LOVE CONTRACT –Sorry, thumb down ↓.

Love contract, or consensual relationship agreements, according to Wikipedia, is a legal contract meant to limit the liability of an employer whose employees are romantically involved. The love contract signed by the concerned employees is supposed to protect the company from indemnity in case one party brings a sexual harassment lawsuit against the company after their relationship fails, and hence claims that the love relationship is consensual and both parties need to sign it. Also, it may stipulate rules for acceptable romantic behaviour in the workplace.

But is it right to confine the most complex yet simple of all the emotions, the very essence of life, the source and inspiration of most good things on earth within a legal contract? Do people have control over love? When we know them most love marriages round the globe have their roots in office romance why the effort to control it? Well some jobs require bachelors, some prefer married people. It’s understandable. But where or how do you fit in a person romantically involved in a relationship, in a company? Do we have jobs that require the employee not to engage in a romantic relationship during his tenure in the company? So at the first place a contract binding love to workplace doesn’t appeal much to me even though people in favour of it have thousand reasons to defend it.

Secondly, when it comes to accusing or rather claiming that the two employees are in a romantic relationship, what proof does the senior manager or the employer have at his disposal? It might very well turn out that the employees do not buy the accusations and proclaim them to be “just friends”! The company will have no answer to it and they would easily evade the contract.

And then, talking of complaints of favouritism, it is not just confined to people involved in a romantic relationship. Favouritism happens at every level in any (rather most) organization(s) and people at influential positions are found to help their favoured employees more often than not. So what about that kind of favouritism? What about people favouring their own family members, near and far relatives, neighbours and friends? So why this much fuss about love relationships? Employers should first look to plug these other holes first.

Focussing on the objective of protecting the company from sex harassment lawsuits, a question pops up in mind. Does it discourage sexual harassment lawsuits being filed? Well they can still be filed against a person; but what if he is your superior in the organization? The sub-ordinate is bound to give second thoughts to it. Also the contract clearly states that the two concerned employees are in a consensual romantic relationship, thus, giving either party an opportunity to exploit this agreement when things take an ugly turn.

Now donning the hats of a devil’s advocate, it might also happen that one of the concerned employees persuades the other not to sign the love contract, or rather keep their love life a secret and then later resort to file a lawsuit of sexual harassment against the company.

So, when the love contract can’t be that easily enforced on the employees and employees can still find ways to outsmart their employers, should we still trust the love contract to do good for the company in the future? I doubt so. Does it not seem like a double-edged sword for both employers and the employees? Well I don’t need to provide further arguments for it.

Love is to help meet targets!

While we have quite a few perspectives on whether or not love contracts are feasible or not, or how they can be brought into practise; or rather even that they need to be put into place given the rising number of cases of people falling into a romantic relationship at work, I'd like to quote a true case that happened at my workplace. Mr. X and Ms. Y were my colleagues while I was working in the function of sales. Since they were working in the NCR, despite having their own territories, they would catch up with each other in the sales office everyday. Gradually, over a period of 6-8 months, it became quite evident to all of us that they shared a relationship deeper than just work-colleagues.

Our boss also found this piece of information consistent with the performance of the two individuals. Performance of the sales team in my company was determined by two factors: the rupee sales, as well as the number of patients getting catheterized in ones' territory. While Mr. X had been over-shooting his targets for two consecutive quarters; Ms. Y had been performing dismally, with a lot of patients who fell in her territory per se, were getting catheterized in Mr. X's territory. It didn't take much to figure out that all this while she'd been helping him achieve his sales targets. His performance would've directly translated into a promotion in another 2 months' time.

However, the organization had to take a strong step towards curbing the way their personal relationship was affecting their work, with some lethargy setting in, in the case of Mr. X, and under-performance in the case of Ms. Y.

The management eventually took a strong action against them, with the girl ultimately having to resign from her job. Thus I feel that under most circumstances, whenever such an incident comes to light, either one of the individuals ends up paying a heavy price by virtue of his/her job.

Thus the concept of a 'love-contract' may come in handy in atleast providing an initial reality-check to the individuals, and reminding them of what their priorities should be.

Is Love Contract really a Solution??

In lot many post it’s been said that “Love Contract” is not the solution to the problem and company should use the communication medium and HR should develop an environment of trust. But one question that comes to mind is that “Is it really possible to solve all these issues using mutual trust and communication”? Had it been possible then the whole concept of having Employment contracts would have ended long time back. Existence of Employment relations as a subject is a proof in itself to the fact that the Employee and Employer relations can’t simply be relied on trust with ongoing complexities involved in the environment. I totally agree that Love Contracts are not a foolproof way to tackle the unfavorable consequences that could come up as part of on-job relationships. But then it’s surely a step towards that.

Luv Gandhi raised two very good points:
1.If company asks its employees to sign such a contract then how will they administer the contract?....Going by the human psychology I feel that once a person signs a contract then he/she develops some sort of fear towards the possible consequences and that itself is sufficient enough to refrain many from taking any undesired step.
2.Why there are no “Family (chacha, mamaji, tauji, bhaiya, bhabhi, Jijaji,etc,etc) contracts”…....For this I wud just like to say that God forbidden if there is some family problem then person might be affected from that, and It might affect his/her performance….But Otherwise in Normal circumstances it’s only a Love affair that could have a greatest effect on a person’s mind. That is the reason that Employers tried to target this particular aspect first. As for others who knows we might get to see some contracts in the future as per the names he suggested.

love contract- the contract of confusions...

I don't think that love contract as a concept is substantial in its standing in the first place.We came across many kind of contracts throughout our course.But love contract, I think is one surpasses all others in its lacunas and absurdity.Take for example, a non-compete contract can be assessed or for that matter a non-solicitation agreement.It can be substantially more or less proved if solicitation has happened or not in a case of two warring parties.But a love contract gives us a difficult time in measuring its breaches.
Here I would like to put forth some real life situations which can very well question the validity of a love contract.....

