SL Trib article on co-worker interactions

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Something i've learned is before you accuse someone of something you had better be blooming sure what you think is going on is actually going on because you could be wrong. Par example, just after my sister got married I went Christmas shopping with her at a local mall and we went to the stores, had dinner and saw a movie, NBD. Well, apparently someone who knew my sister's husband but didn't know me called my sister  few days later and asked who the "other man" was and my sister was like um, what other man? and her dopey friend said she saw us together and thought she was cheating on her husband.....which wasn't the case

Yeah, I am the oldest in my family and my youngest sister is 17 years younger then me. She was in her late teens and we would go out to the movies or go out to dinner and I got some odd and disapproving looks. I probably looked like a creep trying to date a girl about half my age.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

This is one thing I find about the Mormon culture to be just a bit strange.  The whole not driving with someone of the opposite sex in the car with you.  Does the church still do the "if the wife is home alone, the missionaries can't come into the house?" Tell me that isn't strange.  Some grown woman is going to get turned on by 19 year old boys who all have to have no regard for personal morals?  If even one of them doesn't buy into the "let's have sex together before your husband or the kids come home scenario."  I am sure it has happened.  But where do you stop?  Should the wife be allowed to go grocery shopping without the husband there?  What if she picks up more than vegetables while she is there?  What if?  What if?  What if?  It is insulting to women and men to think that people with good morals can not control themselves.  And the whole gossip thing carries with it just as much shame on those that engage in it.  

While I agree we can go too far I would offer the whole of human history as a counterpoint to the idea that people can control themselves.

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Surely they didn't get busy during their business lunch at a restaurant, right? So it seems like if someone is going to stray, they are going to find a way. Unless one goes the route of the muslim woman who will never be alone or even shake hands with a man who is not familial, then I'm not sure what the answer is, other than using good judgment and caution.

 

They didn't, but it was at lunch that he realized how much fun she was to hang out with and how much he enjoyed spending time with her.  Them having a relationship where they were comfortable spending time along together allowed them to justify more and more alone time together (always with the excuse of 'it's for work,' even if it wasn't actually necessary for work), eventually leading to adultery for both of them.

He had no intention of ever straying.  It was nothing he ever thought he would even be capable of.  In fact, his wife would ask him not to have one-on-one lunches alone with female colleagues and he would scoff at her to himself, telling himself that there was no danger because he was a covenant keeper who would NEVER do something like that and that she was being completely irrational.

(I know it seems like i know a lot about this situation and it's because i know everything about it.  She's my closest/oldest friend and i was her only sounding board when she was going through all of this.  Everything her husband told her, she would relay to me as she worked out her feelings.)

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by bluebell

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

I think this depends on your industry and what your job is. My husband has working lunches scheduled daily with different companies, clients, architects and designers. He doesn't ask if their rep is male or female and he meets with who he needs to meet with. They meet at public restaurants.  

I agree --- I think it absolutely does depend. Even in industries where lunches are expected or ubiquitous, I find it strange that people have to see lunch as part of their job. It's outside of my ken and experience.

My daughter is in this male dominated business and is often alone with male co-workers on job sites. She has a performance review today with her Vice President, a Mormon bishop. Should he not meet alone with her? Do you feel they should be chaperoned?

No. It doesn't sound like it's over lunch, though. I would find a performance review in that setting to be weird.

*Just wanted to add in college, she was often the only female in class and she spent a lot of time in one on one study sessions (often tutoring) Her best friend in her program was a married man. For her scholarship she met alone for lunch with a married man for her interview.

Why lunch? I don't get it.

Mentorship is very important in certain fields.

As HappyJack pointed out, the actual act of adultery isn't likely to break out at lunch or in initial one-on-one settings. The lead up to these sorts of things start in settings like these, where emotional and attachment infidelity incubates first. 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They didn't, but it was at lunch that he realized how much fun she was to hang out with and how much he enjoyed spending time with her.  Them having a relationship where they were comfortable spending time along together allowed them to justify more and more alone time together (always with the excuse of 'it's for work,' even if it wasn't actually necessary for work), eventually leading to adultery for both of them.

