In the story “Love Contract” GM (HR) asking Mr Pritam to sign the contract without even reading is a very undemocratic demand. This is not just about a single employee in an organization; it is about the principles of the organization. Do they really think that it is a better way to keep employees focused towards their work rather than any other or is it simply policing?? Even if it is, I question that whether it is possible to quantify the level of relationship so that it can be concluded that it was responsible for underperformance and also even if it is among many other factors of underperformance how do we conclude that how much is the contribution of extra involvement in personal relationships in the office which resulted in it? It is a level of great subjectivity. Rather the basic purpose that has been stated is wrong or it is just another way of shifting the balance of power in the hands of the employer for throwing employees out. I believe that it is just the other way round that these relationships help employees solve their office problems and generation of empathy for the people you are working with is an obvious thing. You can not restrict basic human tendency to get inclined towards somebody more than the other? Then how do we justify this contract?? We cannot force the employees to work like robots and keep them in constant fear that they are being monitored even for their relationships with other employees. I differ with some of my friends who think that such contracts are prevention and I believe that this is an unjustified regulation for the employees.
I don’t think just making the employees sign a contract will keep them away from such relationships, rather the situation will become more distrustful and the genuine team spirit and coordination required at work place will be lost. In the example of Mr Bill Clinton as given by one of my friends, I think that is totally a personal matter and has nothing to do with the organization. Such people with great power and money are usually likely to overrule such petty things as contracts.
But this also cannot be denied today that the issues of workplace sexual harassment, extra marital affairs etc have become very common. I think that instead of asking every employee to sign such contract, we can set the rules of stringent punishments for whosoever is proved to be guilty of such acts and the management must be very open to listen to the complaints. This will help in maintaining the overall atmosphere in the organization and simultaneously warn the wrong doers of the results of such acts.
1 comment:
Well in response to the post above I would have to differ and contradict my friend Juhi Agrawal, I would like to point out that when you are the President of the most powerful nation on Earth and hold a post of a stature like that, then your each move is watched. Just because you are holding a position like that, it doesn’t mean that one can sweep any act like that under the carpet as a fleeting moment of passion. I would like to point out that this scandal came to notice only because the accused was such a reputed person. There could be numerous cases where the accused could/would have got away with the act of say sexual harassment or sexual exploitation just because no rule was in place to deter him.
The idea or suggestion that just because people can get away with such acts because of their power, so we should not have any contracts is debatable; we cannot leave everything to one’s morals and need rules all the same. Drunken driving is wrong, still people do it so what should we do, have no rule? Bribing , dowry etc are wrong, what should we do, leave it as such and wait for people’s conscience to awaken and become rightful, definitely not,we don’t have time for that and deterrent are required and in this case contracts.
My base point is that just because it was one of kind of a case doesn’t mean we ignore it. If it becomes more common place and more frequent, then a contract won’t be sufficient and the Legislature will have to come up with a Law or Statute to make it illegal by law. Rather, with the increasing rise in cases of top management officials involved in such acts the relevance of such contracts increases all the more.
Post a Comment