Employees who have a direct or indirect
reporting relationship to each other are prohibited from dating or having a
sexual relationship: McDonald’s employee policy
On 1 Nov 2019, McDonalds fired its President
and Chief executive Steve Easterbrook, 52, for his consensual relationship with
an employee. Easterbrook was competent, innovative, on his watch McDonald’s
share price had more than doubled. His salary was nearly 16 million USD per
annum. If he was romantically involved with a colleague, was that not his
private business? If the relationship was consensual, how could an employer
interfere with it? If two consenting adults fall in love, is it not strange
that in a country like America, companies call it an offence and sack the
offending employee? McDonald’s is not an exception. More than 75% companies now
ban office romances, particularly if one of the two dating employees is a boss
of another – either directly or in the chain of command.
Office romances
In the multinational company where I worked,
dating and relationships were a norm. In Russia and Poland, where I worked for
more than a decade, most employees were young, in their twenties. Because
following the collapse of communism, the reformed countries were young
themselves. Russia had a lovely kissing culture that prompted men and women to
start their working day by kissing one another. Russian custom requires a man
to kiss a woman three times, and that custom was followed more rigorously than any
company policies. This was a tobacco company. We spent days in the offices and
nights at the clubs. The company looked like a club for the young people, and
cigarettes were only an excuse that allowed those young people to meet one
another. I can give a long list, but won’t, of the relationships – some of them
converted into marriages. Certainly this company had no anti-dating policy,
times were different.
The awkward relationships
Doesn’t mean all relationships were equal or
innocent.
A British boss, head of a country, had started
dating his secretary. He was married and she was divorced. In a couple of
months, he promoted her and doubled her salary. In absence of a policy, the
only reaction from the Board was raising of eyebrows.
A German director didn’t hide his relationship
with his secretary either. This low-intelligence woman became a de facto
director. Access to the German director was possible only through her. The
subordinates, some of them fairly senior executives themselves, required to
discuss critical matters with this moronic woman, seek her consent for certain
actions. This was visible and tolerated, god only knows why.
A template case not only in this company, but
several others, was that of a married boss starting an affair with a younger subordinate.
The unmarried girl enjoyed the perquisites of the relationship in form of
promotions, paychecks, gifts at the same time expecting her boss to divorce his
wife so that the two can start a new family. It never happened. The girl
remained unmarried and left the company or the boss so late in life; it became
difficult for her to find a replacement.
Such relationships mixing business with
pleasure corrupt the office atmosphere, and are demotivating for the
colleagues.
#MeToo
We are now in the 21st century, a
century not at all innocent. Maybe the earlier century was not innocent either,
but women silently suffered abuse and harassment. A company such as McDonald’s
employs young girls 16 onwards. There are regular reports of McDonald’semployees complaining of sexual harassment on the job. Their accusations
include groping, indecent exposure, propositions for sex and lewd comments by
supervisors against workers.
It is not easy for women to complain against
sexual advances or harassment when the complaints can result in further
harassment, stopping their promotions, giving them a bad appraisal or even loss
of a job.
Not only the accused men, but also the employer
can be sued for harassment or improper relationships. Companies such as
McDonald’s take the safe way out and ban them to minimize any liability that
may arise. The boss may be individually liable for misconduct, but the company
defends itself by saying the company policy tried to prevent such misconduct.
How consensual is consent?
We remember well the case of Bill Clinton.
Clinton was 50 and the young intern in the White House was 23. He expected the
young girl to offer not only written services which her job required but oral
services as well. How easy is it for a 23-year old girl to say no to the
President of the United States?
McDonald’s fired President Easterbrook is 52
years old. The identity of the girl he was in relationship with is not
revealed. Without knowing anything about her, I would still bet she is much
younger than Easterbrook. This is the Clinton-Lewinsky template, where the
powerful man lures a young girl into bed. The greater the age difference, the
greater the suspicion of it being the abuse of power. Usually the interest is
merely biological; it’s an offence to call it love or romance.
What is the solution?
Let us assume Steve Easterbrook was genuinely
in love with the girl. What were his options? Since he was the President and
the CEO of McDonald’s, every female employee in the company was subordinate to him.
He had no defence of somebody working in another department.
Since Easterbrook was earning a salary of 16
million USD, it is safe to assume the girl’s package was much lower. Before
taking her to bed, Easterbrook should have suggested she left McDonald’s. She
needed to weigh what was more important for her: Easterbrook or McDonald’s. If
she were to leave McDonald’s, the issue would be solved. If she were to leave
Easterbrook, she was probably not worth his love.
He could have disclosed his love to the HR
department and asked for their advice. The HR department reported to him. In
all probability, they would suggest the same thing: either the girl should
leave the company, or Easterbrook should leave the girl.
Easterbrook earlier had a relationship with one
Denise Paleothodoros, a PR employee
of Golin, advisor to McDonald’s. When Easterbrook became McDonald’s’ president,
she informed her company of the relationship. The McDonald’s account was taken
off her to avoid any conflict of interest. This is a decent way to conduct
affairs.
The other solution to the problem could be
marriage. If love was so serious so as to result in a marriage, McDonald’s
could have perhaps forgiven Easterbrook. Marriage can’t be misconduct. And marriage
usually puts an end to all romance in a relationship.
Ravi
No comments:
Post a Comment