He had no intention of ever straying.  It was nothing he ever thought he would even be capable of.  In fact, his wife would ask him not to have one-on-one lunches alone with female colleagues and he would scoff at her to himself, telling himself that there was no danger because he was a covenant keeper who would NEVER do something like that and that she was being completely irrational.

(I know it seems like i know a lot about this situation and it's because i know everything about it.  She's my closest/oldest friend and i was her only sounding board when she was going through all of this.  Everything her husband told her, she would relay to me as she worked out her feelings.)

 

I'm not saying these things don't happen, or that there isn't any risk to it. Clearly there is. But it would be wrong of me as an employer to treat my employees differently based on their gender. If my male employees get extra perks or opportunities because they are male and I'm comfortable being around them, then it's discriminatory to the women. I can't choose to only develop my male employees, or take them to lunches, or drive with them to appointments, and neglect my female employees by refusing to do the same things

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, rongo said:

As HappyJack pointed out, the actual act of adultery isn't likely to break out at lunch or in initial one-on-one settings. The lead up to these sorts of things start in settings like these, where emotional and attachment infidelity incubates first. 

Yes, but emotional attachments begin in all kinds of environments, not just business related activities. We've probably all heard the term, work-husband, or work-wife, which refers to a member of the opposite gender who is your go-to person at work. A kind of buddy. I think that is exceptionally dangerous. Far more fraught than development or business lunches

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

That's exactly what he did.  However, I imagine he knows this does not only take place at "all female" gatherings.

And, you'd be all over a comment that only mentioned an "all Mormon" group in a derogatory manner and stating that it's not right to be "singling anybody out".

No, I don't approve of vulgarity from anybody, and would be especially incensed if it were coming from a Mormon group.

What makers you think I would defend Mormons engaging in vulgarity? What a strange comment.

 

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Why lunch? I don't get it.

Because the man was the Vice President of the construction company giving the scholarship and that is when he had time to meet with candidates? I think it might have even been dinner...does that make it worse? 

 

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While I agree we can go too far I would offer the whole of human history as a counterpoint to the idea that people can control themselves.

This is a sad but true statement. I liked this story from Vox on this issue because I remembered when  the 2015 article came out about this issue on Congressional staffs. https://www.vox.com/conversations/2017/3/31/15136548/congress-sexism-mike-pence-vp-billy-graham  Women are in the work force so how should these things be handled. Good managers meet one on one with employees and casual settings are even recommended. https://blog.impraise.com/360-feedback/1-on-1s-for-engaged-employees-how-good-managers-should-do-them-performance-review

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I think the whole notion of "working lunches," "power lunches," "networking through lunch," etc. to be gag-worthy. 

I hate the very concept of transacting business over lunch and will avoid it whenever I can.

If, say, I am interviewing someone for a news story, I don't want to be focused on my sandwich while at the same time trying to elicit quotable comments from him and keeping the conversation on track.

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What makers you think I would defend Mormons engaging in vulgarity? What a strange comment.

Where did I state that they were "engaging in vulgarity"?  (I didn't, those are your words, not mine.  I used the word "derogatory".) 

Edited August 15, 2017 by ALarson

[bsjkki]

42 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They didn't, but it was at lunch that he realized how much fun she was to hang out with and how much he enjoyed spending time with her.  Them having a relationship where they were comfortable spending time along together allowed them to justify more and more alone time together (always with the excuse of 'it's for work,' even if it wasn't actually necessary for work), eventually leading to adultery for both of them.

He had no intention of ever straying.  It was nothing he ever thought he would even be capable of.  In fact, his wife would ask him not to have one-on-one lunches alone with female colleagues and he would scoff at her to himself, telling himself that there was no danger because he was a covenant keeper who would NEVER do something like that and that she was being completely irrational.

