Forced out for dating employee (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 4, 2019

McDonald's boss fired after dating employee

So it says employee, but it can easily be construed as work colleague, can't it?

I thought a large percentage of people met their partner at work, so to stop such things seems excessive, surely? I know various companies had policies forbidding relationships between staff, but that seemed rather draconian. Surely adults can split work and private lives easily enough?

Or am I missing something, and him losing his job is entirely appropriate?!?

stupot07 · Nov 4, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
McDonald's boss fired after dating employee

So it says employee, but it can easily be construed as work colleague, can't it?

I thought a large percentage of people met their partner at work, so to stop such things seems excessive, surely? I know various companies had policies forbidding relationships between staff, but that seemed rather draconian. Surely adults can split work and private lives easily enough?

Or am I missing something, and him losing his job is entirely appropriate?!?

I dont think so in this context. He is the Chief Exec therefore everyone is his employee.

And from seeing bits on the news this morning, it seems as though it's in all McDonalds employee contracts, so they have both breached their contracts but as he was in the position of power he's got the chop. Sends a message that it wont be tolerated.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 4, 2019

stupot07 said:
I dont think so in this context. He is the Chief Exec therefore everyone is his employee.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I meant more, why should he leave? it's a consensual relationship, nobody suggests he's been preying on anybody, and chances are any workplace relationship, one of the pair will have a higher grade than the other. OK, it's magnified when you're head of the company, but it seems to be general company policy anyway to frown on these things.

Which, in a modern world where we all chat bollocks under ridicul,ous pseudonyms, stops an area of social interaction for people to find out if they get on or not.

rob9872 · Nov 4, 2019

He asked if she wanted to know why they call him Big Mac and whether he could slip his pickle between her buns or on her beef pattie.

Sbarcher · Nov 4, 2019

rob9872 said:
He asked if she wanted to know why they call him Big Mac and whether he could slip his pickle between her buns or on her beef pattie.

Goodness, that was written with relish!

smileycov · Nov 4, 2019

stupot07 said:
I dont think so in this context. He is the Chief Exec therefore everyone is his employee.

And from seeing bits on the news this morning, it seems as though it's in all McDonalds employee contracts, so they have both breached their contracts but as he was in the position of power he's got the chop. Sends a message that it wont be tolerated.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

It isn't quite like that, It is a policy in McDonald's Managers Contracts, that they can not date subordinates. He actually resigned because of it, accepted fault. and the board accepted his resignation., Stating he hasn't done anything wrong bar, to the McD's policy. The papers will now kick off when he gets his severance package!! He was on 12.5 million a year, so it will be juicy!!

rob9872 · Nov 4, 2019

Sbarcher said:
Goodness, that was written with relish!

Definitely a little saucy

richnrg · Nov 4, 2019

I'd heard that he falsely bragged that he had a 1/4 pounder in his trousers, and that she filed a complaint when he failed to give her a McMuffin.

Astute · Nov 4, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
I meant more, why should he leave? it's a consensual relationship, nobody suggests he's been preying on anybody, and chances are any workplace relationship, one of the pair will have a higher grade than the other. OK, it's magnified when you're head of the company, but it seems to be general company policy anyway to frown on these things.

Which, in a modern world where we all chat bollocks under ridicul,ous pseudonyms, stops an area of social interaction for people to find out if they get on or not.

He signed a massive contract. Part of it was not to have a sexual relationship with someone below him in the same company. He knew what he signed. And he will get a massive payoff.

I don't see a problem with his contract. It helps to stop the predatory actions of those who might try to pressurise those below them into a sexual encounter/relationship with the promise/hint of promotion or loss of job if turned down. And I expect that is why it is written into contracts.

And he isn't the first one to lose his top job for this reason.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 4, 2019

It does seem a bit over the top IMO, but contractually he broke the terms and conditions. But from the sounds of it he'll have no problem getting another big job and he will be free to continue the relationship.

If the two of them are open about it I think the only problems I could foresee being an issue is if his partner went for or got a promotion in future or if their relationship ended.

Although it's not specified here, I wonder what is the policy if two co-workers in an existing relationship and one of them gets a managerial job. Do they have to refuse the position because of that relationship as they would then be in a relationship with a subordinate?

shmmeee · Nov 4, 2019

He got paid £12m in a year apparently. He’ll probably scrape by for both cash and relationships.

OffenhamSkyBlue · Nov 4, 2019

The boss of Intel had to leave his job under similar circumstances not too long back.

I don't suppose the "subordinate" woman at McD's was a burger-flipper - but it wouldn't matter if she was.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 4, 2019

shmmeee said:
He got paid £12m in a year apparently. He’ll probably scrape by for both cash and relationships.