1. If in case a couple in an affair and working in the same organization and suddenly some performance related issues crop up.How much of that can we attribute to their being in love? After all reason could be anything right from inadequate skill sets to family problems..

2. If one of the employees, bound by the love contract has already left the organisation and the performance of the person in the organisation deteriorates due to some problems in the affair, does the love contract cover that aspect?

3. Suppose two persons are bound by a love contract, then also there is a possibility of one of them getting into an affair with another person not covered by the contract...(as many theorists believe "man is promiscuous by nature" !!!)

After all, its tough to keep employees in an affair under constant surveillance...

Acknowledge and deal with it !

I believe professional life should always be kept apart from personal life even though the boundaries have blurred these days. When it comes to sexual attraction between two people in workplace, I guess that's inevitable. But this behavior should not affect the organization in any way. Honestly speaking humans are not gods who won't fault and moreover, whatever may be the number of contracts a person signs, that won't stop him/her from getting attracted to someone. Here I would also like to make a point, that in workplace considering the tremendous work pressure, and the fact that they see each other for a major part of the day , the attraction might be just superficial and thus there might be a good chance of a break up. Considering this, think of a situation in which a relation ends up very sourly. Would their work life be the same again with them working together in the same place and seeing each other everyday? They might not be able to give their 100 % to their professional life any more. Thus in such cases one has to strictly stick to the professional code of conduct.
So just because this problem is unavoidable, one has to accept it and deal with it. Loosening grip to a certain degree is good because if the relation in true and genuine, their commitment to the organization would increase as they would enjoy their workplace and would like to work together. But this shouldn't result in any unacceptable public behavior which can cause discomfort to others. Any such behavior should be strictly dealt with.
I also think that if a company is very much hush-hush and restrictive about such behavior,cases will only increase. Thus it should instead acknowledge the fact and find ways to deal with it. One solution can be to separate them into different divisions if possible so one doesn't have any direct power influence on the other. Making them sign a 'love contact' is actually necessary as this is the only way to deal with unwanted situations legally and this way the employees should be made clear as to what is expected of them in their workplace.

Love contract - Pros and Cons

v Workplace romantic relationship may affect the performance of the employees. Employers may try to make sure personal relationship does not affect their performance through “love contract”

But relating performance with relationship is really superfluous. There are many situations where work place relationships motivate employees to put in a much more dedicated concentrated effort. In today’s ever increasing working hours, employees get little time to spend at home with their near and dear ones. So, couples working in the same organization can maintain a better work life balance compared to their counterparts.

Many organizations also are favouring this idea nowadays. In the organization where I worked, employees are awarded some bonuses if they marry someone within the organization.

v Another issue that employers may want to address is Favouritism. Favouritism exists in the workplace. But favouritism is not confined to love and sex. Family relations and office friends can also upset co-workers' sense of fairness and end up undermining the organization's performance. Such dilemmas are acute in a family business, when a founder who is choosing a successor must decide whether to favour his son or daughter or search outside for a better qualified manager.

But to avoid this organizations need not come up with a love contract. They can make sure through some HR policy that the promotion, recognition of a particular employee will not be decided by someone in close relationship with him/her. They can easily be put under different supervisors. If it is unavoidable then promotion, recognition be handled by a person or committee outside the command under which the subordinate works.

v But problem arises when one relationship ends and one party blames the other on sexual harassment. The name of the organization often gets involved in these situations which can carry serious legal – and financial - consequences. Love contract can be effective under such circumstances to safeguard the organization from legal issues.

v But organizations should keep in mind that no policy or contract was effective if it was forced on them. A proper communication should be made that the company is not against the relationships but the negative consequences of it. HR has to play an important role to develop this environment of trust. Just signing a contract will never overcome human feelings and impulses.

Bound by Love/Law

u109041

There is an underlying logic why people tend to have romantic inclination towards their colleagues at work place. With a lot of time being spent in the office, there is a very high possibility that people share their interests, hobbies and day-to-day experiences with their co-workers there by fostering an emotional bonding between them. It is also convenient in a way that people get a lot of time to know each other. Working in same projects also offers a close view into the psyche, intellect of a person which often leads to attraction. No rocket science here. Probably the case of Pritam and Jagruti can be seen as one of those many relationships that innocently blossom in the organization.

The case here seems a pre-emptive measure on the part of the employer to avoid any kind of hassle that might arise from workplace relationship as the one between Pritam and Jagruti. One might argue that, the performance issue of individual employee might be the point of contention behind such “love contracts”. But the facts from the case suggest that Pritam is doing pretty well in his professional life and has his name suggested for some senior posts. So, this assumption does not hold true. Another common issue that might arise from relationships in organizational set up is the reporting hierarchy. Even that is not a cause of concern here as reporting relationship is not affected.

There have been quite some instances in organizations where workplace romance has increased the performance level of an employee and has contributed to higher job satisfaction. This gets converted into great morale among fellow employees and thus greater involvement. It might look all hunky dory from the organizational point of view. But things in reality are not as rosy as is perceived in the first impression. And this is where the concern of Intermediaries Technologies seems justified.

