Hacker News Reader

Comment by simplemath | Hacker News Reader

Don't shit where you eat.

If you're talking about having relationships with semi-married coworkers: generally yes, you're right.

However, I don't think your phrase applies to anything else about this case, hence the downvotes if people interpreted it differently than me... :)

It's disappointing that this comment is getting downvoted. This case would be so much simpler if Pao had started talking about needing HR policies before she had an affair with a married co-worker.

Definitely. If only she had done things a little differently, she could have prevented her associates from having to discriminate against her for not continuing to date them.

There is something to be said about how, if the patterns of discrimination were a more straight-forward story, it would be better for Pao. The issues around that one partner post-relationship seem to be only one part of much larger problem (assuming the allegations are even roughly true), but "having an affair with a married coworker" is the type of thing that people really get sidetracked on.

The case could stand on its own without those events -- I think it's within good decency to point out the danger/distraction of these lateral issues.

Yes. This is why professionals don't date coworkers (married or otherwise).

Professionals do in fact date coworkers. It happens all the time - it's a matter of culture. Spend some time at Microsoft, for example. "Microsoft Married" is in the corporate slang lexicon on the intranet.

He's implying that if you do date coworkers at the office it's unprofessional, not that people in a professional capacity don't make bad decisions and put their career at risk by dating coworkers.

Of course, what he's managing to imply is that women should not date men at their offices. Because it victimizes the men, who are forced to retaliate when the relationship ends, and then they look bad in the press.

Could you be more paternalistic? We're talking about a woman who was a partner at one of the best VC firms in the world. Pointing our her unprofessional behavior implies nothing more than that _she_ should have known better. If you really want to be a white knight, stop treating women at the top of the industry like interns.

"White knight" is definitely a term that makes me sit up and take notice that maybe it's me that might be on the worst possible side of a debate.

According to her testimony (according to this article), the person whom she had the affair with made False Statements regarding his marital status.

They worked together. I find zero credibility in that statement.

If someone you worked with were intentionally deceptive about the status of their romantic relationships how long would it take you to find out?

Most people keep their work and personal lives somewhat separate for a reason.

Interpreting your comment charitably, you are exactly right that it would be simpler had this been the case.

Another fact: it would also be simpler had she not been (allegedly) lied to about the marriage status of the co-worker.

You have to wonder about the ethics of someone who - by this account - was willing to tell obvious stupid lies about his marital status to get a few shags.

If all of this is true, and it was the ethical baseline for co-worker relationships, what's the ethical baseline for client relationships?

Why didn't she ask someone to verify. Sounds very shady to me. She knew he was married. I don't believe a lot of what she is saying now. Some but not all.

"married" was only one word in my comment. Replace it with "recently separated" or even "single" and it still equals incredibly inappropriate conduct. the reason you don't dip your pen in the company ink is that it gets messy.

I don't think we disagree. If it's valid to point out she shouldn't have been engaging in any kind of relationship with a co-worker, then it's equally valid to point out the same thing for the co-worker.

The case would also have been simpler if KPC was run like a real company that understood that it can be found liable for the discriminatory actions of its employees and the atmosphere that follows.

Absolutely. I imagine this hypothetical company would have fired both parties who ingaged in an affair that caused friction at the office. My point was that Pao seems a day late and a dollar short by pursuing an HR solution after, rather than instead of, having an affair with a collegue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com