...would you like an employee with that?

AllForIt

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/03/business/mcdonalds-ceo-steve-easterbrook-steps-down/index.html

I don't get it. Why would McDonalds have a policy that's bans employee relationships. Seems a bit backward. Is this common?

LollipopJimmy

Two people who work on the same level is fine, but CEO and a subordinate is all wrong.

King of Kings

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Two people who work on the same level is fine, but CEO and a subordinate is all wrong.

Why?

Do you not credit adults with the ability to make their own decisions? As was the case here.

eviltwin

I work for a company where there are couples employed and it's a nightmare tbh. Granted they were together before they got the jobs and maybe it depends on the industry but I would discourage relationships with colleagues. I don't think anyone should be sacked over it though.

Cee-Jay-Cee

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Two people who work on the same level is fine, but CEO and a subordinate is all wrong.

Yeah because someone at CEO level should not be associating with someone at pond scum level. Proper order McDonalds, keep the rabble on at floor level where they belong.

racso1975

King of Kings wrote: »

Why?

Because there is a power balance in play and when it all goes tits up then that can be used against one of the party

"We have commenced an immediate review of our employer/employee relationship policy."

in 3.....2.....

jim o doom

The obvious reason for this kind of policy, is that a person in power, such as a CEO or high level manager, could potentially force a relationship upon a person lower in the organisation, as they have a significant degree of power over that persons future career.

It may not be the case in this relationship, but if a company has a policy that prevents a manager dating a subordinate for the above reason, and the manager violates the policy, then they must accept the outcome.

It's not as simple as two consenting adults - it's one adult with a significant degree more power in a company dating a subordinate in the same company.

Ten of Swords

Non fraternization policies are quite common in the US and are generally legally enforceable as long as they are applied evenly throughout the company. Some states have specific laws that deal with such matters (California as an example)

Not sure what their legal status would be in Ireland

0lddog

I wondering where that would have left Bill and Melinda

alchemist33

Tbf, if the CEO can't have a relationship with any McDonald's employee, that rules out about 40% of the US population

EmmetSpiceland

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

Two people who work on the same level is fine, but CEO and a subordinate is all wrong.

Isn’t that what Louis CK got #metoo’d over? The victims were giving consent but felt they had to as he held a position of power over them.

It’s best practice not to have work “relationships” between different levels.

Woke Hogan

alchemist33 wrote: »

Tbf, if the CEO can't have a relationship with any McDonald's employee, that rules out about 40% of the US population

40% of the US population are McDonald's employees? Maybe you're confusing "employees" with "customers."

Del2005

0lddog wrote: »

I wondering where that would have left Bill and Melinda

She had to leave the company, otherwise they'd of had to fire Bill. The head of Intel got caught in a similar way and had to leave.

Robert_Beach

Not good enough that the CEOs take home mega-pay while the government subsidies their employees, now they feel entitled to take one home with them. Disgusting.

bitofabind

I'm wondering if there's more to this than meets the eye and that's why he's getting canned and Maccie Dees are releasing a statement before it all blows up.

Was he shagging his 20 year old PA? Was the relationship becoming an unsustainable secret and they had to sack him before the Daily Mail got their claws into it?

SnazzyPig

Robert_Beach wrote: »

Not good enough that the CEOs take home mega-pay while the government subsidies their employees, now they feel entitled to take one home with them. Disgusting.

You make it sound like he took home a puppy from a dog breeding farm.

Robert_Beach

SnazzyPig wrote: »

You make it sound like he took home a puppy from a dog breeding farm.

Is that really a million miles from what happened? A medieval, feudal lord taking one of his serfs as a bedroom plaything.

Eggs For Dinner

racso1975 wrote: »

Because there is a power balance in play and when it all goes tits up then that can be used against one of the party

Is there a ban on doing it tits up as well????

It makes sense if the no dating subordinates policy is for all levels.

Imagine a local manager using their position to suit someone they are in a relationship with, rosters, promotions, hours or whatever.

Pat McDonagh's wife worked for him.