There have been occasionswhere office romances which have gone awry have had far reaching repercussions on the organization. Organizations have unwillingly been embroiled with legal hassles on charges of sexual harassment charges on some employees. It does not take a lot of time for "love is in the air" feeling to change to "lawsuit in the air" feeling. This in its wake brings in bad publicity. The company’s image as well as its stock market status has tumbled like a house of cards. Dealing with this kind of dicey situation requires a lot of common sense and objective approach to the problem. But often these two are the first things that bite the dust in case of a fall out.
Apart from that there are other issues like;
• Distraction from mundane issues of office life
• Irregularity in the office routine of an employee
• Sharing of office time means increased workload on a co-worker(assuming him/her to be single)
• Loss of respect for employees towards the organization for allowing such indiscretion.
• The most popular: Favouritism, discrimination, Sexual harassment, blackmail, retaliation (discussed by a lot of us in the forum)
• Compromising with confidentiality of information

So handling or managing these kinds of inevitable relationships rather than explicitly discouraging it is the big challenge. Some of the participants have suggested discouraging these relationships from forming in the organization. But it would be a impractical to actually practice this kind of policy. Even if you impose a ban on workplace romance, as a normal human tendency, people will find ways to bypass these policies no matter how stringent they are.

The key issue here is, the moment the employer transgresses the personal space of employees, it often becomes a very uncomfortable situation for them. So these critical issues should be handled in subtle manner. As such, enforcing a contract upon employees in relationship is not a great idea. Something as personal as this should be left to the couples. There are certain things though, which can come in handy on part of the organization to bypass a potential lawsuit and also get their message across to the employees about the conduct. The best way is to issue a written romance guideline which can make the employees aware of the dos and donts. This promotes a healthy work environment and sends out a message that company prefers a productive environment. In quite a lot of occasions, when the companies have been dragged to court, these written guidelines issued by them have come in handy for the companies to come out of the lawsuits unscathed. Apart from that quite a lot of organizations have started training supervisors and managers on workplace romance concerns and handling sexual harassment issues. So, contractually binding to lovebirds should be done away with, keeping in view that there are lot many better ways to handle such issues.

Don't judge everything !

I think the primary issue concerning workplace romance has been put quite succinctly by Saurabh. The situation is the most precarious when it affects direct reporting relationships. There could be a case that couples that intentional bias causes couples to seek personal interest in the organisation causing resentment amongst other colleagues. At the same time, even when a couple adheres to all professionalism and conduct, their intentions might be doubted only due to their personal commitments. Also, when a relationship goes sour, it may jeopardize the career of the subordinate and make the environment unconducive due to personal grudges.

Thus, it is imperative for organisations to ensure that personal commitments do not affect the desired efficiency levels, conduct at the workplace, fair decision making, litigation issues etc. But formulating a love contract may not be most preferred way to address these issues since the purview of the problem is quite subjective. Also, it directly impacts the sovereignty of the employees who may not want to commit to such an agreement at an early stage of relationship.

The issues addressed in the contract are highly subjective and implausible to prove and defend. Say a couple signs a contract and adheres to its requirement in all their capacity. But they can be harassed with allegations related to nepotism, reduction in efficiency due to proximity in the workplace etc. There could also be a case where in the employer may use the contract or its clauses to discharge an employee. In such situations the intention of the employers cannot be judged which is also evident in case of GMHR where in he coerces Pritam to sign the contract failing which Jagruti would need to give up the job.

Like it has been suggested by many of the participants, a likely solution could be through evolved HR practices that help to address these issues in a sensitive manner. Employees should be counselled to adhere to the code of conduct of the organisation and consider it above their personal interests. Any biasness related issues should be routed through line managers and HR mangers to ensure that the matter is thoroughly looked into and resolved in the favour of the right party. A rotation policy is usually followed in organisations where in couples are moved into different teams to avoid any issues. Thus, managers when sensitized to this issue are better capable of handling this issue instead of any lawful agreements or contracts which do not cover the purview of matters of heart.

Pritam's Dilemma!!

“Love at work” is becoming a well known phenomenon now-a-days. Love blossoming amongst fellow employees (whether juniors, colleagues or seniors) is common these days. Some of these do see a happy ending, some of these don’t. The case of “Love Contract” deals with one such story, the story of Pritam and Jagruti. Though it shows the love is still new, but the ending pretty much depends on how Pritam handles the present situation.

Clearly, Pritam is facing a situation which is more complex than it appears. Firstly, as mentioned, if he gets promotion, it is very likely that he will be sent to Detroit office as the next HR Senior manager. Now the situation he faces is:

1) If he signs, then he and Jagruti, both retain their jobs. Pritam gets his promotion and is sent to Detroit office. Now he no longer shares the same office with Jagruti. Both of them try to maintain a Long-Distance Love relationship. Now Pritam cannot influence any of the higher executives to allow Jagruti an on-site project (in Detroit) because that will be violating the law. Plus theirs is a developing relationship. In the absence of Pritam, it might happen, Jagruti’s performance might decline, which will result in the management firing her as per the clause mentioned in the Love Contract. This is also applicable to Pritam. Moreover, given the present conditions, a long-distance relationship is very hard to maintain. There are Chances that the relationship might not last for long. From the points stated above, signing the contract might as well be seen as signing the end of their relationship (on a longer run).

2) If he refuses to sign, Jagruti loses her job and he loses an opportunity to get the promotion for which he has been striving for so long. And Jagruti, after losing her job, might even start hating him. It might even be the end of their relationship. Losing the love and trust of Jagruti might affect his performance adversely, which can further delay his promotion.

Now what can Pritam do? In any case he has to compromise. Signing the contract seems to be a viable option, but then by signing, he is making their affair public and giving management an authority to fire any one (or both) them on grounds of failing to sticking to the contract. And that’s where Pritam has to choose his priorities. He is in such a dilemma where he has to choose for himself the way he wants to live:

· He doesn’t sign and loses everything (his promotion and Jagruti) right then.

· He signs and lives away from Jagruti, with a big question mark looming over the future of their relationship.

Love Contract:-Bridging love and work??

