Flirting with disaster at work - Hypothetical

Sectoid · Post by **Sectoid** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:37 am

I am not for sexual harassment or placing blame on anyone. I just have a hypothetical question about it. Before you say anything, it is not me in this situation.

A woman at work, let's call her Sue, is frequently friendly with a man at work, let's call him Steve. Steve has the ability to do favors for Sue during the course of normal business. Little things, like make stuff for her use at work, home, or outside of work, prioritize her projects over others, etc. Sue has told Steve that she does not have a boyfriend without him asking and as a result there is some harmless flirting between the two. Nothing overt or anything, just harmless banter.
One day a group of people from the office go out for drinks, or whatever. Sue and Steve are both there and so is Sue's boyfriend. The one she specifically said she did not have. Now, the question, is Sue out of line for telling Steve that she does not have a boyfriend and flirting, thereby incentivizing Steve to do her favors or is Steve out of line for doing the favors and flirting with some kind of expectation?

Common sense tells me that Steve should not assume anything and is not entitled to anything from her. However my sense of justice says that Sue is a manipulative POS and deserves to have her projects on the bottom of the pile from now on.

What are your thoughts?

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:40 am

Skirting the larger issues, the first thing that occurs to me is: Was said boyfriend in place when the 'no boyfriend' statement was made?

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:42 am

Are they equals? That's the most important question.

dbt1949 · Post by **dbt1949** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:47 am

I started dating a woman at work once. She told me she wasn't seeing anyone. Then one day I found out she did have a boyfriend.
I dropped her like a hot potatoe.

Freyland · Post by **Freyland** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:50 am

If Steve can impact her projects with positive or negative priority, its clear he and she are not equals. Possibly equal from an administrative point of view, but not equal for this discussion if he controls her outcomes.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:51 am

Sectoid wrote:What are your thoughts?

Workplace manipulation could come in many different forms. What if Steve was giving Sue priority because of some non-sexual reason. Maybe she's older and he feels bad for her..or maybe she's made it known that sick parent or child so leaving every day at 3pm would be ideal. If Steve was changing things around for her with a quid-pro-quo expectation, then he's an idiot. If she's batting her eyelashes (and nothing more) and receiving special treatment for it, he's an idiot. In short, I think he's an idiot. Or maybe she's in an open relationship or doesn't really care about this guy. Either way, he's an idiot.

In short, don't date your co-workers. Also, going out drinking with co-workers could arguably be an extension of the workplace. I would go out for a drink to be social and maintain appearances. I would not go out with co-workers and toss back drinks like I'm hanging with my friends. Trouble.

Also, to paraphrase William Munny - it ain't about what Sue deserves. She's absolutely being manipulative and for some people it works. But it'll only get her so far or she'll end up in bigger trouble than she intended. She's doing it because it works. The minute it stops working, she'll stop doing it.

EDIT: Oddly enough, Flirtin' with Disaster was a signature song for the Brotherhood of Forks - one of the few that Fretmute always wanted to sing. Totally random!

Sectoid · Post by **Sectoid** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:03 pm

Blackhawk wrote:Skirting the larger issues, the first thing that occurs to me is: Was said boyfriend in place when the 'no boyfriend' statement was made?

He was in place when she made the comment.

tgb wrote:Are they equals? That's the most important question.

As Freyland said, that is debatable. They are in different departments, but one depends on the other. The projects she is asking for do not impact the bottom line. They are personal in nature. The are not essential business.

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:04 pm

I'm with Smoove - he's stupid.

Sectoid · Post by **Sectoid** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:09 pm

stessier wrote:I'm with Smoove - he's stupid.

I never said he wasn't.

Default · Post by **Default** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:13 pm

As a Steve, l have no comment, other than, "you ain't getting nuthin', brother."

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:14 pm

Sectoid wrote:
stessier wrote:I'm with Smoove - he's stupid.
I never said he wasn't.

Then I'm not sure what you're asking.

Yes she's manipulating him. If the jobs aren't work related, then yeah, they shouldn't be done before the work ones. But if he's stupid enough to fall for the manipulation, I'm not sure you've going to be able to convince him otherwise.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:15 pm

I'm staying the hell outta this one, but I am reading with interest.

Sectoid · Post by **Sectoid** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:35 pm

I'm not asking for advice, just for your opinions on the subject. I have learned long ago to stay the hell out of other people's personal business, especially at work. I also don't shit where I eat. I'm even hesitant to ask a woman out that I met at the dog park because if she says "no" or things don't work out, I still want to go to that dog park. That's my own baggage, though.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:41 pm

GreenGoo wrote:I'm staying the hell outta this one, but I am reading with interest.

