Hacker News Reader

Comment by bitL | Hacker News Reader

When is Sergey going to be sacked? Wasn't he in some sort of an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate, leading to a separation from his wife, now YouTube CEO?

View on HN

There's a difference between having an affair and sexually harassing someone.

Sure: the difference is the latter is only consent by one. But in order to “have an affair” one side have to make a move. Simplyfying: If you are ugly and you make move the other party can sack you in HR department as sexual harraser. HOWEVER if you hot and they like you, it may endup as an affair. so no harrasment filed ;)

I doubt anyone ever got sacked for asking a coworker out on a date and getting rejected, if that is what you mean by "making a move" (and not something more sinister, of course).

depends on how you ask of course.

It’s possible to harass someone unintentionally.

Yea, an affair is much worse.

How so?

As far as the company goes, they are legally responsible for sexual misconduct on their watch.

With regard to affairs, it’s more of a moral issue than a legal one.

It sounds orwellian to me that a company should supervise the personal relationships of its employees and judge of their "morality".

I agree. That’s my point. IE, affairs aren’t the company’s business, but harassment is.

How was Anne feeling? How about Chloe & Benji? They don't matter in the overall picture?

Obviously I'm not trying to imply that having affairs is good or desirable... but there's a clear distinction between an affair, which is consensual, and sexual harassment, which is non consensual.

The personal drama resulting from an affair is exactly that: personal, and it shouldn't be grounds for termination. On the other hand, sexual harassment is a threat to workspace safety and should obviously be dealt with swiftly.

OK, I agree with the personal/professional split point you touched. Though there is a significant power imbalance, often people are attracted to power/their powerful superiors, and that is a direct threat to workplace stability, maybe even safety, though not as directly as unwanted advances. Still, even if you categorize this as "wanted advances" due to the aforementioned attraction to superior for whatever complex reason, it could be viewed as both a hack in progress from the superior to the person they find attractive and also as a way for the subordinate to improve their standing within the company without any merit. That might be even more demoralizing to a large group of employees than a single instance of a sexual harassment to a single person and termination would be absolutely justified.

I think you're being way too cynical. No doubt there exists "gold diggers" who will try to seduce their way up the dominance hierarchy, but that is a different topic. And even then, I fail to see how the unfair promotion of a "gold digger" would be more dangerous than having a manager sexually abusing his subordinates.

I mean heck, Bill Gates met Melinda when she was a Microsoft employee and they've now been married 20+ years.

Wrong Wojcicki. Her sister, Susan, is CEO of YouTube.

Ah, you are right! Just remembered surname... Thanks!

not necessarily harassment to be in a relationship with a subordinate. Were there other details?

It's tricky. Normally you're not supposed to establish intimate relationship at the workplace if there is a clear power difference between the parties. Similarly to how teacher-student relationships are frowned upon (even if both parties are adults). The problem is simple to understand.

Those are frowned upon primarily to protect the company's profit interest or the honor of the schools grading system.

It possibly makes the potential for harassment greater, but it's not necessarily harassment to have a relationship with a subordinate.

Even in the absence of harassment, it's still a clear violation of professional ethics. At the absolute least, it creates a conflict of interest.

If 2 people are meant to be together I really don’t think they would or should care.

My employers profit interest is such a relatively small concern. Love can be what make life worth living. Love should trump that IMO.

It amazes me that someone would argue that you should prevent a relationship because of an employers best interest.

Im glad people like Sergey can look past that.

I'm hardly saying you should prevent a relationship. I'm saying that you've got to pick one: Either both people can pursue a romantic relationship, or they can retain their manager/subordinate working relationship. It's up to them to decide which one they'd rather have.

> If 2 people are meant to be together

What does this even mean?

Its an English phrase common in America. Read around these google results to get a better idea:

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&ei=KJXTW4...

They are frowned upon because the power imbalance creates difficulty in giving consent (and high school teachers usually means statutory rape issues). Same reason for doctor/patient and many other situations where power imbalance exists.

At the same time it can also be completely easy to give consent despite the power imbalance - if 2 people are really into each other.

Even if the relationship starts all well and mutual, it can go sour. Then power dynamic come into play and the institution suffers. The only way to guarantee a safe environment is to prohibit these relationships.

Never going to happen in practice. People are willing to go to great lengths for love.

sure they might get fired, that won’t stop them.

Every situation are different, its matter of balancing risk vs reward.

"you're not supposed"

Yea, the company should probably be in charge of who you get to associate with.

I feel very nosy for knowing this but it was the marketing manager for Google Glass. https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2014/04/sergey-brin-amanda-...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com