Saying No to the Company No Dating Policy
In John R. Boatright’s “Dating at Wal-Mart,”, he states that the superstore strongly supports the “family unit”. In compliance with that claim, one of the policies prohibits “a dating relation between a married associate with another associate, other than his or her own spouse” in an attempt to “reinforce the wholesome, down-home image” they expect to hold. Apparently, this rule was broken at a New York Wal-Mart when two sales associates started dating, one of which was legally married, althought separated from her husband. They were both immediately fired. It is undeniably wrong for a company to mix personal decisions about life with business. Even if the woman were choosing to cheat on her husband, it would be her own personl decision and Wal-Mart would have no right to interfere with it. The relationship between the two associates was most likely not interfering with their abilities to perform their jobs and that is all management should be concerned with.
Along with that situation, according to an account written by Thomas I. White entitled “Love and Business”, the Coca-Cola company fired a data processing manager because she was engaged to an accountant with the Pepsi-Cola Company and refused to break it off. A similar situation occured with IBM when an employee continued to date a former employee who was then working for a competitor. The woman working for IBM was terminated purely for competitive reasons. The company feared that the two employees would discuss company plans. Companies seem so quick to fire employees due to their personal, loving relationships. However, this alone could negatively affect the company. By getting rid of perfectly good employees due to a rule that is irrelevant to the quality of their work or the company at all, could result in a less effective company. People should be fired from their jobs for poor attendance, dishonesty, or for no longer proficiently completing the tasks required, not because they happen to be in love with someone who works for the same company or a competing company.
In White’s article he claims that these restrictions are “unwarranted intrusions into employees’ private lives” and that love can be “critical to one’s well-being”, and those kinds of rules in a company are “an unreasonable price to pay for a job”. Politically, enforcing a rule like that is a violation of personal freedom. The reasons that companies feel it is a threat is that they believe it could lead to favortism, an “unfair competitive advantage over other workers”, or there may be “tension, hostility, and difficulty commnicating” in a situation of former lovers continuing to work together. While these issues are definetely a possibility, they should be dealt with accordingly, with no discussion of the possible cause. For example, if certain favortism or an advantage goes on in a company, whoever is illegally committing that should be dealt with. Also, if former lovers are arguing all the time and become unable to perform their jobs, the situation should be handled because of that reason.
The “no-dating” policy that companies enforce among co-workers is ridiculous. People should be allowed to have a relationship with anybody they want without having to fear losing their job over it. Wal-Mart’s support of families has nothing to do with providing low prices and great value to customers. That is the purpose of Wal-Mart, not to promote “morals” to the public. Like church and state are supposed to be seperate, one’s personal decisions in life should not be mixed with business. Also, company managers need to realize that by getting rid of good employees, the company will probably suffer more. There are more important things to focs on when considering the qualities of a good worker. By considering their personal relationships; their choice of religion or sexual preference might as well also be considered, which most businesses today would see as wrong. Who an employee is dating is a personal decision that should not be interfered with.