What's interesting about it?

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:52 pm

The wisdom of U2K is sorely needed around here lately.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:03 pm

If she's batting her eyelashes (and nothing more) and receiving special treatment for it, he's an idiot

Unless she's your waitress. Then she's making the night more fun and she gets a better tip for it. Aside from that, pretty much.

Common sense tells me that Steve should not assume anything and is not entitled to anything from her. However my sense of justice says that Sue is a manipulative POS and deserves to have her projects on the bottom of the pile from now on.

Both of these statements seem like reasonable judgements to me but what do I know from stupid.

Also I stay out of intra office politics whenever I can. Sometimes it takes effort to notice how much two married folks are flirting or puppy dogging or whatever but like Kermit the Frog drinking iced tea, that's none of my business. That lesson was a long time learned in broad strokes when you see some coworkers taking two hour lunches or coming in 15 minutes late every day. You mentally tell yourself "they have a different arrangement" until you accept it. What they do is none of my business unless if affects my job or they are lying to the company.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 1:13 pm

tgb wrote:Are they equals? That's the most important question.

Not anymore. Our zero-tolerance harassment policy at work covers anyone you might ever come in contact with on the job: employees, contractors, vendors, customers. Maybe level of authority would affect a settlement in the event of a lawsuit, but it's not going to decide whether you keep or lose your job.

This has been the case in every company I've worked for throughout my career. Over the past 15 years or so, companies I've worked required every employee to take harassment awareness training so there would be no gray areas of misunderstanding.

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:30 pm

Jeff V wrote:
tgb wrote:Are they equals? That's the most important question.
Not anymore. Our zero-tolerance harassment policy at work covers anyone you might ever come in contact with on the job: employees, contractors, vendors, customers. Maybe level of authority would affect a settlement in the event of a lawsuit, but it's not going to decide whether you keep or lose your job.

This has been the case in every company I've worked for throughout my career. Over the past 15 years or so, companies I've worked required every employee to take harassment awareness training so there would be no gray areas of misunderstanding.

I haven't worked in an office in 22 years. I don't think I could if my life depended on it.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 2:43 pm

A guy I used to work with who somewhat resembled you, tgb (same rock'in hairstyle anyway) was a former radio DJ. When he would talk to women, he would stare at their chest bug-eyed. He left as informal complaints were building but no formal complaints filed. He had taken similar job with a home builder - more salary, his own secretary, and the option to buy a house at cost. Two months in he was fired after his secretary filed sexual harassment charges. Not only did this builder have a zero-tolerance policy, but it also apparently included a clause that allowed them to call his wife and tell her why he was fired.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:17 pm

Alefroth wrote:
GreenGoo wrote:I'm staying the hell outta this one, but I am reading with interest.
What's interesting about it?

Peoples' opinions?

Is this a trick question?

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:20 pm

So I think that we are all in agreement that Sectoid should try to sleep with Sue.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:22 pm

El Guapo wrote:So I think that we are all in agreement that Sectoid should try to sleep with Sue.

Wait. I thought he was supposed to flirt with Steve for favour and date Sue's boyfriend. Do I need to go back and re-read? What should I be looking for?

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:25 pm

Im the simple asshole type so I say Sue is a bitch and Steve is an idiot.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:28 pm

dbt1949 wrote:I started dating a woman at work once. She told me she wasn't seeing anyone. Then one day I found out she did have a boyfriend.
I dropped her like a hot potatoe.

Dan Quayle approves of this post.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:31 pm

Smoove_B wrote:Brotherhood of Forks

gameoverman · Post by **gameoverman** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:46 pm

My thoughts on the first post is that Sue is a liar. Not saying that as a judgment, just as a fact. So Steve, and everyone else who is aware of this in the office, should keep that in mind in their dealings with her.

Meanwhile, Steve's position in this is unclear to me. Did he do these things as a prelude to some further personal interaction with a woman he believed was unattached? If so, that makes him a weasel and he deserves his disappointment. He got outplayed by the person he was trying to play.

If he did it just because that's the kind of guy he is and he expected nothing of it, then he's not a weasel but neither does he have grounds to complain. The fact she has a boyfriend changes nothing between them IF he wasn't being a weasel.

The clue to his character will be how he acts from here on out. If he suddenly can't do her these little favors, then yup he was a weasel all along.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:32 pm

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:16 pm

Max Peck wrote:

That's the definition of sexual harassment.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 6:30 pm

stessier wrote:
Max Peck wrote:
That's the definition of sexual harassment.