It would be, but a trite cliché to remark that today’s work life has become confoundedly hectic, a sinister labyrinth of intricacies, where your roles and responsibilities in the organization hoard pretty early in one’s career. Seldom does one have the time to pursue his other, more favorable interests. Keeping the agenda of the discussion in mind, one of those prime interests is “love”, ofcourse. The usual meeting places of romances are increasingly becoming passé-vestibules of libraries, temples, marketplace, or even the eternal emblem of affairs, the parks .Simply put it, new generation mass does not have the time to pursue these noble interests as freely as the long gone earlier days, as they are more often than not, assimilated in their work stations. In such constrained scenarios, where else can cupid strike, other than his/her organization itself! Romantic proclivity is a common thing in workplace these days, and with sound argument too. The couple gets to see his/her better half daily in office, share their work, understand and appreciate the complexities involved and can mutually solve them in the best earnest, which marks the touchstone of a healthy, happy and contended life for both. Sweetly timed, sincere relations culminate in holy nuptial knots in many occasions. As pointed out in earlier posts, organizations do encourage such relationships by offering perks, bonuses and free trips. It bodes well for the organization, as the married couple are more loyal to them and add value.
But alas, this is only the brighter side of the picture. The grimmer part of it unleashes ugly consequences. These relationships often lead to biased-ness, favoritism and bypassing true quality talent in favour of the loved one. Often, office romances form the pie of grapevine stories. Suddenly, the couple gets subjected to embarrassment and crowd frights. Then, there are people who can’t separate work and love, get affected by its entailing fallouts, which affects their productivity, and enshrouds their career goals. Moreover, failed relationships lead to bitter feelings of acrimony, green-eyed jealousy and a nauseating pain, which many people succumb to. Seeking vendetta, the once-loving partner lashes out at the other, and channelizes his resentment through harassment, defamation and litigation. Often employees engage in extramarital affairs and sexual favours to shorten the ladder up the hierarchy. These are dangerous liaisons, which jeopardize work ethics, the congenial working environment and impose serious HR issues. Circa 1995, when he U.S White House was left running for covers after the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky case, or the more recently heard affair of Nicolas Sarcozy and Carla Brunie, or for that matter Silvio Berlusconi and ace golfer Tiger Woods’s rampant sexcapades.
Analyzing both prospects, I feel that such love contracts are beneficial, mostly to organization involved. It leaves them free of any liabilities whatsoever, due to the above mentioned unfortunate incidents. These are covenants, which act as guidelines for behavior of romantic pairs in the workplace. This document necessitates the signing of both partners, acting as their consent to abide by the organizational rules, breaching which they would be liable to disciplinary action. Now there are a few aspects to look under the scanner. One, signing such a contract would make the couple accept their relationship and get recognized as romantically involved, which many would shy away from. This might induce a negative effect, whereby couples become more secretive in their affair. Second, whenever appraisal and performance measures are applicable, this contract would be borne in mind by the higher officials, which can often be detrimental to the romantically involved employee’s career growth, even if he’s competent and deserving. Third, these love contracts play a huge setback to same-sex couples like gays and lesbians, who perceive that their feelings are out of commonality, and profane in the society at large. And above all, these love contracts are still in their infancy stage. In fact, a Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Workplace Romance Survey found that most companies surveyed do not even have a formal, written, romance policy. For most, it is still an understood writ, not in writing. I doubt whether these “mandatory” contracts could smell large-scale success. There can be other constructive ways to deal with these sensitive issues. One could be formulate a sound, zero-tolerance harassment policy doctrinated in the HR framework. Let this policy guidelines be well aware of in the minds of the employees. Another option could be conducting periodic training sessions for the managers who are involved in such datings. The kind of stressful job they handle needs to kept in mind when counseling them. Marriage or romance counselor on an anonymous basis could be effective in avoiding a fallout. The other convenient step might be to remove the manager from his post to some other department, where his/her partner is not working. Infact, in some corporates, it is mandatory that the spouses work in different areas in the same company, to separate their work from their relation.
I would strongly disagree to any prohibition on romance in the workplace. After all, love is the sweetest and the most bitter of all feelings, and nothing can be more virtuous than pursuing love. But then, given the concomitant aftermaths of love and work at cross-roads, the thin line between love and work needs to be identified. And to know, when to not cross it.

Love..what??

This discussion brings to my mind an interesting case that happened in the school my mother was working in. Two teachers were romantically involved and were even engaged. But later problems cropped up between them. And a case was registered against the male teacher for mental harassment and assault. Ultimately the Principal told both of them to resign as this was creating negative publicity for the school (since this incident had come in all the local newspapers).

Probably this is the main worry of all companies and hence the love contract would have been apt for this situation.

However, we need to see what will happen to the contract once the two partners break up or worse still if one partner refuses to acknowledge the break up. And how do you know whether two people are romantically involved or are just having a casual fling? So, the obvious question is to which persons do you actually give this contract ? And how do you define “romantic behavior within the organization“ , as stated in the contract?

Another major concern for organizations is that favouritism will be shown on account of your personal relationship. Again, I find this very ambiguous. Doesn’t favouritism prevail in organizations anyway? And even if it is a one sided liking favouritism can happen. The case of sexual harassment is also rather weak . Consensual sexual relationship can be later deemed as sexual assault. Also, if a woman is sexually harassed, according to this contract instead of getting support from the organization she will be most likely dismissed. This approach to this problem is pure cowardice to say the least.

I see the love contract is a desperate attempt on the part of the employers to control the employees’ behaviour. There should be guidelines and unwritten rules within the culture of the organization on the kind of conduct expected from the individuals rather than making contracts that attempt to control individual’s personal life.

