SL Trib article on co-worker interactions

[ttribe]

19 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.

Huh?  Never had such a thing happen to me.  Although, I did tell one of my (male) coworkers that we were sharing a room on the way to the hotel when we had to go out of town on a case...should have seen the look on his face.  It was priceless.  He was very relieved when I told him I wasn't serious.

Edited August 16, 2017 by ttribe

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.

Is agree unprofessional meet ups often lead to in office romances.  Keeping mg it professional helps

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Nofear said:

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.

Exactly.  People should be able to do their own cost-benefit analysis when it comes to something where so much is at stake and where the risk for a disastrous outcome can be relatively high.  

I'm also wary of anyone who would teach that people need to ignore the risks or where the only risk they acknowledge is predatory colleagues. 

[Danzo]

8 hours 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

me and my sister used to live in the same ward a few years back. We are both married she has a different last name. people would always think something was up when they saw us spending so much time together. We still laugh about it.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Is agree unprofessional meet ups often lead to in office romances.  Keeping mg it professional helps

I agree.  It's another one of those things that goes without saying.  

[Danzo]

7 hours 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

real question,  if you found an employee attractive and you liked her, would your desire not to discriminate be more important than avoiding the temptations?

Is non discrimination the most important thing in your business?

[Amulek]

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Huh?  Never had such a thing happen to me.  

I know. It's a pretty rare occurrence. That's what I was (sarcastically) trying to get at. Maybe next time I'll add more emoji (or is it emojis)? 

 

Quote

Although, I did tell one of my (male) coworkers that we were sharing a room on the way to the hotel when we had to go out of town on a case...should have seen the look on his face.  It was priceless.  He was very relieved when I told him I wasn't serious.

That's funny. 

 

[strappinglad]

Many have seen the youtube videos of crazy drivers , mostly from Russia. They exist because almost every vehicle has a dash cam. Perhaps what is needed is a company supplied body cam for just those situations where lunch meetings must be held between 2 co-workers. It would be for everyone's protection, both legally and morally. Either that , or I see a business opportunity. Instead of a witness protection program, start a witness supply firm. Uber-watchers if you will.

I think 3 out 4 doctor's will agree that a recovering alcoholic should not live next to a bar. Biology can and often does trump logic and resolve.

Edited August 16, 2017 by strappinglad

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, strappinglad said:

Many have seen the youtube videos of crazy drivers , mostly from Russia. They exist because almost every vehicle has a dash cam. Perhaps what is needed is a company supplied body cam for just those situation where lunch meetings must be held between 2 co-workers. It would be for everyone's protection, both legally and morally. Either that , or I see a business opportunity. Instead of a witness protection program, start a witness supply firm. Uber-watchers if you will.

I already do that for free. I should have been monetizing my creepy stalker habit.  

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Nofear said:

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.

Indeed. 

Which is my objection to the premise of this thread: the contempt and derision that is being shown toward reasonable and personal precautions taken to avoid adultery in the workforce, the absurd notion that these precautions somehow equal gender discrimination and thus should not be tolerated. If you want to eat lunch or travel at company expense with someone of the opposite sex who is not your spouse, I suppose that's your choice, but let us be who think such behavior improper and want to govern our own conduct accordingly. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Showing contempt or derision for past prophetic counsel to avoid situations of temptation in the workplace is in effect a fulfillment of Lehi's dream, with the inhabitants of the great and spacious building raising a clamor trying to get people to let go of the rod of iron. The strategy of the evil one should be obvious here: Pressure people into forsaking a precautionary standard by telling them it is foolish, childish, old fashioned, outmoded, even gender discriminatory. Once you've got them fooled, they are in a spiritually vulnerable position and more apt to fall. 

[Garden Girl]

12 hours 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? 

Hello CB...

I,too, get impatient with this rule... in my ward we feed the missionaries...  they are generally invited into members' homes.  However, my being widowed and living alone precludes their coming to my home unless I want to go to the trouble of finding someone else to also come over... so when I provide a dinner I prepare it, pack it up, and drop it off to them at their apartment.  (A 14-mile round  trip).  I always prepare a really nice meal, and would love to have them be able to come in and sit down to a lovely table and meal... Sigh... what makes it even more frustrating is that I'm 77 years old...