YFlyer

Woke Hogan wrote: »

40% of the US population are McDonald's employees? Maybe you're confusing "employees" with "customers."

Most of the employees be customers as well.

The Tetrarch

We had it in our contracts - no relationships (married couples ok obv).
On day a observant colleague pointed out a male colleague wearing a female's colleague's ankle socks, and named the female.
A female asked me what did I sleep in? A bed of course. :rolleyes:

Woke Hogan

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Non fraternization policies are quite common in the US and are generally legally enforceable as long as they are applied evenly throughout the company. Some states have specific laws that deal with such matters (California as an example)

Not sure what their legal status would be in Ireland

It's a ridiculous policy when you consider the workplace culture in the United States, namely that you have to dedicate your entire life to your job and be grateful for the opportunity to do so.

A single person who probably has to spend twelve hours a day at work, so they couldn't possibly have enough time to develop a social life away from work, can't even "fraternize" romantically with the people they're working with. Not only are you expected to devote your life to your job but they also tell you you can't interact with your co-workers socially.

It's a horrible society.

Princess Calla

bitofabind wrote: »

I'm wondering if there's more to this than meets the eye and that's why he's getting canned and Maccie Dees are releasing a statement before it all blows up.

Was he shagging his 20 year old PA? Was the relationship becoming an unsustainable secret and they had to sack him before the Daily Mail got their claws into it?

I thought the same....like you don't just wake up and resign over a relationship.

Bio Mech

Woke Hogan wrote: »

40% of the US population are McDonald's employees? Maybe you're confusing "employees" with "customers."

Maybe you’re confusing “serious” posts with “jokes”.

Woke Hogan

Bio Mech wrote: »

Maybe you’re confusing “serious” posts with “jokes”.

That person seems confused as to what a joke is, themselves.

worded

Approx 15 - 20% of people meet at work. Sad that you can get fired over it.

edit - just listened to a news clip. Mc Donalds forbids managers from dating. Thats understandable really ....

SnazzyPig

Robert_Beach wrote: »

Is that really a million miles from what happened? A medieval, feudal lord taking one of his serfs as a bedroom plaything.

Intersesting that you can equate a grown woman with a puppy.

Mrs OBumble

Deleted User wrote: »

It makes sense if the no dating subordinates policy is for all levels.

Imagine a local manager using their position to suit someone they are in a relationship with, rosters, promotions, hours or whatever.

Pat McDonagh's wife worked for him.

Totally agree re the power imbalance thing.

But as well as that, McDonald's have had a "don't screw the crew" policy in place for well over 30 years. There are very good reasons for it: pillow talk in a workplace can cause lots of friction. And suspicion of it when it's not actually happening can be even more damaging.

It people don't like the policy, they shouldn't work for the company. It ain't rocket science.

Robert_Beach

SnazzyPig wrote: »

Intersesting that you can equate a grown woman with a puppy.

Who said the employee was a woman?

LollipopJimmy

worded wrote: »

Approx 15 - 20% of people meet at work. Sad that you can get fired over it.

It's more the fact that this is the CEO, the one person with the most individual power within a company. Given the type of salary he likely had he really should have sucked it up and looked elsewhere. His total package was worth almost $16million per year

alchemist33

Woke Hogan wrote: »

40% of the US population are McDonald's employees? Maybe you're confusing "employees" with "customers."

Or maybe I'm joking

Edit: oh I see you got a little dig in later too. How cute

Woke Hogan

Nuclear Propulsion wrote: »

That's such a stupid post. Do you people really hate America so much that you have to attack it constantly?

I don’t attack it constantly, far from it. But even if I did, why shouldn’t I?

Woke Hogan

Nuclear Propulsion wrote: »

Your description of America sounds like a cross between Saudi Arabia and some kind of drone worker society. Do you really think Americans don't have office parties where they get drunk and hook up with each other?

Saudi Arabia? What are you talking about? You seem more than a little confused. When you have a point, come back to me.

