Quote:
|
Every company I've ever worked for has had a policy against superiors and subordinates having a relationship. Why is this any different?
|
Why is every company you've worked for an example of how things ought to be done?
Quote:
|
The rule (and it's a rule, not a law) doesn't prevent such relationships (let alone preclude people from fucking), as everyone knows and this case shows, but it shifts the incentives to deter the subordinate from exploiting the work relationship in the personal relationship, which seems like a good thing.
|
Unless you're Katie Hill, in which case it becomes the authority on which "news" websites trafficking in revenge porn can claim there's been an ethics violation.
Quote:
|
Just because there's a rule doesn't mean that Katie Hill was going to lose her seat,* and it seems to me much more likely that she quit because of the revenge porn, which the ethics rule had nothing to do with.
|
But for the ethics violation, the allegation against her would be that she engaged in a consensual relationship with two other people. It would seem to me that sort of thing is arguably... noncontroversial? No one's business?
Adults need no intervention on questions of who they may or may not fuck beyond the laws barring people from forcing it upon subordinates and allowing victims to sue for damages and lawyers' fees. This "ethics rule" is an example of the
Death of Common Sense.
Quote:
|
* I.e., to my understanding the rule doesn't impose any particularly penalty for violations.
|
Immaterial. It's the authority by which she's being forced out for nothing. (Well, except the tat, which is quite questionable.)
If Trump is an authoritarian driving us to fascism as the paranoids claim, chances are I'll be in the gulag quickly. But as I oddly do know a number of people near him, it's unlikely but also possible I could also find myself offering some policy prescriptions. And if that odd scenario were to occur, mine might by offered on a postcard (to return our little back and forth to your first comment):
Any man who argues "We should pass a rule..." in immediate response to an issue shall be exiled to Bouvet. Or shot. Em can choose.