(I know it seems like i know a lot about this situation and it's because i know everything about it.  She's my closest/oldest friend and i was her only sounding board when she was going through all of this.  Everything her husband told her, she would relay to me as she worked out her feelings.)

 

Affairs begin in many ways and just like looking out for predators, if your feelings about someone are in dangerous territory, the right things to do is not see them and shut those feelings down. Many years ago, in my ward at the time, two couples became friends. They did a lot together. Two members of the friendship had an affair. Two marriages were destroyed. Should couples not be friends? I am very sad for your friend. These things are devastating. My sisters street in Utah has a lot of divorces. One man ended up marrying the babysitter. These were faithful, active families so I understand the need for precautions but I would caution not to take precautions that will get you sued.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

While I agree we can go too far I would offer the whole of human history as a counterpoint to the idea that people can control themselves.

So do you think that not allowing missionaries to enter a house when the husband is not present will change the whole of human history?  Should women be allowed to do anything with someone of the opposite sex without the husband present?  

I can't tell you how many times I have had lunch with both men and women alone related to business.  Never had an affair with either.  Judging someone as being unable to control their libido just because they are with someone of the opposite sex is a big leap.  And the punishment for that leap is to shut them out of business discussions that might be held over lunch?  How about in the office.  Just as many illicit affairs have occurred with someone at work who have never gone out to lunch together?  Should we bar women from working in an office when males are present?

Edited August 15, 2017 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where did I state that they were "engaging in vulgarity"?  (I didn't, those are your words, not mine.  I used the word "derogatory".) 

What is under discussion here is a group that specifically was engaging in vulgarity. It was in that context you attacked Bernard Gui for saying he was uncomfortable with it, and then you accused me of a double standard. I'm saying I don't tolerate vulgarity from any person or group, regardless of their background or gender.

The conversation is all here in black and white. Anybody can go back and follow it through.

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

They didn't, but it was at lunch that he realized how much fun she was to hang out with and how much he enjoyed spending time with her.  Them having a relationship where they were comfortable spending time along together allowed them to justify more and more alone time together (always with the excuse of 'it's for work,' even if it wasn't actually necessary for work), eventually leading to adultery for both of them.

He had no intention of ever straying.  It was nothing he ever thought he would even be capable of.  In fact, his wife would ask him not to have one-on-one lunches alone with female colleagues and he would scoff at her to himself, telling himself that there was no danger because he was a covenant keeper who would NEVER do something like that and that she was being completely irrational.

(I know it seems like i know a lot about this situation and it's because i know everything about it.  She's my closest/oldest friend and i was her only sounding board when she was going through all of this.  Everything her husband told her, she would relay to me as she worked out her feelings.)

 

It does take two.  Surely the other woman knew he was married? 

I think I've handled my professional encounters and one on ones with women quite professionally.  I'm not sure why some struggle.  Luckily for all of us, this isn't a heterosexual thing.  If woman-man one on ones are problematic so should woman-woman and man-man, in the same sense.  It's not always we know people's sexual preference.  Then again, if the woman or man is gay and they are one on one, there should be no danger?  Or should there?  Where does this worrisome stuff all end? 

 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, but emotional attachments begin in all kinds of environments, not just business related activities. We've probably all heard the term, work-husband, or work-wife, which refers to a member of the opposite gender who is your go-to person at work. A kind of buddy. I think that is exceptionally dangerous. Far more fraught than development or business lunches

This, shouldn't-be-alone-in-a-professional-capacity-with-another, comes off more of a "hey lady, stop dressing like that cause you're making men want to assault you" type of reasoning to me.  We need to accept that in any environment we're responsible for our actions. 

Edited August 15, 2017 by stemelbow

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It does take two.  Surely the other woman knew he was married? 

I think I've handled my professional encounters and one on ones with women quite professionally.  I'm not sure why some struggle.  Luckily for all of us, this isn't a heterosexual thing.  If woman-man one on ones are problematic so should woman-woman and man-man, in the same sense.  It's not always we know people's sexual preference.  Then again, if the woman or man is gay and they are one on one, there should be no danger?  Or should there?  Where does this worrisome stuff all end? 

