In regards to the employer having the right to make policies to prevent (or try to) possible confusion, etc, that means they have the right to tell you that you can not wear the color red, because the color red is possibly going to cause someone to "see red" and go postal.

I agree that if you do not agree with the policies you have the rigfht to not work there. HOWEVER, that is not the question. The question is whether or not an employer has the right to take your legal right to choose your own partner away from you.

ok, so far we have two people who state that work and relationships absolutely with no qualifications or exceptions, do not work out.

I can introduce you to people in the military that are married to other soldiers, and I garuntee you there is no higher stress job in the world than the military. They have been married since they first joined the military and are still very much strong and mature in their relationship 15 years later.

I know there are other "success stories" regarding working marriages and relationships outside the military, so your opinion is flawed in regards to 100% do not work out.

I believe you are intending to say that they NORMALLY do not work out. But as I stated above, there is no evidence to suggest that having a relationship with someone you work with is any likelier to work out or fail just because you work together. And an employer should not have the legal right to tell you who you can and can not see (so long as it is consentual, and no improper promises, favors are performed).

If something improper does happen then yes the employer has the right to fire you, and possibly even file charges (in the case of sexual harassment). But they do NOT have the right to tell you that you can not see whomever you want. THAT decision is up to you and your potential partner.

lol

there is no evidence that work and relationships are less likely to work out than relationships with people you do not work with. Working at the same place as your significant other does not increase or decrease the likelihood of the relationship working out. What DOES increase/decrease this likelihood is the maturity levels and the willingness of both people to be adults and mature, which means if it doesn't work out, you accept the fact and move on.

it boils down to the issue of whether or not the employees are adult and mature. As an adult you have the right to see anyone you want to know matter who says what (except the potential partner of course )

In regards to sexual harassment charges, those are going to be around forever whether company policy "allows" relationships or not. I am not referring to whether someone should be allowed to proposition somebody at work with the promises of favors, that is definitely wrong and illegal. But in regards to actual relationships, it should be up to the individuals concerned to decide whether or not they can handle it. And of course if they can not handle it, THEN it becomes a company issue and the company has the right to fire you for disrupting flow of business, or whatever.

While I agree that some policies a company has the right to make, I do not agree that it should be legal for someones boss to be able to dictate to them who they can and can not have a relationship with. I mean, who the hell is the employer to tell you that you can not date, or marry, etc a fellow co-worker?

No smoking on company grounds, no alcohol on company grounds, no sex on company grounds, yes those are all valid policies. But as an adult you have the right to see who you want to when not at work, and have a relationship with whomever you want to. That right should nt be able to be denied to you by your boss.

Who agrees, or disagrees?

I don't know, now that I stop to think of it.

I mean, can a child be considered a violent offender if he gets so hyped up on sugar that he drives his parents insane?

has anyone seen though whether or not any of it was actually wrong, such as his offering to help them out in their carreers in return for sex, or if it was a simple case of job-site fling? Also, I have not found anything yet that says whether or not any of this happened while he was already married, or even seeing his, now wife.

If he did not promise favors in return for favors, and did not cheat on his girl friend at the time (or if he did not bypass company policies regarding relationships between employees, which personally a company should not be able to legally do anyway), then he did nothing illegal or even immoral.

BUT, if he DID do any of those things, then yes he should get the same treatment he gave others, and that others received.

you would be surprised at how many people not only do it, but think you are wrong for not doing it. I have had caseworkers at social services try and berate me for not giving my boys a piece of candy when both would not sit down and either read a book or play with toys that we had brought to keep them occupied.

Thank you. I was trying to figure out a way to say darn near the very same thing, when I saw your response

During taping of the October 1st show, David Letterman admits to having prior sexual relations with co-workers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/david-letterman-admits-sexual-affairs-staffers-details-extortion/story?id=8728424

I tried to message you and say "hello, how was your day today?" but your settings wont let me for another 4 months

except a civil war would be non-existent if going by popular consensus in the forums here. From what I have seen here most people are dead against draft or conscription, and in the case of a civil war, that is exactly what would happen is everyone of a certain age, men at the least, would be drafted by their state.

Now take into account that there are approximately 307,604,127 people living in the United States (http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html).

Now, even before I show the math results, it is fairly obvious that that does not even begin to represent the peoples real opinion. But here we go anyway.


out of 1,209 which is %3.9 of the American Citizens, 266 Americans, or %22 stated they believe states or regions should have the right to succeed. This equals %8.64 of the actual American population.

217 people, or %7.07 of the American People, say they would support a secessionist movement in their state.

Now, this article does not claim that these .umbers come from one specific state, and in fact suggests several states, so I used the National Census, not he state census. However, even in the tiniest state of the United States, Wyoming, with a population of approximately 532,668 people, these numbers are very small indeed.

So once again, I show you that you can spout off numbers all day long if you like, but in the end, polls mean not a darned thing.

But we HAVEN'T met yet, Earthy, how can you say that?!

absolute and pure utter hogwash

Is it an open casket affair, or closed?

if called into social services as a concern for childrens safety, then the identity of the person calling is not available to be released without a court order for the protection of the person calling. This is for in cases of REAL child abuse/neglect where the caller could be afraid of repercussions from the parent being investigated.

Been there, done that, got the judges order to release.

I am not going to get into this disagreement again. certainpeople want to claim I make suggestioins and whatnot that I did not make, then they can stay here with themselves and whoever wants to keep them company. I am tired of the outright lies and twisting of words. I said at 18 teenagers should be given a choice between education (used the word college) and military. Never once did I say anything laong the lines of telling people who they can marry, what they can spend their money on, etc etc etc. And there is absolutely no relation between the topic I broached, and taking peoples right to choose their own lives away from them.

Ciao