It's not his financial wellbeing I'm bothered about, more the repressive tyranny of forbidding personal relationships between people who work together.

SBAndy · Nov 4, 2019

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
It does seem a bit over the top IMO, but contractually he broke the terms and conditions. But from the sounds of it he'll have no problem getting another big job and he will be free to continue the relationship.

If the two of them are open about it I think the only problems I could foresee being an issue is if his partner went for or got a promotion in future or if their relationship ended.

Although it's not specified here, I wonder what is the policy if two co-workers in an existing relationship and one of them gets a managerial job. Do they have to refuse the position because of that relationship as they would then be in a relationship with a subordinate?

Probably have a separate Conflict of Interest register or somesuch.

Astute · Nov 4, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
It's not his financial wellbeing I'm bothered about, more the repressive tyranny of forbidding personal relationships between people who work together.

Like I said though it makes it more dangerous for those who take advantage of women. Not a bad thing. It isn't as though they have banned relationships for all staff. Just those with high power jobs. Exactly those who could take advantage.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 4, 2019

Astute said:
Like I said though it makes it more dangerous for those who take advantage of women. Not a bad thing. It isn't as though they have banned relationships for all staff. Just those with high power jobs. Exactly those who could take advantage.

At what level is it set? "The company's rules for managers prohibit them from becoming romantically involved with a subordinate" could just as much apply to a shift manager being forbidden from having a relationship with the person handing out the meals.

At some stage, one of them is likely to be higher ranked in a company than the other party. Why stop consensual relationships? There is no suggestion here whatsoever that he has taken advantage of anybody. As a side note, too, the ban is not gender specific (and nor should it be!).

Professionalism, surely, wins out? If you're piunching somebody's bottom and making lewd comments, that's not appropriate, but a general professionalism *has* to win out... and it's the consequence the two people have to face if it ends badly, or impacts on work.

A general policy forbidding such things, as opposed to having some clear rules in place, seems to me to be treating adults as children.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 4, 2019

I'm seeing a few instances of this being a win for #metoo and a clear message about behavior like harrassment of subordinates . Despite it being consensual and no information on who instigated the relationship.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 4, 2019

Astute said:
Like I said though it makes it more dangerous for those who take advantage of women. Not a bad thing. It isn't as though they have banned relationships for all staff. Just those with high power jobs. Exactly those who could take advantage.

I would like this to be true, but those that would take advantage are those that will use that power to keep it quiet or discredit those making the allegations. This doesn't appear to be either of those and I don't think will have the slightest effective on anyone, male or female, who uses their position of power nefariously

Gazolba · Nov 4, 2019

Astute said:
Like I said though it makes it more dangerous for those who take advantage of women. Not a bad thing. It isn't as though they have banned relationships for all staff. Just those with high power jobs. Exactly those who could take advantage.

Women in positions of power can also take advantage of men. It works both ways.

Astute · Nov 4, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
At what level is it set? "The company's rules for managers prohibit them from becoming romantically involved with a subordinate" could just as much apply to a shift manager being forbidden from having a relationship with the person handing out the meals.

At some stage, one of them is likely to be higher ranked in a company than the other party. Why stop consensual relationships? There is no suggestion here whatsoever that he has taken advantage of anybody. As a side note, too, the ban is not gender specific (and nor should it be!).

Professionalism, surely, wins out? If you're piunching somebody's bottom and making lewd comments, that's not appropriate, but a general professionalism *has* to win out... and it's the consequence the two people have to face if it ends badly, or impacts on work.

A general policy forbidding such things, as opposed to having some clear rules in place, seems to me to be treating adults as children.

So what level do you know about as you seem to want to maje something of it. It doesn't mean that it is at every level just because someone very high up had it in his contract. But if you sign a contract and you know the point exists it is up to you.

I have things in my contract. And things have been added since I joined. For instance I am not allowed to say anything against the company I work for on social media. But when I started working for them there wasn't such a thing as social media.

Astute · Nov 4, 2019

Gazolba said:
Women in positions of power can also take advantage of men. It works both ways.

Didn't say it doesn't. But we kniw where the vast majority comes from.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 4, 2019

Astute said:
So what level do you know about as you seem to want to maje something of it. It doesn't mean that it is at every level just because someone very high up had it in his contract. But if you sign a contract and you know the point exists it is up to you.

My point is it shouldn't be there, in my view. It is a symptom of social control.

Astute · Nov 4, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
My point is it shouldn't be there, in my view. It is a symptom of social control.

We will have to agree to disagree. Maybe they have had problems in the past. 12m a year and I wouldn't touch anyone from the company.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 4, 2019

Astute said:
We will have to agree to disagree. Maybe they have had problems in the past. 12m a year and I wouldn't touch anyone from the company.