 

She knew he was married.  She was also married.  And pregnant when the affair began.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

She knew he was married.  She was also married.  And pregnant when the affair began.

yeah...this seems far less a problem of one on ones in a professional sense and more of a problem of two people taking advantage of opportunity. I'm sure they're both sorry they did.  But, it feels rather irresponsible on the both of their parts, rather immature.  I don't blame anyone but them.  Not sure how others would, reasonably. 

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What is under discussion here is a group that specifically was engaging in vulgarity. It was in that context you attacked Bernard Gui for saying he was uncomfortable with it, and then you accused me of a double standard. I'm saying I don't tolerate vulgarity from any person or group, regardless of their background or gender.

 

Wow.  Exaggerate much?  

You call this an "attack" on Bernard?

I stated:

"That of course takes place with groups of men and mixed groups as well.  I wouldn't just single out "all-female" lunches."

And, I never did state that an "all Mormon" group was involved in vulgarity.  Again, those were your words.  I was just using them as an example (that you could relate to) of how we shouldn't single out just one group in discussions such as this one.  

You seem way overly defensive today.

Edited August 15, 2017 by ALarson

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not saying these things don't happen, or that there isn't any risk to it. Clearly there is. But it would be wrong of me as an employer to treat my employees differently based on their gender. If my male employees get extra perks or opportunities because they are male and I'm comfortable being around them, then it's discriminatory to the women. I can't choose to only develop my male employees, or take them to lunches, or drive with them to appointments, and neglect my female employees by refusing to do the same things

I agree.

I don't see any reason though to make one-on-one lunch dates an issue of "men and women having one-on-one lunch dates together" or "gender discrimination."  That seems like a false dichotomy to me.

I realize that there are some times when it's inevitable.  I think those moments are much fewer than many people are willing to admit.  And certainly companies and bosses can go a long way towards not creating environments that manufacture inevitabilities that don't need to exist.

I don't think that a lot of people realize how much satan works against us in these kinds of situations.  I really didn't until this happened to her.  My friend was in some pretty intense couple's counseling for the better part of a year after this, and part of it was group counseling with other couples.  She never told me any names or identifying characteristics but sometimes she would tell me some of their stories or stories that their counselor would bring up.  One was about a bishop and RS president who decided to travel together for some stake meetings because the building was quite a few miles away.  The Bishop was happily married and so was the RS president.  Furthermore, they were not at all physically attracted to each other (the RS president was quite a bit overweight and the Bishop's wife didn't mind at all that they were spending time together because she new her husband would never be attracted to that kind of look).  Both were stalwart members who no one worried about in regards to those kinds of sins.  But the pair formed a close friendship during those moments and eventually had an affair.  It was of course devastating.  

This was not the only similar story she was presented with but i think that one has stuck with me so long because it shows how we really don't understand ourselves that well when it comes to these types of issues.  Everyone figured, because the woman was obese and the everyone was happily married and strong members that of course nothing would happen.  What man would have an affair with an obese woman when he had a pretty wife at home and so much was at stake?  It made no sense.   But it happened anyway because we're not rational creatures, and we don't understand how our brains really work (or how satan really works either I don't think).

 

 

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

yeah...this seems far less a problem of one on ones in a professional sense and more of a problem of two people taking advantage of opportunity. I'm sure they're both sorry they did.  But, it feels rather irresponsible on the both of their parts, rather immature.  I don't blame anyone but them.  Not sure how others would, reasonably. 

Of course it's irresponsible.  Of course it's immature.  Of course no one is to blame but them.  I can't think of a single situation where adultery is involved (whatever the circumstance) where all that wouldn't be true, can you? 

Those are all complete givens.  It doesn't change a single thing though.  Two people who were otherwise known for being responsible, mature, stable, extremely smart adults (one with a strong testimony of the church, both high up in the company) still committed adultery, even with all that being true.

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow.  Exaggerate much?  

You call this an "attack" on Bernard?