Wanderer78

Nuclear Propulsion wrote:

Who cares if the boss is sleeping with his secretary?

But what if the ceo was sleeping with her secretary?

Woke Hogan

Nuclear Propulsion wrote: »

You described America as a society where people work 12 hour shifts and are forbidden from fraternizing with the opposite sex.

Yes, this is a discussion about the CEO of a prominent American company losing his job over it. That's kind of what this website is for, a subject is proposed and people talk about it.

If you have any observations or thoughts of your own, feel free to share them.

BENDYBINN

Nuclear Propulsion wrote: »

Feels like there's a war on humanity. Everything has to be bland, safe, pc, gender neutral.

Who cares if the boss is sleeping with his secretary?

Problem is if she refuses to sleep with him will she get the door?

BENDYBINN

Nuclear Propulsion wrote: »

No.

She might

Wanderer78

Nuclear Propulsion wrote:

Then she can go to hr and complain.

Come on now, don't be naive

Wanderer78

Nuclear Propulsion wrote:

Sorry but you're the one being naive. Women are attracted to powerful men.

Yea we know this, so what

stoneill

Employee relationships are banned as there can be a conflict of interest when it comes to annual reviews.
1) She got a better review cause she's sleeping with yer man. (Swap genders as appropriate)
2) You didn't give me a good review cos I'm sleeping with you.
Both cases can lead to litigation, court cases and so on.

Ipso

Woke Hogan wrote: »

It's a ridiculous policy when you consider the workplace culture in the United States, namely that you have to dedicate your entire life to your job and be grateful for the opportunity to do so.

A single person who probably has to spend twelve hours a day at work, so they couldn't possibly have enough time to develop a social life away from work, can't even "fraternize" romantically with the people they're working with. Not only are you expected to devote your life to your job but they also tell you you can't interact with your co-workers socially.

It's a horrible society.

Wow, shocking statistics. What was the size of your sample?

partyguinness

Well you have a mega rich CEO and a subordinate. As the CEO you are walking into trouble- blackmail, extortion, revenge porn etc.

As the sub ordinate you are risking the wrath of an all powerful CEO who can make your future employment prospects very grim.

Wanderer78

Nuclear Propulsion wrote:

So if the boss is poking his secretary it's likely consensual.

How would we actually know this for sure, and again what if she's riding her secretary?

Henry Ford III

The lady should have gotten a job elsewhere. Couldn't be that difficult surely?

Wanderer78

Nuclear Propulsion wrote:

Because most men aren't that evil. And as for 'her'? Well an American congresswoman was forced to resign recently for seducing a female staffer.

Evil! Say wha?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Wouldn't most companies that size have similar policies?

I doubt if Ahmed the fry cook and Tina drive thru operator are seeing each other it's going to be a problem like, I thought this was very standard in the corporate world though, especially in the states.

I feel like people are pretending not to understand why such policies would be in place.

worded

Henry Ford III wrote: »

The lady should have gotten a job elsewhere. Couldn't be that difficult surely?

+1

That would have been a very good solution to this mess.

They fall in Love ... in order to proceed they both agree the wisest move is for her to work else where as he is earning approx 150+ times her salary !
Or he help her start up her own restaurant .. the possibilities were endless with that amount of $ he was earning.

He ran a business empire but was unable to run his personal life ...

I think the saddest thing in all this is he publicly said (or was forced to say) he regrets the relationship, good god thats so sad to air that one ...

In affairs of the heart who knows what went on, only 2 people know.

Lemsiper

So if my wife and I worked there and she was promoted to a management position we'd either have to get a divorce or one of us leave the company?

Cordell

More than likely you will be both passed for promotion in favor of some less problematic candidates.

Wibbs

Lemsiper wrote: »

So if my wife and I worked there and she was promoted to a management position we'd either have to get a divorce or one of us leave the company?

well to be fair L, a pre-existing relationship like marriage would have a different dynamic. Though it does raise a debate to a degree. Would someone's potential to rise through a company be hindered if they were married to someone who also works for the company, because of the potential for favouritism and the like?