Thank you for the correction. My, isn’t our government concerned with our well being. I’m sure it was because the women’s groups wanted to make sure bosses didn’t abuse their employees. All well and good. It still prevents two people who find each other attractive from doing what comes naturally. It also sets up a situation where two people going in by choice, could turn upside down when one gets angry about a breakup.
The other side of the coin is “creation of a hostile work environement.” When the boss sleeps with one of his subordinates, it sends the message to all the other women working there that they way to get ahead is to sleep with the boss (in other words if you don’t sleep with the boss your job will suffer.)
All of the women that didn’t sleep with Letterman can also sue him for “creating a hostile work environment.”
I apologize if that seemed like an attempt to correct you. I didn’t mean it that way.
It was an observation.
While I do understand where you are coming from, does it ever occur to anyone that bosses are citizens and have the same rights as anyone else. Just because you’re a boss, you shouldn’t have to relinquish your freedom to associate as you wish.
This same argument could be made concerning the boss’ relationship with any employee on any level. The perception of favoritism is only slightly less plentiful than the supply of oxygen. It always exists. And frankly, why shouldn’t the boss have favorites?
Some employees are exceptional and communicate well with the boss. Others are not exceptional and fume and complain. There are going to be different levels of compatibility. If we don’t like that, we are free to find employment elsewhere.
How many times have you seen one person complain about favorites, only to see a management change which saw them become the favorite, and all of a sudden favorites was not a problem any longer?
Such is life...