Slashdot Mirror
Workplace Romance A No-No at Gates Foundation
theodp writes "The past week has brought NY Times coverage of the workplace romance of Gates Foundation co-chairs Bill and Melinda Gates, as well as Newsweek coverage of the workplace romance of Gates Foundation CEO Patty Stonesifer and her subordinate, Slate Editor-in-Chief Michael Kinsley. So the Foundation's Conflict of Interest Policy comes off as just a tad hypocritical: 'Additionally, certain types of relationships between co-workers may create impermissible conflicts of interest. For example, a romantic relationship in the workplace may raise perceptions of bias and favoritism.'"
While I was furiously searching for something insightful to write, I determined that this story is essentially devoid of value. I don't even know if there is an opportunity to trash Gates here. I know this is effectively a four day holiday for many people, but certainly there must be other stories with a modicum of news value worth posting.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
It doesn't say they're forbidden, it says they should be disclosed to HR. It's a fairly common practice.
Unless one of them didn't report directly to the other. Of course, then neither of them would be a subordinate.
Still, its hyprocritical.
While talking about the foundation: Anyone else notice that Warren Buffet is so rich that he hired Bill Gates to spend his money?
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
In the company I work in (danish company) more than 10% of the employees are married to each other. And we are hundres of employees, so I think there's enough statistical data to toy with.
What if office romances was not allowed here? Why shouldn't it be allowed, as long as they are not romancing in the office? I regularly see people coming to work holding hands, and people from different departmens eating together, and that's it. I don't see any problems here. (But if people here keep marrying each other (or hiring spouses), this could be a family business in a few generations...)
Well, not exactly FUD, but certainly wilfully misinterpretation.
If you read the linked-to guide, it is primarily talking about situations in which an employee of the foundation has a relationship with someone who is a beneficiary, or potential beneficiary of the foundation.
Remember that a large part of the foundation's work is to give other organisations money. Obviously they need to ensure that conflicts of interest are known about and that people aren't using their influence to get money passed on to their loved ones. In their position, it would be madness not to have a policy like that, and I'm sure most similar organisations have something similar.
The document is mainly about relationships with people external to the company, but there is a small section about coworker romances. That section makes it quite clear that disclosure of office romances is only encouraged in situations where a conflict of interest could be a problem. The guideline is really very reasonable:
When deciding what kind of relationships should be disclosed, consider the situation from the perspective of an outsider and whether the relationship is of such a nature that it could raise an allegation of an apparent or actual conflict of interest, and then err on the side of transparency, as disclosure helps to alleviate or avoid future misunderstandings.
I assume then they would be talking about relationships where for instance the career advancement of one partner would be decided by the other partner in the relationship.
Nowhere in the document does it seek to discourage such workplace relationships.
The poster is just trying to whip up a bit of anti-Gates feeling out of thin air.
Nothing to see here, move along!