Implications of mutual contract

The concept of ‘Office Spouse’ has evolved over the years and such a kind of relationship is quite natural ,stressed by the fact that companies have inculcated the culture of co-work, being creative together and functioning in a unit. Such phenomena can be attributed to social psychology termed propinquity which basically leads to interpersonal relationship. This may cause the employer with operational difficulties particularly in situations where employees involved are in superior/subordinate work relationship. In this regards the employer has every right to vest the responsibility of such relationships with the employee’s involved. Every company has a strict clause regarding harassment in any form and any lawsuit does not augur well for an organization’s brand image. In the story though there is no direct reporting structure between Pritam Singh and Jagruti Patel but as has always been mine experience, HR does have quite an influential role in propelling one through varied situations and this is where favouritism and leniency creeps in. In an interesting internet article I found out that in a survey conducted – ‘59 percent said they had had a workplace romance at some point in their careers. Another 17 percent said they had never dated a co-worker, but would. Twenty-four percent said they never had an office fling and had no interest in doing so.’ This just goes on to show that employees’ emotions cannot be inhibited and neither can there be any consensual relationship agreement to commit to non-indulgence of any sort. As has been mentioned by many in their posts that companies do provide hefty incentives for marriage between employees within the same organization, but to me it seems it has much to do with increasing the commitment towards work, to build on a sense of mutual responsibility and be competitive. To add further nowadays technology firms of the likes Google, Yahoo etc support the concept of work from home. A married couple in office is like promoting a homely work environment. So the concept of love contract seems irrelevant here when it is accepted that they are a couple and fully aware of the implications arising out of working together for the same concern. The sole purpose of a legal love contract is seemingly to avoid the future hassles from the employer’s perspective. They are meant to typically specify that the relationship is mutually agreeable and consensual and is totally unrelated to the company. It is more to specify that couples are totally aware of the harassment policy and in case of any relationship dispute it would not be legally binding on the company through any kind of lawsuit. However on the flip side the relationship status defined by the employer also may not be binding every time. Suppose the person involved in the relationship is harassed by some other person, in this case the employee has every right to file the legal suit and drag the employer into legal disputes. So love contracts are generally a perceived threat which can be used to influence the employees to adhere to a stricter moral behaviour and consistently deliver as per the performance standards required by the organisation. Some questions can also be raised regarding the validity of such contract –What happens if one of the parties involved in the love contract is transferred to a different destination some time after signing the love contract, what will be the implications? Can we still hold the love contract valid? In this case the love contract may be valid only on paper, but the bindings on the relationship are not there, as there is no scope for interaction between the employees and hence the effects are nullified.

Liability Lessened from Office Dating

love contracts should be used to supplement a company's policies of anti harassment , not as a well-implemented policy against sexual harassment.the potential legal liabilities of office romances are when ----If a supervisor is dating a subordinate, other employees can claim that the subordinate got biased treatment in job work or salary raises.

-If the relationship ends, the subordinate can claim that the relationship was not consensual or mutual and also he or she was sexually harassed by the supervisor, was the victim of retaliation.

-If they are on the same reporting level, legal concerns can arise,.. when the relationship ends , one person can create a hostile work environment by giving the other person attention which is not required.

Also the contract must contain provisions such that dispute arising from the relationship or contract will be resolved through arbitration and such as Either employee can end the relationship without fear of work-related retaliation.

but are the love contracts an answer to the problem ? if we have to cover such problems by a contract , then there are lot of issues which are to be covered by contract.Humans-even those in power suits covered by contracts are ruled by emotions. And emotions are spectacularly messy. Emotions shouldn't be defined in corporate terms, and they can't be reduced to a legal document with any significance.

Precaution is better than Cure!

The cited situation seems to be a clear case of Conflict of Interest. A conflict of interest (COI) is said to occur when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in the other. In order to successfully attempt to address a COI in the organization, a policy called the Code of Conduct is followed. This is enforced to forbid COI. Often, however, the specifics can be controversial. Codes of conduct help to minimize problems with COI because they can spell out the extent to which such conflicts should be avoided, and what the parties should do where such conflicts are permitted by a COI. Thus, professionals cannot claim that they were unaware that their improper behaviour was unethical. Also, the threat of disciplinary action helps to minimize unacceptable conflicts or improper acts when a conflict is unavoidable.

Analysing the case, it appears that by enforcing the Dating and Relationship Agreement, the company is only trying to reduce its liability in the case that the relationship gets over, does not end on amicable terms, ends due to any reason related to the organization\work pressure\stress or more significantly results in to a case of sexual harassment. It just makes good business sense to avoid romantic relationships between employees or co-workers as these can cause others to lose confidence in the judgment or objectivity of either employee, create an uneasy and an awkward sort of work environment, reduce efficiency, cause gold bricking or bring embarrassment to the company.

Therefore, given the reason that employees are part of the organization in order to work there as productive players and dedicate the time that they are there to achieve efficiently the set targets for them, it is imperative for the organization to set rules and boundaries that would define the code of conduct of the employees. This is necessary to ensure a culture which is focussed and concentrated towards working for the overall benefit of the organization. In this context, the Dating and Relationship agreement in particular is not an unreasonable option exercised by the firms today. It is not that the firms are the enemy and are trying to smother emotional relationships that may occur between the employees. Organizations are spending huge amount of funds, time and effort in order to promote a family like feeling throughout the organization. They wholeheartedly support team work. They even have provisions wherein the existing employees can recommend their family members or friends as candidates for vacancies. Through the Dating and Relationship agreement, they are only trying to safeguard the interests and the reputation of the organization and its other employees and saving it from getting jeopardized by the romantic liaison of a couple of its employees, which may even be temporary.

