Remix.run Logo
▲ timmg 2 days ago

> sexual harassment in the workplace

I had only heard about a consensual relationship.

▲caminante 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Which most company policies allow in some form. Peer-to-peer is straight forward. Supervisor-subordinate (relevant here) is less tolerated. You just have to disclose it and maybe sign a "love contract."

Parent is oblivious to this and has already made up their mind that these policies don't exist

> The fact the he did it, and that she got promoted seals his fate as a predator in my mind.

▲twodave 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm very aware that these policies exist, and I'm certain the CEO of Nvidia was also aware. That he decided to circumvent them says all you need to know, really. Even if it's consensual, what happens when she decides she wants to move on from the relationship? What about her peers that didn't receive promotions while she did? This is why these laws exist.

▲caminante 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Your hypothetical makes zero sense as your questions have simple yes/no answers.

> Even if it's consensual, what happens when she decides she wants to move on from the relationship?

Then they're no longer in a relationship and still have to follow HR/company policies.

>What about her peers that didn't receive promotions while she did?

Did they follow the company policy (e.g., hiring committee recusal) or not for the promotions?

>This is why these laws exist.

Did the company policies follow employment regulations when setting and enforcing their policy?

▲twodave 2 days ago | parent [-]

The implication here is that they didn't follow company policy or else this wouldn't be an issue. HR would have said, "Yes we're aware of the relationship, all of our policies have been properly followed in relation to it." The fact that we're not hearing that means the answers to all these questions don't have pretty answers.

▲caminante 2 days ago | parent [-]

> The implication here is that they didn't follow company policy or else this wouldn't be an issue.

I see your opinion. In MY opinion, this wouldn't be an issue but for the spy scandal. Now, anything that comes up (complying or not complying with policy) triggers more urgency by shareholders and the board to make change. They don't care about HR due process.

▲twodave a day ago | parent [-]

That’s a fair point. It is hard for me to get past the idea of someone in his position somehow stumbling onto this set of choices, though.

▲timmg 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, I guess they should fire her, then.

▲Insanity 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

To be honest, even with those policies, a supervisor-subordinate relationship can be problematic. There is an undeniable power dynamic at play, so even when it looks consensual it's hard to be sure. I'm not saying it wasn't consensual in this case, but when person A can impact the future of person B, person B might feel coerced to "consent".

Anyway, not sure if that's the case here but it's hard to rule out entirely.

▲modzu 2 days ago | parent [-]

yall got it backwards. pussy is the power dynamic. men need it, have to have it, totally controlled by it. man not using woman for sex. everyone like sex. woman use pussy power to get promotion

▲rozal 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But we don’t know when, it could have been well after she was promoted

▲threetonesun 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think we can all read between the lines that no such thing existed in this case because he was married.

▲caminante 2 days ago | parent [-]

Interestingly, no!

These policies are intentionally narrowed to workplace conflicts of interest. HR doesn't want to manage morality clauses or stuff outside the workplace.

▲nemomarx 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you want to have a consensual relationship with someone you need to guarantee they don't work for you somehow first, really.

▲arecsu 2 days ago | parent [-]

I think the real world is not that black and white, really... There is nuance in those interactions as well.

▲Spivak a day ago | parent [-]

There is zero nuance in a boss sleeping with someone who is a subordinate which is why every company very explicitly forbids it. Companies don't even allow people who are already married to be put in a situation like that.

Once one person has the ability to get the other fired, ruin their career, blackball them from the industry, etc. you can't know if they actually freely consented or not. Once you have coercive control over someone how could you even know that's not why they "consented?" Even if they initiated you can't know if at some point they wanted to stop but now felt they couldn't because of fear of retaliation.

▲paxy 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No such thing as consensual when saying no to the boss could result in getting fired.

▲wasfgwp 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

If you go that route you can extrapolate to some absurd degree. Basically any relationship with a power imbalance becomes sexual harassment.

▲twodave 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, you can extrapolate, and our society does. This is why ministers aren't supposed to have relationships with their clergy, therapists are not supposed to have relationships with their clients, lawyers, doctors, etc. The list goes on and on.

▲_ph_ 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Can become, yes. Depends a bit on what exactly the nature of the power imbalance is. Which is why there are usually strict rules about relationships with your reports and how to resolve the situation. Like reporting it to HR so the work positions can be shifted in a way to move positions so that there is no longer a reporting relationship between the two.

▲unethical_ban a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Exactly. At every place I've worked or consulted at, bosses dating subordinates is not permitted. I have seen multiple instances where people have to move teams/managers because they start a relationship.

These restrictions exist in most workplaces. Boss/subordinate relationships can result in extortion and bad behavior, regardless of which party starts it.

▲paxy 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Congrats you just figured out divorce laws and alimony from first principles.

▲throwaway6977 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Wow you are mere inches from understanding the concept of sexual harassment. Keep going!

▲wasfgwp 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

You mean infantilising adults and denying their agency to feel better about yourself.

Obviously it depends from case to case and there are certain lines that shouldn’t be crossed but otherwise consenting adults should be free to make their own decisions.