I stated:

"That of course takes place with groups of men and mixed groups as well.  I wouldn't just single out "all-female" lunches."

Call it what you will. You upbraided him for allegedly singling out this group because they are female. I already explained to you why I thought that fact interesting, as generally it is men who are accused of (and are guilty of) sexual harassment. You unjustly made Bernard's comment out to be some sort of sexist pecadillo. Who is the one being oversensitive here?
 

Quote

 

And, I never did state that an "all Mormon" group was involved in vulgarity.  Again, those were your words.  I was just using them as an example (that you could relate to) of how we shouldn't single out just one group in discussions such as this one.  

 

 

 

It wasn't just a matter of Bernard being "derogatory." Specifically, this group was engaging in vulgarity, and that's what made Bernard so uncomfortable that he left. If you're going to devise a hypothetical regarding Mormons, make it relevant. Again, I would not excuse vulgarity from any group, Mormon or not, so your attempt to make this into a case of a double standard fails.

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Affairs begin in many ways and just like looking out for predators, if your feelings about someone are in dangerous territory, the right things to do is not see them and shut those feelings down.

That goes without saying.

I can't think of a single person who has committed adultery who was a member that did not know that and believe it.  

Quote

Many years ago, in my ward at the time, two couples became friends. They did a lot together. Two members of the friendship had an affair. Two marriages were destroyed. Should couples not be friends? I am very sad for your friend. These things are devastating. My sisters street in Utah has a lot of divorces. One man ended up marrying the babysitter. These were faithful, active families so I understand the need for precautions but I would caution not to take precautions that will get you sued.

Thankfully for my friend, her marriage could be saved (so far), because her husband humbled himself to the dust and accepted completely responsibility.  That does not mean it has not been a tragic road for them.  It's been almost two years now and she has PTSD that affects her, her relationship with her husband, and her children.  She loves him and has forgiven him, he is once again right with the church, but the consequences still crash over them like unrelenting waves on some days.

I think that if people knew what truly was at stake, and how precarious the line was between 'good' and 'destroyed' they would see taking precautions in a completely different way.  I know that my friend's husband can't believe how utterly blind he used to be to the dangers, even while doing everything he could to be as close to the spirit as possible.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Of course it's irresponsible.  Of course it's immature.  Of course no one is to blame but them.  I can't think of a single situation where adultery is involved (whatever the circumstance) where all that wouldn't be true, can you? 

Those are all complete givens.  It doesn't change a single thing though.  Two people who were otherwise known for being responsible, mature, stable, extremely smart adults (one with a strong testimony of the church, both high up in the company) still committed adultery, even with all that being true.

of course.  And two adults were weren't workmates in any sense have also cheated and had affairs.  If people are going to be so irresponsible that they let an affair build in a professional environment, then so be it.  But the rest of us need not suffer discomfort because of them. 

[Scott Lloyd]

If a supervisor is going to create or foster a work environment where professional advancement depends to a great deal on one-on-one lunch engagements with subordinates, he/she needs to make doubly certain the playing field is leveled in some way for married persons who, because of personal standards, avoid being alone with a person of the opposite sex. Otherwise it presents another form of discrimination as bad as discrimination against subordinates due to their gender.

Maybe one-on-one luncheons, because they are so fraught with problems, are simply a bad way to network and gauge advancement potential and ought to be avoided altogether.

 

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If a supervisor is going to create or foster a work environment where professional advancement depends to a great deal on one-on-one lunch engagements with subordinates, he/she needs to make doubly certain the playing field is leveled in some way for married persons who, because of personal standards, avoid being alone with a person of the opposite sex. Otherwise it presents another form of discrimination as bad as discrimination against subordinates due to their gender.

Maybe one-on-one luncheons, because they are so fraught with problems, are simply a bad way to network and gauge advancement potential and ought to be avoided altogether.

 

Scott, I hate to say this, but you work at a Church-owned organization; you may not have the most well-informed perspective on how the workplace functions for the majority of the rest of us.