I would say so. Let us hope that Steve's circumstances do not closely resemble those of the subject of this randomly selected and tangentially relevant "Don't be like Bill" meme.

gameoverman · Post by **gameoverman** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:39 pm

I didn't address the sexual harassment angle since that wasn't part of the original scenario. If Steve is in a power position over her, then he was wrong from the start and she's not a liar. In that case, she was forced into protecting herself from this guy who was abusing his power. Playing along to get along can be seen as a self defense mechanism.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:53 pm

Does Steve wear a fedora?

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:54 pm

Based on all the things I’ve seen in the workplace this doesn’t seem like sexual harassment to me, but that’s just my opinion. My opinion is also that Steve is an idiot.

And also that Sue is manipulative and is likely going to find work harder now. Not because sexual harassment reasons, but because she’s a manipulative piece of shit reasons.

People don’t like that.

Madmarcus · Post by **Madmarcus** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:46 am

I read this last night. I slept on it. I'm still not sure I see what all the fuss is about unless I'm being too literal and missing something that is implied by the first post.

To me it looks like a work spouse situation. Were the things he did taking away from other projects or was it just minor stuff that didn't impact other work? Is there any real indication he was hoping for any return other then the fact that friendship and light banter might make the workday more pleasant? Of course I'm looking at this from outside. For that matter I've always felt that it is perfectly reasonable to have friends of the opposite gender

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:50 am

RunningMn9 wrote:Sue is manipulative and is likely going to find work harder now. Not because sexual harassment reasons, but because she’s a manipulative piece of shit reasons.

People don’t like that.

Too true. Sue fits the profile for several women I've worked with, but no man I can recall. She'll tap Steve for anything she can get out of him and may even turn bitter and try to cause shit for him if the preferential treatment dries up. I learned a hard lesson many moons ago when I was a Steve.

Which leads me to the conclusion that Steve is either immature or driven completely by his penis. Steve needs to learn to muzzle it and be a pro.

raydude · Post by **raydude** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:14 am

I find this discussion interesting and I'll put in my two cents about what Steve should do based on my own work environment. Which, admittedly, is probably very different from a common office environment, but is being offered in case Steve's situation is similar.

If this were to happen in my work place then Sue would be analogous to a scientist or engineer with a given project that has tasks that only Steve alone could provide. Steve may also have to answer to other projects utilizing his expertise. The thing Steve needs to consider is the possibility that Sue will eventually land an interesting project that Steve really wants to work on. Say, a mission to Europa. If Steve resorts to putting Sue at the bottom of the task queue then Sue may resent this and not come looking for Steve when she has this cool new project.

However, if this is like an Office Space environment where Sue's tasks are no different from Ed's tasks - i.e. everyone wants Steve to make TPS reports - then by all means feel free to put Sue's tasks at the bottom of the queue.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:39 am

It sounds like Steve is just pinning all his romantic hopes on Sue and their weird work relationship whereas Sue is just going about her life.

Steve's only source of control in the "relationship" is the allocation of work resources and it's a pretty and kind of creepy thing to use that to try to requite some unrequited love.

Grifman · Post by **Grifman** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:40 am

Sectoid wrote:Common sense tells me that Steve should not assume anything and is not entitled to anything from her. However my sense of justice says that Sue is a manipulative POS and deserves to have her projects on the bottom of the pile from now on.

What are your thoughts?

My common sense says that this is between Steve and Sue, and should stay there.

LordMortis · Post by **LordMortis** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 11:53 am

LawBeefaroni wrote:... it's ... creepy ...

End of line

stessier · Post by **stessier** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 1:12 pm

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the work Steve is doing for Sue is all non-work related. They don't effect the business at all. Relegating her tasks to the bottom of the pile should do nothing negative to her work tasks and help everyone else in the queue.

He was being nice and helping her out, but now potentially won't be. We was stupid, but that's about it from my read.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Fri Oct 13, 2017 2:51 pm

stessier wrote:Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the work Steve is doing for Sue is all non-work related. They don't effect the business at all. Relegating her tasks to the bottom of the pile should do nothing negative to her work tasks and help everyone else in the queue.

He was being nice and helping her out, but now potentially won't be. We was stupid, but that's about it from my read.

Really?

Steve has the ability to do favors for Sue during the course of normal business. Little things, like make stuff for her use at work, home, or outside of work, prioritize her projects over others, etc.