SL Trib article on co-worker interactions

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?
 

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.

 

First of all, I absolutely did not "attack" or "upbraid" Bernard.  You are really over reaching here and exaggerating to the extreme. 

Here is what 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 stand by that statement since it is the truth.

Then I even defended him by stating:

"However, I imagine he knows this does not only take place at "all female" gatherings."

I actually agree with Bernard that what he witnessed is something that I also try to avoid and I also detest.  

I never did state that an "all Mormon group" was involved with vulgarities.  You stated that and brought that word into the discussion here.

How about you just let Bernard respond to a comment directed at him (which he did and much better than you with your complete over reaction, exaggerations and false accusations.)?

Edited August 15, 2017 by ALarson

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Before they had the affair, they were 'the rest of us.' 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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?

Like I said you can go too far. You also should not be complacent. The choice is not one between enforcing complete separation from your gender preference or preferences or on the other hand taking no steps to prevent inappropriate emotional intimacy from forming.

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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).

 

 

Nobody is a perfect match for their spouse.  There will always be something someone feels like they are missing on some level, they may not recognize it or the strength of that need especially if they have buried it out of loyalty to their current relationship.  When someone comes along who unexpectedly fills a deep, inner need, the attraction won't always be understandable if we don't know the need it is based on.  And it can be hard to prepare for or control if we try and pretend those needs don't exist.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

14 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.

 

The work lunch is just one little example of how/when male and female co-workers are sometimes alone together. There are many other ways this happens as the natural course of business. If I and a female co-worker are traveling to an out of state conference should we take a chaperone with us when we drive together to the airport, fly, take a cab to the hotel/conference center? How does that work? I don't think my employer would be interested in paying for a chaperone.

What happens when I and a female employee or a female business partner are making business calls to prospective clients. Do we take separate cars? While I agree that care should be taken, it is unreasonable to think that there are not legitimate business needs for a male and female to be together to conduct business, wherever that might be. It's also unreasonable to expect there will always be a chaperone near by.

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Before they had the affair, they were 'the rest of us.' 

Oh.  So inevitably all of us if put in a situation in the professional world are one on one with someone of the opposite sex, well, we'll succumb.  Kind of like if each of us were in Adam and Eve's shoes we'd do the same thing.  Gotcha. 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

First of all, I absolutely did not attack 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 stand by that statement since it is the truth.

Then I even defended him by stating:

"However, I imagine he knows this does not only take place at "all female" gatherings."

I actually agree with Bernard that what he witnessed is something that I also try to avoid and detest.  

I never did state that and "all Mormon group" was involved with vulgarities.  You stated that and brought that word into the discussion here.

How about you just let Bernard respond to a comment directed at him (which he did and much better than you with your complete over reaction, exaggerations and false accusations.)?

How about you avoid imputing sexism, even by implication, when there is no justification for doing so?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, ttribe said:

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.

If you're saying I don't get why one-on-one lunch engagements absolutely have to be the means by which people advance professionally, you're right; I don't get it. So far no one here has made an effort to explain it.

Incidentally, I have not always worked for a Church-owned enterprise, and many of those who work where I work (Deseret News) are not Church members, so this objection seems to lack relevance.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

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?  

It’s not strange; it’s pragmatic. The policy is intended to avoid or minimize certain kinds of risk. Sort of like the no-swimming policy. Regardless of what one may think about Satan "riding upon the waters," it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that if you let thousands of missionaries go swimming one day a week (often in parts of the world where that activity is much more dangerous than what they are accustomed to) then the number water related missionary deaths is going to go up.

The policies relating to members of the opposite sex seem to be similar. I am sure church leaders are genuinely concerned about the moral risks associated with being alone with a member of the opposite sex due to the potential for impropriety.