GG

Edited August 16, 2017 by Garden Girl

[strappinglad]

There may be snow on the roof , but there is still fire in the furnace , eh GG !

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Indeed. 

Which is my objection to the premise of this thread: the contempt and derision that is being shown toward reasonable and personal precautions taken to avoid adultery in the workforce, the absurd notion that these precautions somehow equal gender discrimination and thus should not be tolerated. If you want to eat lunch or travel at company expense with someone of the opposite sex who is not your spouse, I suppose that's your choice, but let us be who think such behavior improper and want to govern our conduct accordingly. 

I think what people are pointing out is the continued micromanagement of the church to decide what is best for it's members and removing that agency from them. In this case, what is best for those that work in the church office building.  Making rules that women are not allowed to have lunch with their male colleges is the problem.  Not addressing the discrimination and masoganistic policy is the problem.  Assuming that two adults can not act responsible so the church will enforce a policy that brings unfairness to some of its employees is the problem.  Deciding for a 77 year old widow that she can not fix a meal in her home for missionaries is the problem.  Deciding how many earrings a person should wear is the problem.  Deciding whether a person should be allowed to have a tattoo is the problem.  Deciding that women can not expose their shoulders because it just causes immorality is the problem.  Should the church also decide how many steps members are allow to take on the sabbath?  Do you see anything wrong with this micromanagement approach to the gospel?  Do you really not understand what people are objecting to?

"I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" has long ago been thrown out by church leaders in favor of "We know best and we are the ones that control people's behavior" has replaced that idea.  When did the shift come from people being responsible for how they choose to live their lives.  When did the church decide to take that role on themselves?  Are we going to be judged by how many rules we kept in this life.  Or are we going to be judges by what kind of life we lead?

Edited August 16, 2017 by california boy

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I think what people are pointing out is the continued micromanagement of the church to decide what is best for it's members and removing that agency from them. In this case, what is best for those that work in the church office building.  Making rules that women are not allowed to have lunch with their male colleges is the problem.  Not addressing the discrimination and masoganistic policy is the problem.  Assuming that two adults can not act responsible so the church will enforce a policy that brings unfairness to some of its employees is the problem.  Deciding for a 77 year old widow that she can not fix a meal in her home for missionaries is the problem.  Deciding how many earrings a person should wear is the problem.  Deciding whether a person should be allowed to have a tattoo is the problem.  Deciding that women can not expose their shoulders because it just causes immorality is the problem.  Should the church also decide how many steps members are allow to take on the sabbath?  Do you see anything wrong with this micromanagement approach to the gospel?  Do you really not understand what people are objecting to?

"I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves" has long ago been thrown out by church leaders in favor of "We know best and we are the ones that control people's behavior" has replaced that idea.  When did the shift come from people being responsible for how they choose to live their lives.  When did the church decide to take that role on themselves?  Are we going to be judged by how many rules we kept in this life.  Or are we going to be judges by what kind of life we lead?

This, of course, is absurd. 

The Church does honor the agency of people.  Always has. 

You are confusing the teaching of correct principles  (and implementing human resource policies in its own limited corporate environment) with removal of agency and  "micromanaging the Church."

It's one thing to reject, resist and resent correction and admonition regarding one's own behavior. But to condemn and deride it as it is applied to others puts one in direct opposition to the Lord and His anointed servants. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello CB...

I,too, get impatient with this rule... in my ward we feed the missionaries...  they are generally invited into members' homes.  However, my being widowed and living alone precludes their coming to my home unless I want to go to the trouble of finding someone else to also come over... so when I provide a dinner I prepare it, pack it up, and drop it off to them at their apartment.  (A 14-mile round  trip).  I always prepare a really nice meal, and would love to have them be able to come in and sit down to a lovely table and meal... Sigh... what makes it even more frustrating is that I'm 77 years old...

GG

Bless you for your kindness to the missionaries, GG. 

I say that as the father of a missionary who arrives home tomorrow. 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This, of course, is absurd. 

The Church does honor the agency of people.  Always has. 

You are confusing the teaching of correct principles  (and implementing human resource policies in its own limited corporate environment) with removal of agency and  "micromanaging the Church."

It's one thing to reject, resist and resent correction and admonition regarding one's own behavior. But to condemn and deride it as it is applied to others puts one in direct opposition to the Lord and His anointed servants. 

