Well, second home could have many implications. It is not a new phenomenon that people have “relationships” at their places of work. The development these days is that people are much more public about their relationships and feelings.
It is completely justified that employees are entitled to privacy in their personal lives. But what happens is that: work problems get taken home and home problems get taken to work. Then the organisation has to pitch in to safeguard its interests. The organisation is completely right in enforcing a contract that preserves it’s sanctity. What happens within the premises of an organisation is completely its business. But where do you draw the line between a casual liking and a “relationship”. As Sushma has mentioned, there may be couples who are unwilling to disclose their relationship.
What is of concern is - Does such a contract actually safeguard an organisation's interest? If the purpose is to save the organisation's name in case of false allegations of harassment by an employee - the contract stands useless. In an institution like marriage, where both are lawfully wedded the wife has a right to charge her husband of harassment. The law accepts that a woman in a relationship can be abused. So even if the contract suggests that both the employees are in a mutually consenting relationship the individual can at any time charge for harassment, if she/he thinks so. In that case, I think it is a very narrow interpretation of the law.
Such a contract only mars the atmosphere of work. It fosters a cloistered attitude in the workplace and suggests the absence of good and strong HR practices.
No comments:
Post a Comment