SL Trib article on co-worker interactions

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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

I think you are selling yourself short.

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

In other words it wasn't the professional one on ones that caused their affair, it could have been the unprofessional ones, I suppose.  maybe even masked under the guise of professional, i'd wager. 

[ttribe]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

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

 

3. 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.

1. Don't be obtuse.  Things change over time, Scott.  Organizational cultures change.  Employment trends change.  I think the length of time any individual spends in an organization will color his/her perception of what is happening elsewhere.

2. Now, you're just being snarky.  Let me inform you of something Scott - I have been in many different organizations both as an employee and as a consultant.  I have professionally observed the profound impact of culture.  I cannot imagine that the Church doesn't influence the policies, procedures, and culture in place at the Deseret News.

3. No one is saying reasonable accommodations can't be made; the point is that accommodating your standards cannot result in the ostracization or career impediment of a co-worker.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

1. Don't be obtuse.  Things change over time, Scott.  Organizational cultures change.  Employment trends change.  I think the length of time any individual spends in an organization will color his/her perception of what is happening elsewhere.

So how long before this amnesia sets in? Five years? 10? Longer?

Quote

2. Now, you're just being snarky.  Let me inform you of something Scott - I have been in many different organizations both as an employee and as a consultant.  I have professionally observed the profound impact of culture.  I cannot imagine that the Church doesn't influence the policies, procedures, and culture in place at the Deseret News.

So your view of what happens at a Church-owned commercial enterprise is based not on first-hand information or personal experience but on your imagination of what it must be like there.

 

Quote

3. No one is saying reasonable accommodations can't be made; the point is that accommodating your standards cannot result in the ostracization or career impediment of a co-worker.

And no one that I've seen so far is arguing for "ostracization or career impediment of a co-worker. I have seen, though, the strong suggestion if not outright advocacy, that the standard (someone here called it a "mindset") of not being alone with someone of the opposite sex who is not your spouse is old-fashioned, outmoded thinking that needs to be discarded for the sake of those who might think they are suffering "ostracization or career impediment" as a result of it.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

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.

I guess that is my point.  I feel that the church has gone too far by not allowing women in the work place to have a business meeting over lunch just because that meeting is with a male co worker.  It seems like more of the micromanagement of peoples lives that the church is so famous for.  If the church policy was no business lunches for anyone at least that would be less discriminating against women.  It seems like the church only looks at things from one point of view and can't see the opposite side of that coin.  

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

1. So how long before this amnesia sets in? Five years? 10? Longer?

2. So your view of what happens at a Church-owned commercial enterprise is based on your imagination of what it must be like there.

 

And no one that I've seen so far is arguing for "ostracization or career impediment of a co-worker]. I have seen, though, the strong suggestion if not outright advocacy, that the standard (someone here called it a "mindset") of not being alone with someone of the opposite sex who is not your spouse is old-fashioned, outmoded thinking that needs to be discarded for the sake of those who might think they are suffering "ostracization or career impediment" as a result of it.

1. Notice I'm not the one being snarky and rude here...

2. Scott, you demand respect for your professional acumen and insights on this board.  You could stand to show others the same courtesy.

3. You've seen a "strong suggestion"...that's not the same as someone actually saying it.

Edited August 15, 2017 by ttribe

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

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.

 

If you feel that way, could you answer the other part of my post?

Quote

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?  

 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

It seems to me that there is a lot of overlap between the people here who

a) were outraged at the thought that at least some of the women claiming sexual assault at BYU were at least partially responsible because they were willingly in situations that the Honor Code would have protected them from

and

b) find it unacceptable that some encourage avoiding situations where emotional bonds can develop at work.

It's interesting.

I'm not saying that people should never be alone at work with people of the opposite sex. But I frankly found the thought in the linked OP article that not having one-on-one lunches or meetings on precautionary grounds to be sexist and discriminatory to be absurd.

[california boy]

1 hour 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.

I think HJW did answer your question quite well.  What do you think of what he wrote?

Quote

 

HappyJackWagon

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.

Edit: I see that you did respond to his comments.  And yes, I think your views are unrealistic in todays world.  Women now work in the workforce.  They have responsibility to do their job.  They are treated as equals in today's world.  Their employer expects women to do their job just as the employer expects men to do their jobs.  If the woman feels the need to drag her husband around on every flight, every client meeting, every lunch, every trip, then they should pay for it themselves.  The company has no responsibility to chaperone it's employees.  They are adults.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by california boy

[Okrahomer]

I don't eat lunch--I run.  I have been invited to lunch by male and female colleagues at work, but I almost never accept.  Declining has nothing to do with my fears about being alone with someone of the opposite sex; rather, it has to do with my desire to maintain my health and my sanity (i.e., clarity of thought.)  If all the important deal-making is going on over lunch, I'm in deep trouble.

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess that is my point.  I feel that the church has gone too far by not allowing women in the work place to have a business meeting over lunch just because that meeting is with a male co worker.  It seems like more of the micromanagement of peoples lives that the church is so famous for.  If the church policy was no business lunches for anyone at least that would be less discriminating against women.  It seems like the church only looks at things from one point of view and can't see the opposite side of that coin.  

And I do not see a problem with going to lunch. Then again my business lunches are usually half of middle management and the tech experts all getting together to catch up on what is going on/gossip, come up with new ideas, present a united front on some proposals to the VPs, and basically fix the company. They are rarely one on one and that is probably the best way to do these things.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

I don't eat lunch--I run.  I have been invited to lunch by male and female colleagues at work, but I almost never accept.  Declining has nothing to do with my fears about being alone with someone of the opposite sex; rather, it has to do with my desire to maintain my health and my sanity (i.e., clarity of thought.)  If all the important deal-making is going on over lunch, I'm in deep trouble.

