McDonald’s Chief Executive Fired Over Relationship with Employee

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
Is that reasonable in practice, though? Many people can’t even choose to find other work.

Would we say the same thing to employees if employers were similarly oppressive about something else?
All Im saying is these matters are regulated by a nation's employment laws, and then individual company HR policy within that. Individuals saying its 'fair or not fair' is not meaningful nor carry any weight.

As CEO, Easterbrook literally signed off this policy, and to do so, would have checked its legal with US employment law, so I can't see how any complaint can be justified.
 
Last edited:

oneniltothearsenal

Caf's Milton Friedman and Arse Aficionado
Scout
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
11,082
Supports
Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
I agree with @esmufc07

It should be illegal for any corporation to have policies banning employees dating.

Feck McDonalds anyway, horrible company
 

VeevaVee

The worst "V"
Scout
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
46,248
Location
Manchester
If its stated in the contract, surely then the person can choose not to work for that employer?
It's not really something most would consider when taking a job. Plus you'd expect it to be managed better than just firing someone if it does occur, even if that's policy.

All Im saying is these matters are regulated by a nation's employment laws, and then individual company HR policy within that. Individuals saying its 'fair or not fair' is not meaningful nor carry any weight.
It carries weight very often for other circumstances.

Just doesn't sit well with me at all.
Not to mention, a lot of big companies expect employees to work more hours than contracted for. 1. They don't mind bending those rules, and 2. It can quickly limit the time you have to actually meet someone.
 

fishfingers15

Contributes to username and tagline changes
Joined
Jan 17, 2009
Messages
27,115
Location
YESHHHHH, We'll GOOO for it.
I'm pretty sure they have an exception policy. I worked with a husband and wife at McD Corporate office. I can't be fully sure if they were in the same chain of reporting though. Problem here seems to be nondisclosure.
 

ivaldo

Mediocre Horse Whisperer, s'up wid chew?
Joined
Nov 15, 2012
Messages
28,699
He was aware it wasn't permissible and by the looks of it, he's accepted his error and the consequent sacking.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,229
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
If there was a policy and he didn't follow it then I understand the firing. The issue isn't being in a relationship, it's leaving the company open to claims of discrimination because "she's sleeping with the CEO, and that's why she got a promotion".

I heard of a case at my company where a boss started a relationship with someone 2 levels below him. Once they reported it, HR worked with the two to find a new role for the lady outside of the guy's chain of command.
This. Company's are obviously that relationships happen, just don't bang your direct reports. It's in the contract for managers at my company too after two episodes of it happening.
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
7,614
No wonder they didn't have ice cream for my niece and nephew last night if they're keeping themselves busy regulating who's doing who.
 

Blatzo

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
1,713
Everyone was shagging everyone at the Maccies I worked at.
 

2 man midfield

Last Man Standing finalist 2021/22
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
45,670
Location
?
All Im saying is these matters are regulated by a nation's employment laws, and then individual company HR policy within that. Individuals saying its 'fair or not fair' is not meaningful nor carry any weight.

As CEO, Easterbrook literally signed off this policy, and to do so, would have checked its legal with US employment law, so I can't see how any complaint can be justified.
Just because it’s within the law doesn’t mean it’s morally tickety-boo. He’s a hypocrite for breaking his own law, but in the wider context I just don’t see what business a corporation has telling it’s employees who they can and can’t date. And for me, saying ‘just don’t work there then’ isn’t really good enough.
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,038
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
Just because it’s within the law doesn’t mean it’s morally tickety-boo. He’s a hypocrite for breaking his own law, but in the wider context I just don’t see what business a corporation has telling it’s employees who they can and can’t date. And for me, saying ‘just don’t work there then’ isn’t really good enough.
Do you think teachers should date their pupils? Doctors their patients? Lawyers their clients? This isn't about protecting the rights of the corporation, this is about avoiding situations where the power dynamic is wildly skewed. You can say that people should be able to choose on their own, but there are plenty of things people aren't allowed to choose on their own. Whether or not to wear seatbelts, for example.
 

Runner

Full Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2015
Messages
1,724
There won't be a shortage of lawyers lining up for that wrongful dismissal suit.
 

2 man midfield

Last Man Standing finalist 2021/22
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
45,670
Location
?
Do you think teachers should date their pupils? Doctors their patients? Lawyers their clients? This isn't about protecting the rights of the corporation, this is about avoiding situations where the power dynamic is wildly skewed. You can say that people should be able to choose on their own, but there are plenty of things people aren't allowed to choose on their own. Whether or not to wear seatbelts, for example.
How many false equivalencies are you making there? Surely you can see why two consenting adults who have only just met being forbidden to see eachother outside work is not even slightly similar to why a teacher can’t date a 17 year old?