In the example mentioned, both the employees are efficient workers. Jagruti Patel is a senior software engineer and Pritam Singh is being considered for promotion. The only issue for which they had been called by the GM (HR) was related to the non-professional relationship that was culminating between them. However, I think the manner in which the situation was handled by the GM (HR) is definitely a matter of debate. He could have handled the issue in a more sensitive manner rather than asking them to blindly sign the agreement or to threaten termination. The problem should’ve been discussed openly and more professionally. It seems as if there was no clause in the existing organization code of conduct regarding office romantic relationship. Given the situation, they should’ve been given the benefit of doubt. They did not let the relationship affect their work but if the organization does not want to promote such behaviour than they should’ve made their employees aware of it from the outset. Pritam and Jagruit should be asked to sign the agreement professionally, giving them the right to read the agreement, seek consultation or clarification. The existing policy should also be modified to include this clause. It should be binding on all, irrespective of the performance or the position of the employee. The need for the same should be communicated to the employees clearly so that they do not harbour any ill feelings and clearly understand the intent of the organization. The conditions for adherence and in cases of violation should also be included in the clause.

Thus, going by the old philosophy of Precaution is better than Cure, the Dating and Relationship Agreement should be put into place and be implemented but not on a case by case basis but at an organization level with appropriate sensitivity and utmost professionalism.

Trying to ban office romance !!!!!

Love contracts are agreements that companies adopt to protect themselves from some legitimate concerns pertaining to love in workplace that pose viable threat to business, some being very critical like harassment suits. But, these contracts should establish understanding between employer and employee about what is acceptable and what is not. But this scenario forcefully imposes the agreement and does not exemplify a mutual consensus.

Also, even though these policies puts forth protocols and rules of 'relationship' conduct, but there can be no hard and fast directive that can be applied after the fact because everything depends on individual and the circumstances.

It is none of the GM’s business what goes on at personal level between a couple and it is completely irrelevant to talk or judge on the integrity of their vows on his part. I believe, only with assumption and without consultation he concluded by himself and came forward with the agreement.

As far as the workplace is concerned, the issue is whether they’ve violated an employment agreement or broken a law. If none of this is the case, then the contract should have never come into picture.

It’s definitely a start and certainly a better than nothing or trying to ban office romance all together. But at the same time it should not get much into employee’s personal space.

Amiya Das

U109005

rationale behind love contracts

First let us understand what love contracts are. It doesn’t stop people from falling in love. As employees spend a major portion of their time in the workplace, love is going to happen and no one can stop that from happening. But it has to be regulated in a workplace otherwise it could lead to severe repercussions. So there should be love contracts.

We also have to consider the types of relationship.

There are basically two types of relationship.

1. One is the relationship between a senior and junior.

2. Other is the relationship when both the partners are in the same position in the organization.

Some repercussion if there are no love contracts:-

1. Favoritism: - Basically this happens when relationship is of type 1.

There could be favoritism which could affect the moral of other employees.

As we saw in film Metro, KK Menon was in love with Kangana Ranaut and gave extra perks and benefits to what she deserved, so there was a clear case of favoritism. This also makes other employees discontented and it shifts the focus of other employees. They might feel that rather than working hard what matters is how I can engage in a relationship with my boss.

2. Generally when people are in a relationship they spend most of the time with each other. Their minds are more towards romantic relationship, than the work. Especially in the early part of their relationship their efficiency and effectiveness might decrease. Hence a love contract addresses this problem.

3. If there are no love contracts people might engage in sexual relationships within the organization. It affects the moral of other employees plus it affects the name of the company. As sexual relationship is a very sensitive issue, this thing will spread like fire within the organization and outside the organization. And who will be affected the most, obviously the company. People will say, Company X promotes sexual relationship. As a result no one would like to join that company. Parents would not want their child to work in that type of an organization.

4. What happens when relationship ends: - Generally there could be sexual harassment cases filed, which could bring a bad name to the company

There could be revenge atmosphere going on which could be detrimental for the company. As we saw in film Aitraaz, what happened after Priyanka Chopra was unable to get into a relationship with Akshay Kumar.

It takes several years to build the name and fame for the company, but it takes very less time to destroy it. So company has every right to take actions so that its name is not maligned even if has to restrict the behavior of employees. (Signing a love contract)

Let us look at what employees lose if they have to sign the love contracts:

They might feel that company is poking its nose into their relationship. They might feel that company has no right to poke into their privacy.

But as we saw above repercussions are very severe, so there should be love contracts and anyways love contract is not stopping them from loving each other, it is just regulating their behavior that too only within the organization.

Work places are serious environments & not citadels for romantic pursuits!