You are doomed......DOOMED!!!!!

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 

I'm wondering why you're not addressing this to Scott since he's the one I was quoting and who first accused another here of getting "spun up"?

And, in my honest estimation from reading through the thread, he was the only one getting defensive and riled up.  I really wondered if he'd had a bad personal experience with this (or a family member or close friend had).

Edited August 15, 2017 by JulieM

[The Nehor]

Yes, and some take it too far.

Before anyone goes crazy that is from a satirical article.

Edited August 15, 2017 by The Nehor

[stemelbow]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

It seems to me that there is a lot of overlap between the people here who

a) were outraged at the thought that at least some of the women claiming sexual assault at BYU were at least partially responsible because they were willingly in situations that the Honor Code would have protected them from

and

b) find it unacceptable that some encourage avoiding situations where emotional bonds can develop at work.

It's interesting.

I'm not saying that people should never be alone at work with people of the opposite sex. But I frankly found the thought in the linked OP article that not having one-on-one lunches or meetings on precautionary grounds to be sexist and discriminatory to be absurd.

Huh?  Maybe a bit mixed up on something?  Not sure what you're saying here

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

If you feel that way, could you answer the other part of my post?

I thought that post was directed at someone else, but I would be more than happy to answer.

 

Quote

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?  

I’m not sure what sorts of things have the power to change “the whole of human history,” but I suspect that ‘missionaries…enter[ing] a house when the husband is not present’ is going to be pretty far down on that list.

Of course, just because I don’t think that something would alter the “whole of human history” doesn’t mean that I think it’s irrational for the church to have a policy about it.

 

Quote

Should women be allowed to do anything with someone of the opposite sex without the husband present?  

Well, for starters, I should note that I have been happily married long enough to know that I don’t “allow” my wife to do anything.

But to answer your question, yes: I think there are all sorts of legitimate, perfectly acceptable things that a woman can do with someone of the opposite sex without her husband being present.

And there are also inappropriate things that can occur when members of the opposite sex spend time together. The former doesn’t negate the latter.

 

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

I didn't question your smartness, i stated that you knew i didn't mean what you claimed I meant.  

As for the example I have given, It's one of millions of cases.  

Conservative studies show that around 22% of men and 15% of women commit adultery each year.  Statistics claim (depending on who you ask) that 60-85% of infidelity begins at work.  "The office" is sited as the number one place where infidelity happens.  A Washington University study claims that 62% of men and 46% of women who cheated on a spouse did so with a work colleague.  

So we have roughly 71 million men and 48 million women who have/are cheating.  If 60% of those people are beginning their affairs at work, that's millions of cases where working in close proximity to someone of the opposite sex lead to adultery.  

Does that justify arguments against the article?  I personally think that it does.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

1. Notice I'm not the one being snarky and rude here...

he said, with snarkiness and rudeness.

Quote

2. Scott, you demand respect for your professional acumen and insights on this board.  You could stand to show others the same courtesy.

"Professional acumen and insights" don't trump inside knowledge and firsthand experience.

 

Quote

3. You've seen a "strong suggestion"...that's not the same as someone actually saying it.

 

You missed the phrase "if not outright advocacy."

Edited August 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, and some take it too far.

Before anyone goes crazy that is from a satirical article.

If you're going to be lampooned for something, this is a good thing to be lampooned over -- a backhanded compliment, in my view.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I'm wondering why you're not addressing this to Scott since he's the one I was quoting and who first accused another here of getting "spun up"?

And, in my honest estimation from reading through the thread, he was the only one getting defensive and riled up.  I really wondered if he'd had a bad personal experience with this (or a family member or close friend had).

Seriously? You really did miss the posts I was responding to from A Larson where he said I was being defensive and needed to take a break from the board? It was his overreaction that gave me the impression he was spun up.

This selective cognizance of yours is quite amusing.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

I'm wondering why you're not addressing this to Scott since he's the one I was quoting and who first accused another here of getting "spun up"?

And, in my honest estimation from reading through the thread, he was the only one getting defensive and riled up....

I am addressing it to everyone, your post was just the last I had read in the series.

And in my opinion, I am not seeing "riled up" in anyone as I said before.  I don't see much "riled up" on the board (I think many have been doing it so long they aren't shocked enough to get upset), but overtime in a lot of threads I do see a number thinking the other guy is.

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am addressing it to everyone, your post was just the last I had read in the series.

And in my opinion, I am not seeing "riled up" in anyone as I said before.  

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  

[Nofear]

37 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

 

Does that justify arguments against the article?  I personally think that it does.

It think this argument about lunch boils down to a societal choice on cost-benefit analysis.

As a society, we decided it was worth letting teenagers drive despite the fatalities. We/society illegalized alcohol because of rampant abuse and broken families, that it wasn't worth the benefit other non-abusing drinkers perceived (then we changed our minds). Many other examples.

Do mixed gender work interactions result in more infidelities? Yes. Are the societal costs of those infidelities worth the cost of social mores that might reduce them? With 47% of the paid workforce being female and decreased societal sensitivity to adultery, for many this changes the weightings in the cost-benefit analysis.

What I would prefer is that we/society don't punish (socially or otherwise) those who choose for themselves to take reasonable (subjective) precautions irrespective of changing societal norms and mores.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Nofear

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The company has no responsibility to chaperone it's employees.  They are adults.

Yeah, that's why so many companies make men and women share a single bedroom when traveling on business trips. You know, because they are adults.

[JulieM]

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Yeah, that's why so many companies make men and women share a single bedroom when traveling on business trips. You know, because they are adults.

What company makes 2 men traveling together share a single bedroom (or 2 women traveling together)?  I know my husband's does not and I can't imagine forcing them to share the same hotel room (and they are adults). 

Edited August 16, 2017 by JulieM