To think the CEO of McDonalds

[spanglydangly]

Should not have been dismissed for a relationship with a "subordinate"

As long as both parties are not acting inappropriately at work. I.e blatant favouritism or bring their personal line into work then what's the problem?

Or am I missing something massive?

He could use his position as her boss to coerce her into things she wouldn't do.

It was policy in the whole organisation that you couldn't have a relationship with someone you manage (sensible), so it also needed to apply to him.

@TheQueef he could, or they could get along really well and mi e happily ever after?

*live

@Peony99 actually my AIBU is shouldn't the rule be removed for everyone? I don't think he should have special treatment.

Apparently it forms part of McD's terms of employment for 'managers', so it was his choice to accept the massive salary they were paying him as CEO, and adhere to his contract, or work somewhere else with no such restrictions.

Aye they could and can now be isn't in a position of authority over her.

YABU- he broke the terms of his contract

He breached his contract. He got fired.

They were acting inappropriately at work since their relationship contravened company policy.
It's not unusual to have such a policy. Standard practice would be to declare the relationship and let the company suggest a way it could be managed eg moving one of you to another department/ a sister company. Or you decide as a couple which one of you is going to leave.

I think there is a lot going on here that we’re not privy too. The simplest explanation is that the board wanted him out, and used This as a reason. Potentially he has done something bad (sexual or otherwise) and this is a way of covering it up.

It’s all odd because generally a CEO would accept It if the board want shot of him, and agree to resign with a non offensive reason released to the public.

He knew the company rules. He broke the company rules, so he was fired. Doesn't matter whether you think the rule is unfair, it is there and when you are employed by a company you abide by their rules.

And a relationship whether consensual or not between a very high up person in a company and someone much more junior is potentially a misuse of power. People might be afraid of losing their job, or might think they would get promotion, so any relationship has the potential to be coercive. Everyone knows you don't get involved with people you are in a position of power over. he was stupid, he lost his job.

I doubt he'll suffer much in financial terms as he's was on a ludicrously massive salary while the people who serve in McDonalds get paid a pittance.

Ok, I get he broke the rules and yes that means dismissal.

What I maybe should've said was should they rule be in the contract?

Apparently it’s more common in the Us to state employees can’t have relationships. They do have pretty shit employment legislation

What I maybe should've said was should they rule be in the contract?

I think it's reasonable to say such relationships must be declared as a potential conflict of interest, and that the company may take action to avoid the conflict of interest. Instant dismissal seems a draconian contract clause.

On the other hand, I'd put up with it for the sake of a multi-million £ salary and I suspect many others would - he who pays the piper calls the tune!

I think it's reasonable to say such relationships must be declared as a potential conflict of interest, and that the company may take action to avoid the conflict of interest. Instant dismissal seems a draconian contract clause.

I agree with this.

Rules are rules and he broke them, but, as the woman in R2 said earlier, it’s unlikely that this guy was sacked purely because he had a relationship with a member of staff. There’s actually a whole load more to this situation... ie she’s 16 or whatever, or they were looking for a reason to get ride of him for something else and this presented itself to them.

It is a terrible affront to ones freedom to mandate this in an employment contract, and even more so to enforce it.

However these board positions at major corporations are a bit of a merry-go-round anyway and I'm sure he'll be in another excessively well remunerated position soon enough.

There is no way anyone could convince me that this rule in someone's contract is reasonable. It just isn't.

He signed up to it so I guess he lives with it but if this was in the UK I would personally be taking it to the courts, I don't know how these things work in the US but they don't tend to have the same employee rights that we have over here.

I understand why these rules are there. It might not be true for all organisations, but in lots of organisations, some creepy managers will always use their power to coerce their subordinates. Can you imagine if a manager in your local McDonald's was doing this with a teenaged customer service assistant? That's why they have the rule.

The CEO accepted the rule and broke it. If he was so madly in love that he didn't feel able to stick to the rule, he should have quit his job. I'm sure he has plenty in the bank to move on with! I'm glad he got the sack. It is absolutely what he deserved. Now he and his partner can live happily ever after...but he can't have his $$$$$$ paying job too.

if this was in the UK I would personally be taking it to the courts

As long as they have followed their dismissal procedure correctly, he'd have no case in a tribunal.

It depends if their dismissal procedure is legally enforceable. I agree though, it wouldn’t happen with the CeO of a publically listed company. What could the courts give him that his severance package won’t?

It is a terrible affront to ones freedom to mandate this in an employment contract, and even more so to enforce it.

Maybe try looking at it as protecting the employee from any manager who wanted to exert authority and make them do thigs they don't want to do.

Exactly @katherinejaneway.

I remember working for some right creepy fuckers when I was a teenager. They genuinely saw access to teenage girls as one of the perks of their otherwise not inspiring jobs. The fact that McDonald's has this policy makes me think a lot more of them.

@passthecherrycoke McD’s is a publicly listed company

They have this rule because you shouldn’t have sex with someone you are in a position of power over, because it blurs the line on consent. Eg did the subordinate think if she said no she would be fired? Did she think if she said yes she would be promoted? From a personal perspective I can’t understand why you would want to have sex if there was the slightest doubt about whether the other person wanted to.

This is becoming a thing in the UK too. Eg Freshfields (British mega law firm) has said it will fine partners who breach its code of conduct following a case before the solicitors’ professional body in which a partner was fined for getting into a compromising position with a drunk trainee.

I think this a good thing as in my younger days this happened all the time and it did muddy the waters on what was achieved / available on merit and what was achieved / available by shagging.