However, that isn’t the only risk. There is also a legal risk involved. If a woman is alone with two male missionaries who represent the church in an official capacity and she claims that one (or both) of acted inappropriately, the church is going to have to deal with that. Having a third person present is going to make it much easier to handle those situations when they arise.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The work lunch is just one little example of how/when male and female co-workers are sometimes alone together. There are many other ways this happens as the natural course of business. If I and a female co-worker are traveling to an out of state conference should we take a chaperone with us when we drive together to the airport, fly, take a cab to the hotel/conference center? How does that work? I don't think my employer would be interested in paying for a chaperone.

What happens when I and a female employee or a female business partner are making business calls to prospective clients. Do we take separate cars? While I agree that care should be taken, it is unreasonable to think that there are not legitimate business needs for a male and female to be together to conduct business, wherever that might be. It's also unreasonable to expect there will always be a chaperone near by.

It is also unreasonable to conclude that there are not reasonable accommodations that can be made most of the time and therefore, the standard of not being alone with someone of the opposite sex if you are married is outmoded foolishness that should be discarded in today's enlightened society where adultery and divorce are rampant. That seems to be the message I'm getting from this thread.

 

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

How about you avoid imputing sexism, even by implication, when there is no justification for doing so?

 

Again, a complete over reaction.  Read my comments again as they are true and accurate (and I'd state them again).

Maybe you need a break from here?  You're even more reactionary today than you normally are.

 

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nobody is a perfect match for their spouse.  There will always be something someone feels like they are missing on some level, they may not recognize it or the strength of that need especially if they have buried it out of loyalty to their current relationship.  When someone comes along who unexpectedly fills a deep, inner need, the attraction won't always be understandable if we don't know the need it is based on.  And it can be hard to prepare for or control if we try and pretend those needs don't exist.

Exactly.  

Plus, people don't realize that our brains actually change when confronted with pleasing stimuli.  In an article about a the affects of porn addiction on the brain, Normon Doidge (a doctor, psychiatrist and psychoanalyst) said this-

"Until recently, scientists believed our brains were fixed, their circuits formed and finalised in childhood, or "hardwired". Now we know the brain is "neuroplastic", and not only can it change, but that it works by changing its structure in response to repeated mental experience."

So we can absolutely become attracted to someone that we weren't attracted to (or we can justify sin that we would never have justified previously), if we expose ourselves enough to experiences that support those changes.  Our brains literally change to support a new "reality".

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Oh.  So inevitably all of us if put in a situation in the professional world are one on one with someone of the opposite sex, well, we'll succumb.  Kind of like if each of us were in Adam and Eve's shoes we'd do the same thing.  Gotcha. 

I know you're smart enough to know that that's not what i was saying.  

 

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you're saying I don't get why one-on-one lunch engagements absolutely have to be the means by which people advance professionally, you're right; I don't get it. So far no one here has made an effort to explain it.

Incidentally, I have not always worked for a Church-owned enterprise, and many of those who work where I work (Deseret News) are not Church members, so this objection seems to lack relevance.

Oh, good grief.  How long, Scott?  How long have you worked at the Deseret News?  As to some of your fellow employees being non-members, that's rather beside the point given that the policies, procedures, and culture are heavily influenced by the Church's ownership of the organization.

BTW, if you are just going to focus on the word "lunch" then you've already set up an argument that can't be addressed.  The fact is there are many situations where it is both appropriate and necessary for a male employee to be alone with a female co-worker; whether it happens over lunch is not the real issue at hand.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I know you're smart enough to know that that's not what i was saying.  

 

No need to question someone's smarts here, Bluebell.  it's not about me.  or I try not to make it such.

Anyone can cheat on their spouse.  You seem to think that in this particular case the only way this guy was going to cheat was by liking some lady at his work.  I dont' know if this guy and lady somehow hooked up because they were having professional one on ones or not.  Or if they took lunches in their free time or went on business trips and in an unprofessional manner got together one on one.  But you seem against a man and woman having a one on one in a professional setting because this guy and lady cheated on their spouses and they work together.  That's about as much as I know.  I'm not sure this case really justifies argument against the article we are discussing on those grounds. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, good grief.  How long, Scott?  How long have you worked at the Deseret News?  

