 |
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Rules like that were very common in American companies in the 1950s, but were changed in the 1960s. Then as the sexual harrassment craze hit the legal scene companies began to re-instate the old rules. The problem is that other countries have different legal environments. Workplace sexual harrassment may not be considered much of a problem in Germany. |
Doctor S -- you said pretty much what I was going to say. In most North American workplaces, office romances are frowned upon. Its particularly not liked if the employees wield power over one another since if it goes sour, its a textbook sexual harrasment claim.
I have no idea about the german environment but it sounds as if there is a little culture clash underway
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Flubber
I have no idea about the german environment but it sounds as if there is a little culture clash underway |
That is to say things in a modest way - I guess that in most european countries such company rules would be laughted at - that is not a thing that a company has any thing to say about.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
quote: Originally posted by DanS
Yeh, it's because they don't want private matters impacting the business and business matters impact private matters. Mostly it's against misuse of management power, but there are other reasons for it. Many American companies have such rules. |
I find it a little funny that the land of the free accepts that a company has the right to decide what people do in privacy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:36
|
|
Why so? An employee has the right to decide where they work (see Spiffor, etc.).
The intent of these rules are pretty above-board. Besides the legal implications, they are meant to protect employees against predatory management and against any appearance of employees climbing the corporate ladder through their private relationships.
Last edited by DanS on 20-06-2005 at 05:22
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BlackCat
|
|
Maybe it's just me, but I would never work for a company that tried to meddle with my private life, and I wouldn't mind a bit if such a company went bankrupcy as fast as possible.
Edit: There are plenty of laws that prevents abuse of employees in a sexual way, so there are no reason why a company has to make rules that prevent people to have relationships just because they are working at the same place - it's just rediciously - in my current company there are plenty of that kind of relationships and we still exist.
Last edited by BlackCat on 20-06-2005 at 05:27
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001 time: 21:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Commy
Well, considering that Wal-mart has more profit than any other corporation in the world...even more than the oil companies... |
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fort...1045741,00.html
This list is just American companies listed by largest profits per year. There are a great many nonAmerican companies which are extremely profitable and if included would bump Walmart even lower.
Rank Company Profit (in millions of $)
1. Exxon Mobil 25,330.0
2. Citigroup 17,046.0
3. General Electric 16,593.0
4. Bank of America Corp. 14,143.0
5. ChevronTexaco 13,328.0
6. Pfizer 11,361.0
7. American Intl. Group 11,050.0
8. Wal-Mart Stores 10,267.0
9. Altria Group 9,416.0
10. Johnson & Johnson 8,509.0
Last edited by Oerdin on 20-06-2005 at 06:24
|
|
|  |
 |
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970 time: 00:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Commy
Well, considering that Wal-mart has more profit than any other corporation in the world...even more than the oil companies...
Besides, you just have to love corporations that except even the lowest classes of society and help the community...
Honestly, sometimes I wonder if Mr. Walmart does it because he is a true Social Democrat or because he justs wants PR and doesn't want the US imposing anti-trust laws on him.... |
Nope. Still don't care. I'm neither an employee, investor, nor customer of Wal-mart.
We don't have Wal-mart in the city because the unions have managed to screw up expansion plans here by using some pretty dirty tactics. I don't think this is right and would welcome Wal-mart in town to minimize the influence of the unions. That's about as far as I get worked up over Wal-mart, either positively or negatively.
Last edited by DanS on 20-06-2005 at 06:35
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Oerdin
|
 |
of Internet Music.
Sep 2001 time: 21:36
|
|
I don't often shop at Walmart but occationally it is good for something cheap and not to important. I'd never make a big purchase there like a TV or electronics but for towels, toilet paper, cheap pens, house hold stuff (hampers, trash cans, bathroom matts, candles, etc), and odd stuff like gym socks it isn't to bad. There clothes are dirt cheap but universally fall apart very quickly. If I had kids I'd buy baby clothes and stuff there since the kids would just outgrow nice clothes to quickly and if I needed things like oil filters or motor oil for my car I'd buy it there.
I'd never buy music, books, or magazines at Wal-Mart since they try to censor those items and I won't support that. Their flat pack furniture is even lower in quality then IKEA, if that is possible, so I'd avoid those items as well. In fact anything durable or over $50 I wouldn't buy at Wal-Mart. A cheap Chinese made BBQ is about as expensive as I'd go at that store since there stuff is all junk.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36. Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|