If it was just teaching correct principles, then you would be right.  

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

If it was just teaching correct principles, then you would be right.  

It is, and I am. 

You have not shown the Church dishonors anyone's moral agency. You cannot, because it does not. 

Teaching laws and commandments does not do that. Urging people to improve their personal righteousness and behave with greater wisdom does not do that. Only trying to force compliance does. 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Danzo said:

real question,  if you found an employee attractive and you liked her, would your desire not to discriminate be more important than avoiding the temptations?

Is non discrimination the most important thing in your business?

I'm having a hard time taking those questions seriously. But I'll try.

This is a great example of a false dichotomy. It is very possible to not discriminate against coworkers of a different gender while also avoiding temptation. We all avoid (hopefully) temptation of some kind every day. It is not possible to remove all temptation from our lives and we must still function. This is just another example of that.

Non discrimination is not the only important thing, but it is very important. My employer should not accept discrimination because I'm personally afraid I won't be able to control myself. I reject the notion that one must choose between the two. It seems like a very childish mentality to me.

[california boy]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is, and I am. 

You have not shown the Church dishonors anyone's moral agency. You cannot, because it does not. 

Teaching laws and commandments does not do that. Urging people to improve their personal righteousness and behave with greater wisdom does not do that. Only trying to force compliance does. 

It is the forced compliance that I am addressing.

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

I,too, get impatient with this rule... in my ward we feed the missionaries...  they are generally invited into members' homes.  However, my being widowed and living alone precludes their coming to my home unless I want to go to the trouble of finding someone else to also come over... so when I provide a dinner I prepare it, pack it up, and drop it off to them at their apartment.  (A 14-mile round  trip).  I always prepare a really nice meal, and would love to have them be able to come in and sit down to a lovely table and meal... Sigh... what makes it even more frustrating is that I'm 77 years old...

The last ward I served in on my mission had a large number of widows and widowers. The guys would take turns picking us up, and we would all meet up at a local cafeteria. Being able to talk to them and hear their life stories; listen as they shared the wisdom and insights gained over a lifetime of faithful membership; it was an absolute treat. (Also, there was pie.)

I remember asking my mission president if perhaps an exception could made to the rule for that particular ward, considering how many widows were present. He demurred. However, I will always remember him saying, with a hint of a smile, "Even grandmas rob banks." ROFL! 

 

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Perhaps what is needed is a company supplied body cam for just those situations where lunch meetings must be held between 2 co-workers. It would be for everyone's protection, both legally and morally.

Never going to happen. The potential downside significantly outweighs the potential upside for the company. 

Consider the following scenario: Manager takes subordinate out to lunch. Subordinate accuses manager of sexual harassment during the encounter. 

With no video, this ends up as a he-said/she-said kerfuffle for your HR department to sort out; really unlikely it will go any farther than that. But with a video, there is a much greater chance it will result in a lawsuit because even a single questionable interaction could potentially result in a win for the accuser. Lawsuits are expensive; losing them can be really expensive. 

 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Garden Girl said:

Hello CB...

I,too, get impatient with this rule... in my ward we feed the missionaries...  they are generally invited into members' homes.  However, my being widowed and living alone precludes their coming to my home unless I want to go to the trouble of finding someone else to also come over... so when I provide a dinner I prepare it, pack it up, and drop it off to them at their apartment.  (A 14-mile round  trip).  I always prepare a really nice meal, and would love to have them be able to come in and sit down to a lovely table and meal... Sigh... what makes it even more frustrating is that I'm 77 years old...

GG

That seems odd to me. When I served my mission they had a "grandparent clause" which meant that you could be alone (with your companion obviously) with anyone your grandparents age. 

Its been the same policy in every mission I've lived in as well. 

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That seems odd to me. When I served my mission they had a "grandparent clause" which meant that you could be alone (with your companion obviously) with anyone your grandparents age. 

Its been the same policy in every mission I've lived in as well. 

Sounds like it was unique to your mission.  It didn't exist in mine.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Sounds like it was unique to your mission.  It didn't exist in mine.

Like I said, it's been that way in the three different missions that i've lived in since then.  But i get that not every mission would have it, but i'm surprised more missions don't.