The Maverick Conservative

I don't think much of the Red Cross.  It is too much of a bureaucratic organization seemingly often run for the benefit of people in the Red Cross than for the people it is supposed to help.  My mother (now past 85) has always hated the Red Cross because of personal observations (she has always liked the Salvation Army, as an organization actually more interested n helping people than in the interest of the people in the organization).  In the case of the Red Cross, my impression is that my mother is basically correct (which is not to say that the Red Cross never does good work, or that there are not selfless, dedicated people within it).

One of today's stories is that the head of the Red Cross has been essentially fired for a "personal relationship with a subordinate" (the kind of thing that used to happen all of the time, although in the old days it more regularly led to marriage).  You might wonder why ANY male boss would have a "pesonal relationship" with a subordinate in these priggish (even if sex obssessed) and politically correct times.  Should not such a boss be fired for stupidity, if for nothing else.  A male boss, especially, seems to be opening himself up for nothing but grief (sexual harassment being one major, possible allegation) by having a relationship with a subordinate.  Going against this, however, is human nature (I, myself, married my secretary decades ago, although she divorced me once she got to really know me).  A boss gets to know people he works with better than he can possibly know someone he picks up in a bar.  It is likely that this kind of thing will continue to happen, no matter how priggish and politically correct our society becomes (and no matter how superficially dumb it is for male bosses in today's climate).

But consider if this were a HOMOSEXUAL relationship (Democrats passed a House bill trying to prohibit discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals--see archive entry). I am assuming here that it is not a homosexual relationship.

Are we at a point where it is MORE likely for a person to be condemned for a homosexual relationship than for a heterosexual relationship (unless you are Larry Craig: would the House bill apply to him?). At the very least, the LITIGATION will be endless with this kind of law as to a particular type of conduct.  I am perfectly aware that you can argue that a "personal relationship" with a homosexual subordinate is no different from the heterosexual situation, and that discrimination is not an issue.  Hogwash.  Once the can of worms is opened, it is easy to turn this into a discriminatin claim (and it almost ALWAYS will be done).

Yes, I am saying that it is NOT automatically wrong for a boss to have a "personal relationship" with a subordinate. Sure, it may violate policy for an organization, and you might think it should not be done, but that is the very reason that "discrimination" is the wrong way to look at conduct issues.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this