Agree to disagree by all means (have a like for that!), but I would say the size of his salary should be irrelevant. It's only in the news because of that, but there are others in this company and beyond who find themselves in similar predicaments.

Astute · Nov 4, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
Agree to disagree by all means (have a like for that!), but I would say the size of his salary should be irrelevant. It's only in the news because of that, but there are others in this company and beyond who find themselves in similar predicaments.

They have had major problems with sexual harassment. In September, scores of local government officials from 31 U.S. states pressured McDonald's to do a better job of protecting workers from groping, obscene comments and other forms of sexual harassment, adding their voices to an employee-led campaign that has seen walkouts at several stores. So they got pushed into doing something about it.

Deleted member 5849 · Nov 4, 2019

Astute said:
They have had major problems with sexual harassment. In September, scores of local government officials from 31 U.S. states pressured McDonald's to do a better job of protecting workers from groping, obscene comments and other forms of sexual harassment, adding their voices to an employee-led campaign that has seen walkouts at several stores. So they got pushed into doing something about it.

Alternatively, it suggests the blanket ban on relationships doesn't stop harassment, and better to look into some better education for employees about what harassment is, and set up some clearly defined rules.

Astute · Nov 4, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
Alternatively, it suggests the blanket ban on relationships doesn't stop harassment, and better to look into some better education for employees about what harassment is, and set up some clearly defined rules.

Only just been brought in. And it was asked for by the employees who have had enough of it happening. Must have got real bad.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 4, 2019

Astute said:
Only just been brought in. And it was asked for by the employees who have had enough of it happening. Must have got real bad.

While I agree that any such behaviour at any level of the company is totally unacceptable there is a massive difference between relationships between employees (even those at different levels) and harassment.

This problem with harassment and the way he and the company were dealing with it was not seen as sufficient for termination. Having a relationship with a work colleague apparently was. Seems to me the priorities are wrong.

Gazolba · Nov 4, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
My point is it shouldn't be there, in my view. It is a symptom of social control.

It's all to do with protecting the companies from lawsuits.
This is especially true in the USA with their money-hungry lawyers.
There needn't be any harrasment.
What if the employee in a relationship is promoted and another equally qualified employee isn't?

Terry Gibson's perm · Nov 5, 2019

No doubt he will get a huge payout to soften the blow, I bet he would have been less keen if there was no cash at the end of it.

Nick · Nov 5, 2019

Was she fit though?

Grendel · Nov 5, 2019

Deleted member 5849 said:
Alternatively, it suggests the blanket ban on relationships doesn't stop harassment, and better to look into some better education for employees about what harassment is, and set up some clearly defined rules.

It’s also to prevent rapid acceleration in a company of third rate employees who are fast tracked as the boss is banging them

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Nov 5, 2019

Grendel said:
It’s also to prevent rapid acceleration in a company of third rate employees who are fast tracked as the boss is banging them

But shouldn't there be some distinguising factors like the openness of the relationship? Someone married for years gets a promotion after many years gets screams of nepotism whereas someone secretly knobbing the boss on the side to get a quick raise are totally different.

I get the protections need to be there both to protect subordinates and prevent things like favouritism but it's far more nuanced than that. A blanket ban is just too simplistic IMO. What is two colleagues are together but one wants to go for promotion? Do they have to not go for it or is the other going to be forced to leave the company if they're successful?

It basically works from a position of assuming guilt. If that is how your employer expects you to act then they're a shit employer with a very low opinion of their employees. If someone is found to be taking advantage of their position by harassing subordinates or giving them promotions etc. then they should be dismissed. The key word there is found, not assumed

Grendel · Nov 5, 2019

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
But shouldn't there be some distinguising factors like the openness of the relationship? Someone married for years gets a promotion after many years gets screams of nepotism whereas someone secretly knobbing the boss on the side to get a quick raise are totally different.

I get the protections need to be there both to protect subordinates and prevent things like favouritism but it's far more nuanced than that. A blanket ban is just too simplistic IMO. What is two colleagues are together but one wants to go for promotion? Do they have to not go for it or is the other going to be forced to leave the company if they're successful?

It basically works from a position of assuming guilt. If that is how your employer expects you to act then they're a shit employer with a very low opinion of their employees. If someone is found to be taking advantage of their position by harassing subordinates or giving them promotions etc. then they should be dismissed. The key word there is found, not assumed

I’ve seen first hand employees who’ve gone out of their way to sleep with senior people who have then forced their line manager to promote and / or offer top bonus payments

chiefdave · Nov 5, 2019

Nick said:
Was she fit though?

Forced out for dating employee (1 Viewer)

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facebook User

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Administrator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency