a fact he was messing around with half the girls who worked for him.

Now THAT should be zero tolerance because it involves a boss and an employee. Two workers on the same level dating outside shouldn't be scrutinized to that extent unless it has a tangible affect on the workplace.

I like the sound of that; except that too many times it's not the relationship-part which causes hellfire and brimstone to rain down on a workplace, but the after-relationship-part.

With The Big Bang Theory, there is the advantage of it being a TV show and the writers can do whatever they want. Most likely if Stewart and Denise ever have a relationship and then break up, the writers can just quietly write her off the show. I'm not sure that they would take the time to create a bunch of drama around a secondary character like Stuart.

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Knixon said:

Yes that's true, but it also means that if a company/management becomes aware of such a thing, *they would be obligated to act *- insist the relationship end, demote or fire one of the participants, etc - or else lose that legal shield. It's the same for companies that have "sexual harassment" policies etc, but can be shown to have not enforced them, or to have done so with bias etc.

Upon knowing, the only thing they would be obligated to do is follow the guidelines outlined in their "strict policy against".

If it calls for any or or all of the things you mentioned +, and they "failed to act", then, yes I think they would be equally liable.

What would be the point of having a "policy" if not to keep them from happening? Anything less would be arguably insufficient, in court, if anything goes wrong. And it's really only the ones that go wrong, that would cause trouble. But you can't really have a policy only against relationships that go bad. The only way to be sure you have no relationships that go bad, is to have NO RELATIONSHIPS.

@SpecialFlowers said:

With The Big Bang Theory, there is the advantage of it being a TV show and the writers can do whatever they want. Most likely if Stewart and Denise ever have a relationship and then break up, the writers can just quietly write her off the show. I'm not sure that they would take the time to create a bunch of drama around a secondary character like Stuart.

That's why my idea of dragging Howard and Bernadette into it, as co-owners of the store due to Deb-Deb's investment, could work.

@Knixon said:

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

@Knixon said:

Yes that's true, but it also means that if a company/management becomes aware of such a thing, *they would be obligated to act *- insist the relationship end, demote or fire one of the participants, etc - or else lose that legal shield. It's the same for companies that have "sexual harassment" policies etc, but can be shown to have not enforced them, or to have done so with bias etc.

Upon knowing, the only thing they would be obligated to do is follow the guidelines outlined in their "strict policy against".

If it calls for any or or all of the things you mentioned +, and they "failed to act", then, yes I think they would be equally liable.

What would be the point of having a "policy" if not to keep them from happening? Anything less would be arguably insufficient, in court, if anything goes wrong. And it's really only the ones that go wrong, that would cause trouble. But you can't really have a policy only against relationships that go bad. The only way to be sure you have no relationships that go bad, is to have NO RELATIONSHIPS.

That don't make no kind of sense.

What don't you understand? A policy that says "no disruptive romantic relationships between employees" would be rather useless. The ones that aren't disruptive, are already no problem. But you're not going to have a potential for disruptive relationships, unless you have SOME relationships. The problem is, nobody can see in advance if it's going to end up being disruptive because of a bad breakup or whatever. And once you get to that point, the policy isn't likely to carry a lot of weight, and you're likely to have one side or the other expecting the company and/or other employees to take their side, etc. So the only way to really avoid the problem is to make it NO RELATIONSHIPS and then it has to be enforced. Because if it's not enforced, you still end up in court when one of those relationships eventually - inevitably - goes bad.

That's just how things are NOW, of course. I think relationships are basically inevitable and a policy trying to deny that is foolish, even counter-productive to society overall. But companies need to have the power to deal with disruptive people/relationships, and these days they have too many legal restrictions for that to work. If a couple breaks up and the woman goes bananas, the company doesn't dare fire her because that would be "Sexist" and they would be sued. If the man goes bananas, even if the man is fired, the company gets sued for "allowing a hostile work environment." etc.

@Knixon said:

What don't you understand? A policy that says "no disruptive romantic relationships between employees" would be rather useless. The ones that aren't disruptive, are already no problem. But you're not going to have a potential for disruptive relationships, unless you have SOME relationships. The problem is, nobody can see in advance if it's going to end up being disruptive because of a bad breakup or whatever. And once you get to that point, the policy isn't likely to carry a lot of weight, and you're likely to have one side or the other expecting the company and/or other employees to take their side, etc. So the only way to really avoid the problem is to make it NO RELATIONSHIPS and then it has to be enforced. Because if it's not enforced, you still end up in court when one of those relationships eventually - inevitably - goes bad.

That's just how things are NOW, of course. I think relationships are basically inevitable and a policy trying to deny that is foolish, even counter-productive to society overall. But companies need to have the power to deal with disruptive people/relationships, and these days they have too many legal restrictions for that to work. If a couple breaks up and the woman goes bananas, the company doesn't dare fire her because that would be "Sexist" and they would be sued. If the man goes bananas, even if the man is fired, the company gets sued for "allowing a hostile work environment." etc.

I don’t understand how anyone could think that any sane, adult person would even suggest that a company could have/would have/should have “happy relationships only” guidelines as part of its personnel policy on employee conduct.

Well...

I’m sane, I’m an adult, and I’m a person; and I do not think that. If that’s what you took away from what I wrote in a previous post, then—“What we've got here is failure to communicate.”

That was my point. Especially these days, companies can't afford to tolerate any office romance, so their policy has to be "none," not something like "okay as long as it doesn't cause trouble." Which is a shame because, historically, relationships that begin at work have been among the most common. They also can't afford to SAY "none" but then look the other way until something gets messy. They would end up in court for that, too.

Some people will always take the chance anyway, but they should be prepared for the consequences.

@Knixon said:

That was my point. Especially these days, companies can't afford to tolerate any office romance, so their policy has to be "none," not something like "okay as long as it doesn't cause trouble." Which is a shame because, historically, relationships that begin at work have been among the most common. They also can't afford to SAY "none" but then look the other way until something gets messy. They would end up in court for that, too.

Some people will always take the chance anyway, but they should be prepared for the consequences.

My company doesn't explicitly ban relationships between employees but there's certainly a form of "don't ask ,don't tell" built in written policy.

Basically as long as no one knows there's nothing HR can do. But like you said, once what's unknown becomes known be prepared for repercussions.