Everything is fair in Love and "Contracts" !!!

Love seems to be such a pure and sacrosanct thing that one could never imagine its name going down in doubt and shame. But the corporate world has effectively managed to do that as well. I will try to share my views about the so called “Love Contract” without taking any affirmative stand. Now in context of the case, Pritam and Jagruti are asked, or rather forced, to sign a contract that primarily restrains them from being involved with each other, romantically or sexually within the organization. It gives the employer the authority to take disciplinary action against them in case they do so or display any favoritism or nepotism. I feel the organization has very clear motives behind this and there is nothing wrong with this kind of an arrangement. The company wants to simply rub itself clean from the un-pleasantries that might follow a distraught love affair between two employees. Employees involved with their subordinates might display nepotism in case of promotions as could have been the case with Pritam (a Sr. HR Manager) and Jagruti (a Sr. Software Engineer). Other possible reasons could be that the company can steer itself clear of any cases of sexual harassment that may arise. Let’s talk about the other side now. I was going through a few articles online and found a few reasons why some employers still prefer not to engage in such practice. The reasons, which I personally found to be hilarious to an extent, included that “the employer might find it awkward to impose such a law, it may seem too pervasive or it may result in better attendance of the employees engaged in the relationship.” This might hold true to an extent in our case of Intermediaries Technologies Ltd. I feel the GM (HR) "simply felt awkward" in asking both of them to sign the love contract and hence asked Pritam to sign it without giving him a chance to read it in front of him. This goes against what some people have suggested in their blogs that the behavior of the GM (HR) is unethical and to an extent, unruly. The prime motive I feel here is to prevent the company from being dragged in the midst of a lawsuit based on sexual harassment charges.

What is sometimes noted in such situations is that the senior employee takes advantage of the situation which may later cause a lot of soreness in the organization. In our case, the employer has lot of reasons to believe that Pritam being a Sr. HR mgr. might indulge into something similar. Thus to safeguard the interest of the organization, the GM (HR) makes both of them sign this agreement. A lot of such cases have been registered in the past and this contract is an “effort to ban consensual relationship being a dismal failure”. Let’s face it, office romance has been on the rise leading to several such cases. This may cause nepotism and favoritism or may lead into further trouble. For instance the case of William Agee, CEO of Bendix and Mary Cunningham which highlighted favor granting between the two partners. Then there is the case of Red Cross’ CEO Mark W. Everson who had to involuntarily resign for having a consensual sexual relationship with a subordinate employee. Recently there was another famous case in the news, that of IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn engaging in a sexual relationship with his subordinate. And to wrap it up, the superpower case of Bill Clinton’s act of indulgence with Monica Lewinsky, an intern at the White House. These and many more such acts have brought serious harm to the image of the respective organizations and here the love contract has thus emerged as a preventive measure. Apart from the direct repercussions, organizations also fear a drop in productivity, efficiency and dedication of the employees arising from such relationships. Employees are still not callous about admitting to their relationships openly and hence they would be conservative while indulging in such acts as the love contract would definitely bring it out in the open. Overall I feel that this move gives the company leverage and protects the rights of the employer. To talk about whether this is ethical or not, socially acceptable or not, is a totally different issue. Let’s see it in the light that it’s meant to be seen in i.e. strictly professional.