I had started to make myself believe through what all was stated till date on “Love contract” that yes it is detrimental to the society and it is the next big mistake that managers have ever undertaken by curbing the right to love. But sorry cannot attach myself to the critical chain.
Lets first look at some of the points raised:
“The companies making such love or dating contracts are harassing the people in love and nothing more. Such contracts should be scrapped……… ”- Are everything that is present in the society which harasses people be scrapped. That way law and order should be the first to be scrapped as it also harasses people (Although they may be criminals). Is taking a strong stance like scrapping a contract a pragmatic approach? Moreover don’t we still realize that the job of employment contract is not only to create a so-called disciplined atmosphere but have lot of other elements which are not evident on the face.
“With individuals spending more than 8-9 hours together a day, chances of office romance happening are very high”- In any educational institutes members of the opposite sex spend literally much more time than 8-9 hrs and if it means that romance starts brewing everywhere then this institutes should be epitome of love. Sorry I don’t have statistics to prove it. Is the contract only to keep people away from love?
“Most of our notions of romantic relationships are highly stereotyped and we can attribute it to Bollywood and our hyper-repressive culture”- this is what I really believe and the example is this blog itself where major focus has been to get two distant lovers to come together and term the manager a villain. Yes stereotyping happens but when we are talking about professionalism and love contracts at a firm level are we not talking about people who are competent enough to gauge for themselves what kind of relationships people share?
Let me make my point very clear and the reason for why I making such uncalled points for.
Should we actually see the case from the point of “love” and “contract” or from a view of an organization which requires the firm and the employee to be mutually beneficial?
Let me see it from the perspective of Pritam: “He is a HR manager who has been there for eight years in the field of HR and is being looked as a promotable candidate (so I will consider him to be a high performing asset). He has been in the loop of generating contracts for employees and should have been very clear of what goes in and out of contracts and what the actual intentions are. To keep a tab on what need not be evident to all should have been very clear to him. When he questions why the GM(HR) is questioning on the personal relationship; he never questioned in the first place why they “hugged each other during office parties shedding inhibitions”. Does him being an HR manager who has been formulating code of conducts could not look at the results side of such actions. I know the answer is “Love is Blind”-and why should an organization suffer with a blind employee?
Now let us glance through the contract named “Dating and Relationship Agreement”
Here I see neither the word “Love” nor “marriage” coming anywhere so that we can draw a comparison as why many organization like to have married couples. Lets see at some of the vocabulary used:
“Equal opportunity employer committed to a discrimination and / or harassment free workplace”:
Perfect every employer wants to be that.
“Voluntary relationship of mutual consensus”:
That’s also true and it is not that anybody forced them to get into such a relationship against their consensus.
“Slightest possible way affect our performance in our jobs directly or indirectly”:
That’s true again but that does not mean that the norms get stricter for the couples. If the employer continues to judge them within the same criteria then it is nothing exceptional called for.
“Promise to avoid any romantic and / or sexual behavior”:
This is to avoid lovemaking and not to shed inhibitions rather than trying to stop them from falling in love.
“Reporting relationship would be influenced by personal romantic relationship”
This is the most important point as this can clearly destroy a working environment if promotions or grading starts happening on the basis of whom you love. Although lots of other factors do influence reporting relations one which is evident on the face should be curtailed to maintain a sense of non discrimination.
“To take disciplinary action against both of us and discharge either of us or both of us”:
This the ending line of almost all known contracts
To take the contract as a whole; it states nothing which stops pritam and jagruti to love each other within the organization or outside until and unless performance and hierarchy remains intact and code of conduct is maintained within the walls to maintain the culture. It actually safeguards the employer from future nuisances arising due to intimacy at work place. The only question mark is whether they will be looked at or gauged under the same parameters after signing the contract as they were being evaluated at present
The only unreasonable points that I find is:
Jagruti being forced to resign on non compliance of the agreement if such norms were not clarified to them first. Such norms if required to maintain the culture should have been in the employment contract. Also create a pressure cooker scenario was not justified if the employer felt it was on the right track.
“Hereby acknowledge that we have entered into a romantic relationship”: Why the organization is interested in them acknowledging the fact. If Pritam falls for somebody else tomorrow should he sign another contract acknowledging their romantic relationship? It should be a common regulation signed by all restricting them from romantic behaviors detrimental to the company.
No comments:
Post a Comment