Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rtseel t1_j667pwi wrote

Reply to comment by mountainhighgoat in ABC News Breaks Up With Amy Robach, T.J. Holmes Over Off-Camera Affair by Jeffmister

That must be one of these American things that I can't understand. Why would that be the company's business or ground for termination?

−41

CrassDemon t1_j66874q wrote

It's not really an "American thing" most large companies around the world have a morality clause. Gotta keep up the company image when you represent the company.

47

LABS_Games t1_j66il7w wrote

I'm not American, but I'm tired of the superiority showboating people do in the thinly veiled guise of "asking an honest question".

26

ChesswiththeDevil t1_j692ajj wrote

Are you serious? People ask that way because it’s hard to convey intent over the Internet and people want to ask a question without seeming like they are trolling.

−4

rtseel t1_j66m92t wrote

If you're referring to my comment, there's no superior affectation at all in my intention. I'm just from a country that has routinely re-elected presidents who were known for having affairs, and where terminating employees for having affairs would result in lawsuit and massive compensation from the courts. So, yes, I'm honestly asking because I just can't understand it, why would a company fire people for having affairs (between adults)?

−26

CrassDemon t1_j66yfgr wrote

They would fire them because they broke their contract. Whether or not the public cares, the employer does and they have people sign contracts saying they won't do whatever behavior they find unappealing. The people would lose a lawsuit because there are contracts in place. This isn't just American companies, futbol teams all over the world have the players sign similar contracts. Politicians are elected officials, they aren't beholden to corporate standards or contracts even in America (just look at Trump or Clinton).

13

rtseel t1_j6als49 wrote

TFA doesn't mention any contract being broken.

Also, show me a football club in Europe where players can't have affairs otherwise they'll be fired? I think the courts will have a field day with that.

−1

CrassDemon t1_j6aus8j wrote

They absolutely had a contact in place. Futbol teams have morality clauses that don't necessarily include affairs as an offense. Every company is different.

1

Dismal-Past7785 t1_j672sze wrote

Because they’re public facing individuals whose job is to report the news, not become the news. Elections are one thing, that’s the people selecting a government. Public representation of your corporation is another thing, and if you fuck that up in any way in a public facing role I’m sure you can still be fired in your country, even if the reason you fucked it up (like having an affair) is apparently normally protected.

Like if Jim from sales and Pam from administration have an affair I’m sure that’s totally fine. But if your two lead anchors have an affair and become the story instead of presenting the story, then I’m sure that’s still a problem no matter the work place protections. They’re not being fired because of the affair. They’re being fired for the public fallout of the affair reflecting badly on the parent company.

5

whatsarobinson t1_j67ph4h wrote

If Jim from sales and Pam from administration had an affair then we’ve got ourselves a multi Emmy award winning television series

5

rtseel t1_j6ammxd wrote

And yet Joe Scarborough and Mika Brezinski weren't fired, and their story didn't embarass or harm their company, quite the contrary.

Also, TFA mentions that this could be legally tricky for ABC:

> ABC News may have to thread a needle, proving via legal means that the pair behaved unprofessionally at work.

So any legal reason is just a retroactive attempt at justification.

> and if you fuck that up in any way in a public facing role I’m sure you can still be fired in your country, even if the reason you fucked it up (like having an affair) is apparently normally protected.

Sure, for all sorts of reasons. Except having an affair. That's nobody's business here (France) and a private matter between the two people and their families. And that's why I can't understand it, and so far none of the explanations have been convincing and are contradicted by TFA, since it's neither a legal reason, nor a contract reason. It's purely a cultural reason.

−1

GhostRobot55 t1_j6bgkds wrote

Because it means they're shitty human beings lol.

Fuck off out of here.

1

rtseel t1_j6frx5s wrote

So what? That's their business and the business of their family, who are the only ones harmed. Why do you care who they're sleeping with, if they're not your spouse?

If shitty human beings was a criteria, not a lot of people would find work.

1

ChesswiththeDevil t1_j69248l wrote

I love that interoffice relationships are included in the morality clause, but corporate ethics vs. profit mandates or not. In other words, it’s really important that you always make the company appear to be moral, but let’s look the other way when it comes to doing the right thing, even if it means affecting profits a little.

1

rtseel t1_j66lebl wrote

In many countries an affair wouldn't affect the company image at all. People just won't care.

−11

matty_nice t1_j66acgw wrote

He also had multiple affairs with people at work, including an intern. Instant no no.

21

rtseel t1_j66lgm2 wrote

That's a more serious allegation, but I haven't seen that in the article.

4

mountainhighgoat t1_j668ztu wrote

Because who wants those kind of people working for their company?

4

tsh87 t1_j669fnz wrote

Yeah, to me if you want to have an affair that's your business I guess.

But if you're too dumb to properly hide it, that I can't tolerate.

These two were anchors on a national morning show and yet they ran around like nobody would know who they were. That's too stupid to remain employed.

4

GhostRobot55 t1_j6bgqwg wrote

When an affair exposes the spouse to risk of stds they didn't consent to I tend to see it as a form of sexual assault.

1

otherestScott t1_j689cg1 wrote

There’s a suggestion here if you have an affair you just should be unemployed which is way overly harsh. At that point you might as well just send people to jail for having an affair

−2

GhostRobot55 t1_j6byhkk wrote

Exposing someone to the risk of an std without their knowledge and gaining consent to sex under the fraudulent pretense of monogamy seems like it should carry some weight behind it. This is assuming you continue a sexual relationship with the original partner.

It takes a level of sociopathy to hand waive cheating. That's not hyperbole. I'd rather be mugged than be cheated on especially if it was for an extended period of time in a relationship. That can amount to years of your life being fundamentally a lie.

2

Similar-Collar1007 t1_j66a0n4 wrote

Also they are co workers if he had been in a role above her weird power dynamic shit would come into play and you don’t wanna send the message that’s okay

4