“I used to face problems while working with the Indian Bank as a probationary officer. Some dating couples (some unmarried & some married!) neglected their duties which irritated the customers and the other office staffs (including me) were also disturbed.”
-D. Sarangi, ex-emp, Indian Bank
“The dating couples often formed a small coterie and used to take things for a ride. This disturbed us a lot to discharge our duties. Worse, the relationship of which they used to boast so much did not even last for six months.”
-G.K. Das, SSE, Mindtree Consulting
“Though we have a very few women employees, yet dating is common here. In a profession like this any sort of dilly-dallying with the work resulting out of irresponsible behavior draws heavily on our performance and leads to serious repercussions.”
-G.C. Barik, Signal Engineer, AAI
The above statements of my friends made me think seriously about the issue of romantic relationships, love affairs and all sorts of such behaviors displayed at the workplace which in many cases lead to detrimental aftermaths not only for the organization they work but also for the co-workers. Not everyone joins a company/organization to find his/her bride/groom. Many participants have mentioned that the company should not poke its nose into the personal affairs of the employees. To put it bluntly companies pay us to work in a disciplined manner without disturbing the co-employees and not for romancing and strengthening love relationships with fellow employees and exhibiting public displays of affection inside the office premises. The whole world outside is available for such sacred pursuits, then why to use the dull, dreary and drab office ambience? Moreover do we possess any right to affect the performance of co-workers who may silently bear the on goings for the sake of friendship or camaraderie? The even more important question is can we afford to forget the goals of the organization in the light of our romantic pursuits?
A strong argument to the above logic would be that the people engaged in such pursuits perform exceedingly well which can only be a myth! Many others, for that matter, also perform excellently who had never ever dated anyone! Some participants have suggested that the couples find a conducive environment at the workplace when they are together. Slightly stretching the logic we can say that some people are homesick and may wish to have the entire family accompany them to the office to perform well. I am sure that it may sound funny to most of us but that’s how things are. Merely stating with some examples that such and such couples became star performers in a certain company as a result of aggressive dating behavior can only be a “joke of the day”. The fact remains that those people who are professional enough to segregate their personal love life/family life from their academic/professional pursuits would be the best performers.
The unseen problem:
With the emerging IT and other knowledge based industries there is a huge metamorphosis in transition as far as the work culture is concerned. Many MNC’s (as mentioned by fellow participants) are encouraging the employees and also heavily rewarding them for sustaining such relationships. But even by doing so the firms are only trying to ensure that their business does not take a backseat. They are, in fact, not interested in the love affairs but just to avoid any problems/issues (which they surely anticipate) come up with such policies. It would be erroneous on our part to think that this is a way of “performance management” which is actually a “disaster management” for them. There are myriad examples cited by many of the participants regarding such cases which landed the firms concerned into big troubles. So it is just an initiative to avoid these problems.
The culture issue:
With the advent of globalization the world is getting smaller day by day. Cross cultural work environment, cross border work assignments have become common features. Even then such issues do not augur well with all kinds of employees. Some may not be comfortable with love relationships being extensively practiced at work places. Even in academic environments like professional institutes (engineering/MBA) such cases are seen often. Many students believe that the primary goal of landing in a college is to find one’s soul mate. In the process if some learning also happens then it would be a bonus! The same behavior gets extended to work places when these people join organizations. How much can we segregate the “work culture” and “professionalism” from “love pursuits” or “personal issues” remains a big challenge.
Are “love contracts” going to work?
Many participants have mentioned that imposing “love contracts” is not an effective solution to deal with such problems because it curbs the so called “independence/freedom of the dating love souls” and also becomes a “shield against future repercussions of a potential sexual harassment case”. I completely agree with their views but for entirely different reasons. First, an office /workplace is not a synagogue dedicated to Cupid or Aphrodite that we should be so much bothered to exercise and safeguard our rights for “Romantic Freedom” here. Second, why should a company doing serious business pay a heed to what’s happening in our personal/romantic affairs and bear the brunt for no fault of their own.
The "Actual Independence" issue:
As Kanti rightly pointed out that a manager or for that matter any employee cannot be foolish enough (exception: people like Jagruti) to sign a contract without even going through it. Also companies cannot force the employees to sign contracts after contracts for every issue that pops up. Though I do not dare to prescribe a “Panacea” to resolve such complex issues encompassing delicate strands of human relationships yet I feel that there are rather broader and deeper implications of these which we need to focus on in order to arrive at any effective method to govern such behaviors at work places.

How effective are Love Contracts?

Now a day, an individual spends a lot of time in office, way beyond the working hours. Thus workplace not only becomes professional place but also a place for social mingling. One gets to spend a lot of time with his colleague, senior and subordinate. This it is highly likely that the romantic relations develop between the two. But employer sees these developments as barriers to the company growth due to the various reasons as already stated my by colleagues.

Though Love Contracts seems to be an effective solution to handle the love affairs, but I seriously doubt over the effectiveness of these. What is the guarantee that even after the love contract, those involved in the romantic relationships will not do unfair favoritism in terms of salary hike and promotion to their subordinates as there is no way to prove it because of high amount of subjectivity involved in the matter of promotions.

Also indicated by Anuj that the organizations generally promote intra company marriages, but this also brings the problems of undesirable favoritism as happened in my company where as entry level employee married her supervisor which leads to favoritism.

The only case where this contract seems to be effective is when there are chances regarding charges of sexual harassment.

Thus I cast a serious doubt over the effectiveness of love contract. Thus if there is any relation that comes to the notice of HR, then the HR manager should transfer one of the employee to another assignment or department. Also, HR can discreetly ask them to sign the Love Contract so as to avoid the situation of sexual harassment charges in the future. But all this should happen discreetly without bringing the matter to the notice of other employee.

Loveaholics @ Work

With organizations spending more and more on building inter-personal relationships within the company these days, it is rather surprising to see Intermediary Technologies asking two its employees to sign the love contract! Organizations, now-a-days, provide incentives to its employees for marrying their colleagues of the opposite sex. As a case in point, my previous employer (Cognizant) used to pay (probably they still pay!) an incentive of Rs. 30000 to each of the two individuals who got married, in contrast to just Rs 15000 in case of an employee getting married to someone who is not a part of the organization. This is a clear indicator to the fact that organizations prefer intra-company marriages.

However, there is a flip side to the entire saga. There might be many circumstances where a romantic relationship or a married relationship between two of its employees proves detrimental to the interests of the organization. A few such possible scenarios are:

• ·         Increased intimacy might be reflected in public inside the office, which might give rise to discomfiture among fellow employees.

• ·         Increased chances of sexual activities within the office premises, which has the potential to create a very bad impression about the organization.

• ·         Negative vibes in their personal relationship might cast a shadow over their performance as professionals.

• ·         Problems in their work life might affect their personal bonding, which again would lead to extreme mental pressure to both of the individuals.

• ·         Both the individuals in the relationship might come up with vacation leave request at the same time. This might jolt the project in case both of them are involved in the same project.