▲vouwfietsman 2 days ago | parent [-]

You do understand the issue of mixing consent with power imbalance?

▲Jtarii 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So is Huang only allowed to have sex with Lisa Su or something? But even then Nvidia dwarfs AMD in power.

▲wasfgwp 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

There is always Elon I guess…

▲paxy 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

100% of his relationships have been with nvidia subordinates and business partners. You realize there are more women on the planet right?

▲wasfgwp 2 days ago | parent [-]

> 100% of his relationships

*that we know of

▲moralestapia 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Got it, that's why I only date girls who meet the following criteria:

* My age, +/- 2 years.

* Comparable emotional and intellectual development.

* Same level of education.

* Earn within 10% of what I earn.

* Total net worth within 10% of mine.

* Muscular, so we're of comparable strength.

* Exact same cultural and ethnic background.

* No chronic diseases or disabilities, since I don't have any and that would be an unfair advantage.

* Read Hacker News just as pathologically frequently, so we both know when to short NVIDIA at approximately the same time.

▲Spivak a day ago | parent [-]

In attempting to be intentionally obtuse you almost wrapped around to getting it again.

The strength differential is why the domestic violence procedure is what it is and the financial differential is why asset division and alimony during divorce exists. You made a joke and then basically described the foundation for an equitable marriage.

▲moralestapia 14 hours ago | parent [-]

>equitable marriage

There's no such thing, that's the joke.

A difference in habilities does not forcefully lead to abuse. There can also be abuse in "equitable" human relationships.

One does not imply the other.

▲Spivak 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Which is why I said foundation—all of these things would be good to have. Look we're talking about consent here and when a reasonable person can actually know that their partner is freely and enthusiastically consenting.

The existence of the legal system and social norms does a decent enough job of deterring violence thus establishing a feeling of safety in both partners who can now say no without fear of harm. When the system empowers both partners to say no you can now trust the yes. You can apply the exact same logic to divorce with regards to money. And this is important because someone who feels they're in danger will play along, it will look in every way enthusiastic but won't be and their partner has no way to tell the difference.

So now we get to boss and subordinate relationships. There is no equalizing mechanism that makes the subordinate in this situation feel like they can say no. A boss can ruin their life and fairly easily make it not look like retaliation. And you wonder why workplaces' solution is forbid them with near zero tolerance. The only slack typically given is if a relationship starts at work between a boss and their report they immediately move the subordinate to a different reporting line. And CEOs don't get this slack because where would you move the subordinate?

So you're right power imbalances will always exist but you're ignoring that we actually do try to correct the very one sided imbalances and the ones that we can't we forbid. I mean when you get down to it the reason for hard forbidding adults to sleep with teenagers even in cases where the teenager is the one who wants it is because of the steep power imbalance.

▲caminante 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How do you reconcile "love contracts" [0]?

[0] https://www.woodsrogers.com/insights/publications/this-valen...

▲nemomarx 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I've never worked at any company that used them or heard about them. Instead we take yearly training saying that even flirting with the idea is a cause for immediate termination.

Do you have stats on how common these are? Is it more popular in some non US country maybe?

▲caminante 2 days ago | parent [-]

Your companies had zero tolerance for consensual relationships at the office? Not even married couples? Possible, but the exception because that really constrains your talent base.

Good idea about stats. Please share what you find.

▲komali2 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you suppose Jensen had a love contract with his subordinate, when the breaking of the news of their extramarital relationship led to a 20% drop in stock and the removal of Jensen as CEO?

▲caminante 2 days ago | parent [-]

You're asking a leading question with flawed premises and assumptions.

1. The subordinate story broke yesterday. The stock dropped 12% (not 20) and recovered half.

2. But for the spy/export control subversion, do you think a CEO would be stepping down for banging a co-worker? LOL...

▲Janicc 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Considering he was fired it's the other way around. This at most only applies to very small companies or to people at the very bottom on the totem pole.

▲mohamedkoubaa 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How do you know the boss initiated?

▲kridsdale1 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah. It’s not like being an ultra chad billionaire with great biceps and confident personality is NOT attractive to women. Maybe her husband wasn’t doing it for her (legit feel bad for that man, whoever he is, today).

▲isquaredr a day ago | parent [-]

I have only met the husband a few times but he is a great guy. Feel bad for him and their kids

▲hbn 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Everyone loves to jump to this conclusion when I think that should require some heavy evidence.

You could just as easily say she did sexual favors to get a leg-up over more qualified peers and get/maintain her position.

If anything, the fact he got fired seems to imply she has all the power in their relationship being outed. I haven't seen anyone calling for her head.

▲stronglikedan 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> could result in getting fired

When did they discover the quid-pro-quo aspect of this particular relationship? The news is moving so fast that I must have missed that part.

▲asveikau a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Or when saying yes is good for your career, which is quoted to be the case upthread.

▲saisundar 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If there is an asymmetry in power, hardly consensual.

▲vehemenz a day ago | parent [-]

Asymmetry is more or less guaranteed in all sexual relationships, due to human evolution, yet that has little to no bearing on consent.

▲wewewedxfgdf a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Wokeness demands the most uncharitable interpretation of events.

▲ihsw 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]