markymark
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,369
Member is Online
|
Post by markymark on Mar 23, 2024 14:56:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Mar 26, 2024 16:52:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Mar 27, 2024 12:33:04 GMT -5
WWE was a publicly traded company with no policy regarding this for HOW LONG?
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Mar 27, 2024 12:36:18 GMT -5
WWE was a publicly traded company with no policy regarding this for HOW LONG? 1999 So twenty four years.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Mar 27, 2024 12:40:16 GMT -5
WWE was a publicly traded company with no policy regarding this for HOW LONG? 1999 So twenty four years. Sounds about right. Literally everywhere I've ever worked, from small mom and pop restaurants to huge telecom firms to my country's federal government has one. It's insane how much this multi billion dollar company was still being run by and according to the whims of an old carny who could never get the trailer park out of himself.
|
|
|
Post by Rise on Mar 27, 2024 12:49:17 GMT -5
1999 So twenty four years. Sounds about right. Literally everywhere I've ever worked, from small mom and pop restaurants to huge telecom firms to my country's federal government has one. It's insane how much this multi billion dollar company was still being run by and according to the whims of an old carny who could never get the trailer park out of himself. I work in the public sector in UK and have done for 18 years. We don't have a policy on that I don't think, certainly not below director level and we have had a few marriages between staff in our place
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Mar 27, 2024 12:54:05 GMT -5
1999 So twenty four years. Sounds about right. Literally everywhere I've ever worked, from small mom and pop restaurants to huge telecom firms to my country's federal government has one. It's insane how much this multi billion dollar company was still being run by and according to the whims of an old carny who could never get the trailer park out of himself. You’d be surprised. There are tons of companies / governments that do not have dating policies.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Mar 27, 2024 12:54:39 GMT -5
I respect that Pollock and Thurston were smart enough to redact the URL to report ethics violations because I've seen Raws so bad they absolutely would make me want to report the ethics of subjecting me to them as a complaint to the company.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Mar 27, 2024 12:55:27 GMT -5
Sounds about right. Literally everywhere I've ever worked, from small mom and pop restaurants to huge telecom firms to my country's federal government has one. It's insane how much this multi billion dollar company was still being run by and according to the whims of an old carny who could never get the trailer park out of himself. I work in the public sector in UK and have done for 18 years. We don't have a policy on that I don't think, certainly not below director level and we have had a few marriages between staff in our place You very likely do, it's just not something that comes up often, I'd be willing to wager. It's a pretty standard OP for any business not run by a deranged old hick who thinks the posh people will respect him if he wears a nice suit.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,145
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Mar 27, 2024 12:57:17 GMT -5
Sounds about right. Literally everywhere I've ever worked, from small mom and pop restaurants to huge telecom firms to my country's federal government has one. It's insane how much this multi billion dollar company was still being run by and according to the whims of an old carny who could never get the trailer park out of himself. You’d be surprised. There are tons of companies / governments that do not have dating policies. The only policy where I work is that you can't date someone in your own bureau. And even then, it might only be if they're your boss.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Mar 27, 2024 13:00:39 GMT -5
You’d be surprised. There are tons of companies / governments that do not have dating policies. The only policy where I work is that you can't date someone in your own bureau. And even then, it might only be if they're your boss. Policies will never blanket ban dating among employees (it wouldn't be enforceable in court if they tried). However, any company with a halfway decent HR department will have rules and guidelines to be followed (for example, disclosure). It all basically amounts to "don't bring your shit to where we eat" in most cases. But a boss shacking up with their employee without telling anyone is definitely a no no
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Mar 27, 2024 13:15:40 GMT -5
To be more serious though, the two expert opinions in the story do paint an interesting combined picture for me, especially with both of them singling out the lack of something for board members or hierarchical relationships, or for specific punishments laid out for violations of it for the way higher ups. I really hope the evil is all vanquished from the company because this system seems like it'd be really good for the optics of saying they have a policy while ultimately codifying the means for a ledger of coverups. WWE shouldn't have needed a rule in place to keep Vince from doing what he did, but realistically the rule is so vague that even if it were in place, nothing could have stopped Vince. He'd have just kept doing it and kept being 'reprimanded' internally while giving the company an honest view of how many skeletons he was filling their closets with. If there were abusers or participants in the company's upper reaches still--just purely as a hypothetical here--a culture of keeping stuff inside and overlooking abuses would absolutely not be stopped by this policy. Rules have to come with an actual culture of caring about this shit.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Mar 27, 2024 13:17:49 GMT -5
To be more serious though, the two expert opinions in the story do paint an interesting combined picture for me, especially with both of them singling out the lack of something for board members or hierarchical relationships, or for specific punishments laid out for violations of it for the way higher ups. I really hope the evil is all vanquished from the company because this system seems like it'd be really good for the optics of saying they have a policy while ultimately codifying the means for a ledger of coverups. WWE shouldn't have needed a rule in place to keep Vince from doing what he did, but realistically the rule is so vague that even if it were in place, nothing could have stopped Vince. He'd have just kept doing it and kept being 'reprimanded' internally while giving the company an honest view of how many skeletons he was filling their closets with. It comes off a bit like a way where they can tell worried shareholders "We have a policy involving disclosing workplace relationships!" and the shareholders would go "Great, problem solved, my money won't be going to hiring interns for sex or whatever!" without looking at if that's actually the case or not.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Mar 27, 2024 13:21:32 GMT -5
I don't think such a policy would've stopped McMahon anyway. He just wouldn't have tried to paint it as a consensual, romantic relationship. But even in a public company, he owned the overwhelming majority of controlling shares and we saw how effective the board forcing him to 'retire' was (as in, it wasn't once any sense of shame he felt for his acts conflicted with his ego and/or boredom at home).
