A US tech company says its chief executive has quit after he was apparently caught on a big screen at a Coldplay concert embracing a female co-worker, in a clip that went viral.

The clip showed a man and a woman hugging on a jumbo screen at the arena in Foxborough, Massachusetts, before they abruptly ducked and hid from the camera.

The pair were identified in US media as Mr Byron, a married chief executive of Astronomer, and Kristin Cabot, the firm’s chief people officer.

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 hours ago

    He was technically her boss. And he gave her that job. Was it because she was sleeping with him? That will certainly cause people at the company to assume so. So whenevr the next person doesn’t get a promo, they will sue because the company fostered an environment where you only get ahead by having sex with your superiors. Also, most companies have a written policy about fraternizing with subordinates. It usually states termination as a consequence of breaking the policy.

    • FelixCress@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Also, most companies have a written policy about fraternizing with subordinates. It usually states termination as a consequence of breaking the policy.

      This is completely fucking moronic. Employees are not a company property. Good there is the article 8 (right to private life) of Humans Rights Act in the UK, stopping madness like this.

      • 3abas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Are you seriously suggesting is perfectly normal in the UK for the CEO to have an affair with the head of HR that he hired, and no one would complain because of human rights act?

        • overthere@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          The Europeans had, and still have in some cases, dynastic royalty and state religions and stuff. They’re surprisingly backward in a lot of ways. The personal freedom to use your power imbalance at work for sexual gratification seems like the sort of thing they’d never move forward away from.

        • FelixCress@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 hours ago

          It is perfectly normal to not have a personal life controlled by a company, yes.

          Blows USians mind, eh?

          • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 hours ago

            You’re not understanding the full context of this situation. And then acting like everyone else here are the dumb ones.

            You should just stop embarrassing yourself.

      • mriswith@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours ago

        Once again, America shows how “free” they actually are.

        And to show that the protection is not theoretical in Europe: Walmart implemented that policy when they tried getting into the German market twenty years ago. They were so insistent that it took a judge to tell them to stop it since it was against the law(It’s sraight up against the first and second article of the German constitution, which protects personal freedom).

        • Dozzi92@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 hours ago

          They were free to disclose it. It is this way because people have used interoffice relationships to better their positions and create favor, which leads to an imbalanced an unfair workplace. Having a secret romance in the office has the potential for failure at best.

      • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 hours ago

        I am from the UK and this wouldn’t fly here either.

        You can be sleeping with your employees dude that’s a clear power imbalance dynamic and you would be fired here too for having a relationship with a subordinate.

        It’s not like companies give a shit who you sleeping with but they have rules in place to prevent abuses of power and also to protect their own image.

        Seems pretty naive that you can only see this from a very limited angle.

        • FelixCress@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          You can be sleeping with your employees dude that’s a clear power imbalance dynamic and you would be fired here too for having a relationship with a subordinate.

          Educate yourself.

          https://www.employmentlawreview.co.uk/personal-relationships-at-work-what-does-uk-law-say/

          You can be forced to disclose relationships and sacked if you fail to do so. You cannot be sacked for having a relationship.

          Completely banning personal relationships at work would likely breach an employee’s right to a private life. However, that doesn’t mean employers can’t put measures in place to mitigate risks to the business caused by such relationships. Policies employers may want to consider implementing include:

          Ensuring that employees disclose any workplace relationships they have so that appropriate steps can be taken to minimise risks

          Restricting employees who deal with recruitment from the process if it involves someone they have a personal relationship with

          Potentially changing an employee’s manager if they’re in a relationship with their current one, providing this doesn’t discriminate against them

            • FelixCress@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Read again. You cannot be sacked for having a relationship and companies are not allowed to forbid that. Admit you were wrong and move on.

              • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 hours ago

                Hey if you can show me some legal precedence then perhaps I’ll admit to being wrong but you only provided a non official article discussing this not some legal precedence of these rules in employment contracts being contested and overturned in a court of law.

                • FelixCress@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 hours ago

                  I gave you a link to solicitors dealing with these, you fucking muppet.

                  It is YOU moronically claiming, despite giving facts, that one can be sacked for having a relationship (rather than not disclosing it). Onus of proof is on you - show me ONE case from an employment tribunal where the court sided with an employer in such scenario.