Comment by malandrew | Hacker News Reader

Comment by malandrew | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I can't imagine that forbidding workplace romance outright is the answer since we spend most of our adult lives working and is one of the places we are likely to form a long lasting romantic relationship. Think about all the people you know in your life in a happy relationship. My experience has been that a non-trivial percent of those relationships involve people who met through work.

I'm curious if something like tinder could be used to solve the question of how workplace romances could begin without exposing the company to issues.

Basically, a tinder like system would allow employees to opt in or out of the possibility of workplace romance. Someone that isn't interested in any unwanted advances at work would swipe no to everyone and therefore any advance would be an unwanted advance. On the other hand, swiping yes to someone is acknowledgement that you are open to a workplace romance and that you acknowledge the risks of making an advance and you have clear responsibilities on how to handle it like an adult and in a way that absolves the company of responsibility.

Furthermore, if this system were managed by the company, they would have records of opting in from both parties. Any advances outside those recorded by the system, would clearly indicate who is to blame.

There may be some unintended consequences here, but this seems at least to be a better system than the status quo.

Maybe Tinder can try to pivot into a tool for human resources departments?

This is interesting because it helps address the problem of how do you know an advance is unwelcome without doing something that could be considered an advance. It avoids the awkwardness of having to ask that question "are you open to advances?" before actually making an advance. However, relationships are formed over time, and romantic and sexual relationships are often serendipitous. It's up to each party to communicate effectively and unambiguously if misunderstandings are to be avoided. Using this kind of app/service/record-keeping sounds just as interesting/desirable/sexy as having to ask that question point blank (that is not at all). Is there really much difference between "Would you like to go out with me?" and "Can I ask you to go out with me?"

What you're essentially proposing is, "All employees have to declare whether or not they are sexually available to every other employee."

It's demeaning, unprofessional, and a legal nightmare that this would be part of the terms of employment!

It also gets consent totally wrong. The onus shouldn't be on employees to explicitly swipe, "No: I do not want to be subjected to sexual and romantic advances at work." That has to be the default.

Plus, are managers involved? If your boss swipes "yes" and you swipe "no", how are you to know that won't bias their evaluation and treatment of you?

And when someone swipes "yes", what are they swiping "yes" to? Being flirted with? Being asked out on a date? Being propositioned for sex? Are you proposing that "Hey, she swiped yes" stands up as a refutation of any sexual harassment claims?

Etc. etc.

Think it through, man -- this would astronomically increase workplace drama and legal woes, not reduce them.

Look, I was just proposing a thought experiment to foster the beginning of a discussion. The raw idea I proposed was just that, raw, with the goal that others may see the merit in it and explore where a derivative solution may better maximize overall benefits for society.

It's hard for Americans to consider the merits of workplace romance because it's been hammered into them for 20-30 years now that it's always wrong all the time. Having worked professionally on 3 continents, the American approach would be picked apart by many foreigners as easily as you picked apart my proposal.

Truth be told, in the US we're at a local maxima once you consider that alternative solutions may do a better job of increasing lifetime happiness (i.e. there is a non-trivial chance that your ideal partner(s) is/are someone you work with). It's hard to recognize the situation here as a local maxima if you've never had the opportunity to work in a culture where you could date people with whom you work.

And how, exactly, do you conclude that I'm American? Or that I've not worked professionally on three continents?

Cool assumptions, bro.

And why propose a thought experiment if you're just going to dismiss criticism as a reflection of the critic's nationality, instead of evaluating them on their own merits?

You didn't address a single counterpoint I made; it sounds like you're not interested in a "thought experiment" so much as proposing your idea and then not hearing any criticism.

> Any advances outside those recorded by the system, would clearly indicate who is to blame

But the question remains, who is to blame? In my opinion, mature adults should be able to calmly handle both rejection and an unwelcome advance. In my opinion, it's the person who's handling it worse at the workplace (being annoying, obnoxious, ...) and whose work is more affected who is to blame, at least from the perspective of the employer.

Anyhow, I don't think this would work - Tinder works on the premise that you're swiping strangers left and right, so you're not that affected by rejection... If you swipe yes someone you know, and you don't get a match, you know you've been swiped no, so the rejection must still be handled maturely...

Interesting idea, but who would manage it? Seems very CYA / legalistic, such that only huge, bureaucratic companies would be "uncool" enough to have such a system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com