• ·         In case one is transferred to a different location or is sent abroad for some onsite assignment, the other one would, sooner or later, come up with a request to be relocated to that particular location. It is needless to say that the management has to make a lot of compromises to accede to such requests.

The last point that I mentioned can be perfectly illustrated by a small incident that happened with my previous employer, Cognizant. Shantanu and Sumita (name changed for confidentiality reasons) were romantically linked to each other since 5 months of joining the organization. The relationship was 2 years long when Shantanu was sent to New Jersey on an onsite assignment. Within 2 months, Sumita raised a hullabaloo with her manager and demanded that she be sent to New Jersey on an onsite assignment of a different project. The manager had a tough time explaining the operational and other problems in sending her to NJ at that stage. However, as Sumita threatened to leave the organization in case her demand was not met, the manager eventually had to bow down and she was sent to NJ on a different project, by-passing many other deserving contenders. This gave rise to sheer discontent among many employees who thought they stood a good chance. Both Shantanu and Sumita stayed there for a long time at NJ, forcing the management to extend their stay, thus ignoring the rotation policy that is normally followed by the organization in case of onsite assignments. Both of them got married and were still based in NJ when I left my organization in search of greener pastures at XIMB. Their behavior raised discomfort in the manager chambers, while the cowed behavior of the manager raised many eyebrows and gave rise to sheer disgust among those who were victimized. The management had to face the consequences as a lot of employees put in their papers in bulk, out of immense disappointment.

Under the above circumstances, there are just two alternatives in front of an organization: Either they disapprove all romantic relationships within the organization, or they ensure that the employees’ professional lives are not dictated by their personal lives, which is exactly what Intermediary Technologies is trying to do here. By making the two protagonists sign a contract, they are actually trying to ensure professional behavior in the organization.

There is another angle to this entire saga. There have been many instances where employees have been found using the company’s resources (read communication resources like telephone, internet, etc) for sustaining his or her romantic liaison outside the organization. I can candidly admit being a testimony to this practice as I myself have extensively used my organization’s communication resources with similar intentions in my mind, while I was working. Such instances are not one-off cases. There was a huge chunk of my colleagues, who used to do the same. From superfast internet to local calls to long distance calls to overseas calls, the organization’s resources are utilized to the maximum limits. Under these circumstances where a majority of its employees follow such a line, the company would do well to reduce its expense to a huge extent by promoting intra-company romantic liaison.

I personally do not agree to the theory of signing a contract, as I believe discipline can be imbibed by proper motivation, backed up by certain regulations. The employees can be judged in their performance appraisals. So rather than forcing them to behave in a particular way through a legal contract, an ideal employer would rate the employees’ based on their real performance. In this way, each employee is responsible for his or her own behavior in the organization and this negated the need for any contract.

Love Contract “A Superfluous Contract”

Can it get any weird that this, “A Contract for Love”. Although I have two years of work experience but this is the first time I have heard of a term like Love Contract. Any contract has implications for both the employer & employee, hence we could look into any contract from the perspective of both sides.

Employers’ Perspective:

Why would an employer force someone to sign a Love Contract? There could be many reasons for it:

• An employer may think that the performance of the employee is going down due to a romantic relationship between two employees, so the employer can force an employee to sign a Love Contract as it happened with Pritam. But does this actually help the employer & how would the employer know the reason for performance degradation of an employee. There could be many reasons for performance degradation of an employee like family problems, lack of motivation, etc. An employer can always add a clause related to performance in the Employment Contract, so why to waste resources & time in making a Love Contract.
• An employer may feel that an employee is giving some undue advantages to another employee like promotions, awards, etc due to a romantic relationship between them. A general clause for any such unfair practises could be added in the Employment Contract & I believe that there is no need for a separate Love Contract for this. Any such unfair practises should be strictly dealt with according to the rules of the organization
• Some organizations appreciate romantic relationships as they believe that such relationships inculcate loyalty amongst the employees. I worked in Infosys & a few years back it had a policy to gift a car to the employees if they get married.

Employees’ Perspective

With ever increasing hours the employees are spending in their workplace, engagement of employees in romantic relationships is pretty natural. But employees have a responsibility towards the organization & they should sort out their professional & personal relationships. An employee could develop a feeling of resentment towards an employer if he/she is made to sign a Love Contract & that could lead to dissatisfaction amongst the employees which could have serious implications for the organization.

Love Contracts : Important

As we all know a lot of time in our life is spent in offices where we work with our colleagues, customers, clients etc. In these hectic work schedules, there may always be instances when talking to someone might allay your stress. There are situations when you may be heavily attracted to that someone. Now you are in thoughts of that someone all the time, you only want to talk to that someone and things like that. These are the situations when you feel you are in love. At times, these are one sided also. This could happen to any of us at office. These are the times, when you start talking to him/her secretly on office telephones, meet each other slyly during work hours and things of that sort (because “Dil to bachcha hai ji!!”). Even a recent movie showed the actor falling in love with a colleague, showing negligence in office work and using the office services of telephone and internet to chat with her. Thus, it is quite evident that this leads for the suffering of employers in many ways. Work is affected; also there could be complaints of sexual harassment in case of one sided love or even if there is a betrayal in love. There are cases of favouritism at workplace wherein loyalties of people change when they are in love. In this manner, the old saying “Love is Blind” (said by some and proved by many) is also proved. Therefore, Love contracts become essential on the employers part to stave off all this. As this type of conduct could not be stopped by introducing certain rules as most of them happen not to be legal, love contracts provide a reasonable way of dealing these issues. Love contracts act as a talisman for the employer to prevent legal issues and other work related matters. The employees should also not curtain their feelings (Pyar kiya to darna kya!!) and should agree for love contracts. This leads to the conclusion that love contracts are necessary in nowadays workplace environment to avoid favouritism, misconduct, improper use of office services or ignorance of office work.