Why is this relevant? Do you think I've somehow forgotten what it's like to work elsewhere?
 

Quote

 

As to some of your fellow employees being non-members, that's rather beside the point given that the policies, procedures, and culture are heavily influenced by the Church's ownership of the organization.

 

So you are employed by the Deseret News as well? I didn't know. What department do you work in?

 

Quote

BTW, if you are just going to focus on the word "lunch" then you've already set up an argument that can't be addressed.  The fact is there are many situations where it is both appropriate and necessary for a male employee to be alone with a female co-worker; whether it happens over lunch is not the real issue at hand.

I already addressed this in my response post to HJW. I have to believe there are reasonable accommodations that can be made in most cases, enough that we don't need to require people to discard their personal standards as outmoded.

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Again, a complete over reaction.  Read my comments again as they are true and accurate (and I'd state them again).

Maybe you need a break from here?  You're even more reactionary today than you normally are.

 

Maybe you need to. You're getting awfully spun up over this. All I've done is respond to your accusatory posts.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

No need to question someone's smarts here, Bluebell. 

 

Is that what she did? It appeared to me she expressed confidence in them.

[HappyJackWagon]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is also unreasonable to conclude that there are not reasonable accommodations that can be made most of the time and therefore, the standard of not being alone with someone of the opposite sex if you are married is outmoded foolishness that should be discarded in today's enlightened society where adultery and divorce are rampant. That seems to be the message I'm getting from this thread.

 

I shared a couple of examples beyond just the work lunch. What are the reasonable accommodations for those situations? Chaperones?

Should I take an unnecessary person on business calls if I'm going to be meeting with a woman? What are your reasonable accommodations?

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Is that what she did? It appeared to me she expressed confidence in them.

Well I have no idea what she was saying.  So....I guess I'm left questioning my own smarts thanks to her.

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You seem to think that in this particular case the only way this guy was going to cheat was by liking some lady at his work... 

I think you are really misreading what Bluebell said.  If possible, dump your assumptions and go back and reread because I don't think you can get to her actual position from this understanding.

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe you need to. You're getting awfully spun up over this. 

From reading through this thread, you're the only one I see getting all defensive and "spun up" in response to several posters (who are all remaining quite calm, IMO).  Is this a topic that hits close to home for you or do you have someone close to you that's had a bad experience related to it? (Sincere question because this subject seems to have hit a nerve for you.)

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I shared a couple of examples beyond just the work lunch. What are the reasonable accommodations for those situations? Chaperones?

Should I take an unnecessary person on business calls if I'm going to be meeting with a woman? What are your reasonable accommodations?

So you're saying that most of the time it's impractical to meet at an office or some other public place?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

From reading through this thread, you're the only one I see getting all defensive and "spun up" in response to several posters (who are all remaining quite calm, IMO).  Is this a topic that hits close to home for you or do you have someone close to you that's had a bad experience related to it? (Sincere question because this subject seems to have hit a nerve for you.)

No.

I'm just trying to see the sense in this notion that in this day and age it's impractical to observe wise precautions that might help avoid temptation, that we must discard the standards of the past. So far it has eluded me.

Does it really bother you that people might want to take such precautions? Seems to me like a matter of personal choice that harms no one.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, JulieM said:

From reading through this thread, you're the only one I see getting all defensive and "spun up" in response to several posters (who are all remaining quite calm, IMO).

I don't see anyone getting spun up, but much assuming the other guy is and that is why they need to be rebutted or challenged or whatever.  This seems to happen a lot to me on the board from all different types of positions.

It seems quite a waste of time to me until I think of the posts I have chosen to focus on in similar ways, so if people want to invest in this, why not?  I don't have to read it if I am not.  But the whole claiming it hit a nerve or is highly personal seems counterproductive when it looks more to me just a strong drive for accuracy on everyone's part.

It is easier to dismiss others' arguments if you assume they are emotionally based.  I wonder if this is why it often appears people are over eager to assume someone else is having an overly emotional reaction....we are all fundamentally lazy.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Calm