Thou shalt not commit (workplace) adultery

There's an interesting story in the paper today about the sheriff of Pinellas County, Jim Coats, disciplining two of his employees for an old-fashioned reason: adultery in the workplace. (With each other, that is, not with civilians.) He created the rule in 2005 but this was the first time he invoked it.

I can't get too worked up about this. Although Coats himself describes his policy in terms of "morality," there are practical, common-sense workplace reasons for having it -- especially in a "workplace" that involves life-and-death matters.

The wording of the sheriff's policy doesn't use the word "adultery," but simply the term "association" between married staffers, a term defined as living together, dating or having an, ahem, "intimate relationship." Again, seems to me this can be justified on the basis of not disrupting the workplace. Maybe I am flat wrong and I would be curious to hear what folks had to say about it.

Now, if Coats decided to start disciplining staffers for not keeping the Sabbath holy or honoring their parents, we'd have a different story...

Comments

[Jim Johnson]

Howard,

'Hokey-Pokey' is the term I always use. Putting things in and taking them out, then shaking things all about covers most of the bases.

[Trixie]

It a nice campaign move, considering Coats is up in ’08. But that’s about all this was about. It’s a dangerous precedence, a proverbial Pandora’s Box.

Just exactly how far into our bedrooms are we willing to allow our politicians and employers to come?

What if the sheriff found oral sex to be immoral, would he establish a policy to punish those he thinks engage in such behavior?

And how about homosexuality; there a many folks who find homosexuality to be immoral behavior. Should we establish a policy to punish those who engage in such behavior? I’d be very curious to hear Mr. Coat’s opinion of that one.

[John Gibson]

I can't go with you on this one Howard, even though I think adultery falls outside acceptable moral standards. It's not employers who have any right or duty to enforce it.

It is unreasonable to expect that people who work together will never form "associations". In fact, that is how untold numbers of successful relationships get their start.

It is also unreasonable for a business to think it has the power and right to govern personal relationships on the pretext of "preventing disruptions in the workplace".

This is putting the cart before the horse. If problems in a relationship bleed over into the workplace and cause a disruption, then the business has a right to deal with the disruption. But they still have no right to interfere with the relationship.

I have sold my work services to my employer, not my life.

[Howard Troxler]

Thanks for the comments so far. As Trixie points out, and as I tried to, I think we quickly get into deep water if the sheriff is merely enforcing "morality."

John, the argument that the employer should take action only if the relationship begins to affect the workplace has an appeal to it. As to how practical it is, I dunno -- life experience suggests that these little melodramas tend to drag in co-workers whether they like it or not...

[20/20]

I would have to agree with Mr. Gibson and Trixie on this. It’s a bit of a slippery slope. To base employment punishment for violating what are considered to be today’s societal moral norms, is a risky endeavor. One has to consider what were the day’s moral norms 100 years ago, and what will they be 100 years from now.

Indeed, deal with the workplace disruption on a performance level. But as for any personal acts (in private life) that may have cause the performance issue, employers should be hands off. We hear employers say “leave your personal business at home”… this action by the employer threatens to open the work environment doors to it, and further may acknowledge awareness, moreover; complicity. That could lead to plausible liability on the part of the employer.

[20/20]

You know, the more I think about it; what sort of liability could not only the County, but also the Times face from the innocent people indirectly involved in this? Those marital partners who were cheated on, for example.

Perhaps they were aware of the situation, perhaps they had no problem with it, perhaps they were trying to work it out with their partner, and perhaps they did not want their dirty laundry (although indirectly) made public. I’m certain that there are family and friends of theirs’, who knew nothing of their’ personal marital problems… but have now read all abut it.

To paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jurassic Park)… “…were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.”

[RB]

This entire discussion is taking place within the strict confines of the Christian view of morality and adultery. I understand there are legal definitions and reprecussions for marriage and adultery, but those are not the responsibility of an employer. As soon as the the word "morality" is used, that's indicating that you're going to take your set of beliefs and impose them on me, whether I share those beliefs or not. Maybe imposing an adultery ban is not as insidious as forcing employees to keep the sabbath, but it's still a foisting of Christian world view on others. As long as there's no "association" during work hours, using work facilities or work vehicles, then it's none of the employer's business.