As for the seatbelt law, it stops people dying. It isn’t just for the wearer, it’s for their kids and other loved ones who can’t make them wear a seatbelt. The state steps in and keeps their dad from killing himself. Again, surely you can see why that’s a little different?
 

nimic

something nice
Scout
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
31,038
Location
And I'm all out of bubblegum.
How many false equivalencies are you making there? Surely you can see why two consenting adults who have only just met being forbidden to see eachother outside work is not even slightly similar to why a teacher can’t date a 17 year old?

As for the seatbelt law, it stops people dying. It isn’t just for the wearer, it’s for their kids and other loved ones who can’t make them wear a seatbelt. The state steps in and keeps their dad from killing himself. Again, surely you can see why that’s a little different?
It's rich of you to complain about false equivalences while ignoring two of my examples and changing the premise of the last one. In any case, in Norway it is still illegal for a teacher to have a relationship with an 18 year old pupil, or a 19 year old one. As it should be.
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
7,614
It's rich of you to complain about false equivalences while ignoring two of my examples and changing the premise of the last one. In any case, in Norway it is still illegal for a teacher to have a relationship with an 18 year old pupil, or a 19 year old one. As it should be.
You don't think there's a significant difference between a teacher student relationship and a relationship between two adults happening to work for the same company? Should relationships on redcafe be allowed? Might lead to some problems some time down the line... who knows? @Penna @oates thoughts?
Actually there's a plethora of threads that prove almost all relationships always cause trouble.

Or should we only allow new members to date new members, full members full members, and admins / admins? These things need regulating! It's like the wild west out there.
 

2 man midfield

Last Man Standing finalist 2021/22
Joined
Sep 4, 2012
Messages
45,670
Location
?
It's rich of you to complain about false equivalences while ignoring two of my examples and changing the premise of the last one. In any case, in Norway it is still illegal for a teacher to have a relationship with an 18 year old pupil, or a 19 year old one. As it should be.
I didn’t think I needed to address all 4 after poking flaws in 2 of them by simply breathing on them.

But ok, why a doctor shouldn’t be able to date a patient makes sense because he, like a teacher, has a duty of care. Doctors and lawyers are professionals, and need to remain so.

What we really need to do though is keep the burger flippers and the toilet cleaners away from eachother.
 

simonhch

Horrible boss
Joined
Aug 17, 2010
Messages
14,368
Location
Seventh Heaven
Supports
Urban Combat Preparedness
I just came for the puns.

There won't be a shortage of lawyers lining up for that wrongful dismissal suit.
He won’t sue. There has a substantial separation package. He’ll be taking home millions. His compensation in 2017 was $21.8M. For one year. He gets 26 weeks pay and prorated bonuses as part of his agreement. So probably $10-12M plus more later. Probably has stock options too.

He can’t move to another fast food company for two years. He actually tendered his resignation on October 31st. So again, he won’t sue.
 

Jippy

Sleeps with tramps, bangs jacuzzis, dirty shoes
Staff
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
57,229
Location
Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams
You don't think there's a significant difference between a teacher student relationship and a relationship between two adults happening to work for the same company? Should relationships on redcafe be allowed? Might lead to some problems some time down the line... who knows? @Penna @oates thoughts?
Actually there's a plethora of threads that prove almost all relationships always cause trouble.

Or should we only allow new members to date new members, full members full members, and admins / admins? These things need regulating! It's like the wild west out there.
It's predominantly a sausage fest in the mods forum unfortunately.
 

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
6,437
Can't see why adults should be preemptively sheltered before it's even clear if anything harmful happens at all.

What I can see is why corporations have an interest to control their employees. Then again, a McD CEO losing his job is nothing to lose sleep over.
 

Abizzz

Full Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
7,614
Can't see why adults should be preemptively sheltered before it's even clear if anything harmful happens at all.

What I can see is why corporations have an interest to control their employees. Then again, a McD CEO losing his job is nothing to lose sleep over.
Yeah that's what I thought at first too, I don't like it but can hardly sympathize with him over it. But we only hear about this because he's the CEO, and because it's McDonalds. I wonder how many relationships between low level employees were ignored until such a time when it became convenient to stop ignoring them.

Then again I'm sure the people who fry fries at McDonalds have lots of options and no one forced them to work for McDonalds!
 
Last edited:

golden_blunder

Site admin. Manchester United fan
Staff
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
119,446
Location
Dublin, Ireland
I just came for the puns.



He won’t sue. There has a substantial separation package. He’ll be taking home millions. His compensation in 2017 was $21.8M. For one year. He gets 26 weeks pay and prorated bonuses as part of his agreement. So probably $10-12M plus more later. Probably has stock options too.

He can’t move to another fast food company for two years. He actually tendered his resignation on October 31st. So again, he won’t sue.
I see what you did there, subtle
 

Florida Man

Cartoon expert and crap superhero
Joined
Jan 24, 2014
Messages
13,864
Location
Florida, man
Doesn't work that way. If you bar all relationships then it applies equally. Equating relationship to organizational seniority is just weird. If it's consensual, then both have equal responsibility.
On paper, yes. But we know rules aren’t applied equally especially if it’s a case between someone high in power and someone lower in power. And this goes in both the good and bad ways.