Ultimately, corporate policy isn't going to stop someone like this when the means to totally remove him from the company can't exist. And his acts, if all true, weren't just unethical or immoral, but criminal. That's where the justice system has to step in.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Mar 27, 2024 13:23:29 GMT -5
To be more serious though, the two expert opinions in the story do paint an interesting combined picture for me, especially with both of them singling out the lack of something for board members or hierarchical relationships, or for specific punishments laid out for violations of it for the way higher ups. I really hope the evil is all vanquished from the company because this system seems like it'd be really good for the optics of saying they have a policy while ultimately codifying the means for a ledger of coverups. WWE shouldn't have needed a rule in place to keep Vince from doing what he did, but realistically the rule is so vague that even if it were in place, nothing could have stopped Vince. He'd have just kept doing it and kept being 'reprimanded' internally while giving the company an honest view of how many skeletons he was filling their closets with. It comes off a bit like a way where they can tell worried shareholders "We have a policy involving disclosing workplace relationships!" and the shareholders would go "Great, problem solved, my money won't be going to hiring interns for sex or whatever!" without looking at if that's actually the case or not. Not to mention trying to use it on covering their ass in the lawsuit to claim the company didn't know about the abuse and therefore didn't enable it and look they care so much they enacted a policy to keep this from happening to other people please don't find them specifically guilty. Like even their statement about Nick Khan not knowing about any complaints on her part is objectively false because the WSJ shit dropped a year and a half before the lawsuit showed up and there was allegedly an investigation. But it's priming them for their side of the story.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Mar 27, 2024 13:50:42 GMT -5
I don't think such a policy would've stopped McMahon anyway. He just wouldn't have tried to paint it as a consensual, romantic relationship. But even in a public company, he owned the overwhelming majority of controlling shares and we saw how effective the board forcing him to 'retire' was (as in, it wasn't once any sense of shame he felt for his acts conflicted with his ego and/or boredom at home). Ultimately, corporate policy isn't going to stop someone like this when the means to totally remove him from the company can't exist. And his acts, if all true, weren't just unethical or immoral, but criminal. That's where the justice system has to step in. Yes this is where I see the issue - Vince had ultimate power in the company and there’s really not much anyone that even did know about the transgressions could have done about it, successfully. In fact, and I’ve said this before, one of the most effective ways to stop it all is exactly what happened - someone leaked to the press the terrible things that were going on in hopes that a legitimate news org (here, the WSJ) would make the story blow up and publicly pressure Vince out of power.
|
|
|
Post by Rise on Mar 27, 2024 14:30:22 GMT -5
I work in the public sector in UK and have done for 18 years. We don't have a policy on that I don't think, certainly not below director level and we have had a few marriages between staff in our place You very likely do, it's just not something that comes up often, I'd be willing to wager. It's a pretty standard OP for any business not run by a deranged old hick who thinks the posh people will respect him if he wears a nice suit. Possibly, I know all of our directors well enough and they've never mentioned it, even when folk got together full time or hooked up on works night's out
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Mar 27, 2024 15:47:53 GMT -5
You’d be surprised. There are tons of companies / governments that do not have dating policies. The only policy where I work is that you can't date someone in your own bureau. And even then, it might only be if they're your boss. The only policy I've ever had to sign on dating were. If you are a manager do not date anyone that would be directly below you. (there was a clause that if you were already dating before one of you was promoted, that it was ok but bring it to your supervisors attention so you aren't the one handling their review and such) Also on that was the standard Sexual Harassment policy of if you ask someone in the company on a date and they say no... drop it.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,145
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Mar 27, 2024 15:56:35 GMT -5
The only policy where I work is that you can't date someone in your own bureau. And even then, it might only be if they're your boss. The only policy I've ever had to sign on dating were. If you are a manager do not date anyone that would be directly below you. (there was a clause that if you were already dating before one of you was promoted, that it was ok but bring it to your supervisors attention so you aren't the one handling their review and such) Also on that was the standard Sexual Harassment policy of if you ask someone in the company on a date and they say no... drop it. Yeah, like, I know there are married couples who work in my agency. But they're in different bureaus.
|
|
|
Post by random420 on Mar 27, 2024 17:28:32 GMT -5
WWE was a publicly traded company with no policy regarding this for HOW LONG? 1999 So twenty four years. Just around the time that a certain wrestler started dating the boss daughter irl.
|
|