Letterman scandal

[Just thinking]

As a woman who has worked my entire adult life at many different places of employment, I've experienced sexual harassment. I am not ignorant. Once again, I disagree with you and you discount my opinion claiming it must just be an uninformed decision. Well it isn't. I just happen to think the majority of women are capable of having an attraction and/or relationship with men regardless if those men are their superiors on the job.

I am not arguing sexual harassment ... never did, nor will I now.

Some men are creeps. Some women are meek and easily victimizable. The vast majority of each are not.

Unrelated commet to issues being argued.

Yeah, that happens.

Finally ... you admit the issue!

If a relationship takes off, it is not uncommon for one of the parties to end up resigning to avoid the appearance problem.

Maybe ... maybe not. Anyway, I don't believe anyone resigned ... but perhaps you know better?

Classes are short term. It's easy enough to wait until the class is over.

Again ... it's policy just the same. Thanks again for agreeing with me.

Now you are getting off topic. People develop relationships with the people they work with. It's a fact of life. If you want to include every potential interaction between men and women where a conflict of interest is possible, that is well beyond this discussion.

Not at all. Just showing what happens when the person in power becomes involved with those under their supervision/decisions. Nice to see though you are finally coming around to realizing its seriousness.

I said, though you disagree, that there are cases of bosses abusing their power position. That isn't right. But you seem to think that just because that can happen no one should ever date their boss. That's stupid. Why not? Just because someone else doesn't like it? I think not.

Why do you keep insisting on bringing up abuse, harassment, stc. It's the relationship itself that is the issue ... that's all. Stop this ceaseless diversion.

Not every woman needs protection and you are insulting us to think we do.

Are you OK? ... why are you arguing this? Where has it been shown by me to introduce this line of thought you keep realigning to?

You seem to think that because abuse can occur, one must never go there. That implies all women are little girls in need of protection.

?????? (The mind boggles.)

Allegations? Are you not familiar with the marriage of the richest man in the world to one of his subordinates?

Who would you expect Bill Gates to marry? I am not the least bit surprised he'd marry one of his employees. The guy was a workaholic. What other women would he ever get to know except women he met on the job?

Is she still employed as a co-worker (at the same level) as she was prior to getting married?

It's irrelevant that women probably were attracted to David Letterman? So if they were attracted but didn't work for him they weren't victims but if they were attracted to him but they did work for him they were?

I am not arguing being attracted ... I am arguing of a relationship of a supervisor to subordinates ... you seemed to have understood the issue above, now it seems you've once again lost it.

Same translation you used before: If I disagree I must not get it.

Yep ... you lost it.

Reasons unknown? You're kidding, right?

No ... look at your link, only this time, read it.

The New York Daily News, citing unidentified sources, reported that O'Reilly had agreed to pay Mackris anywhere from $2 million to $10 million. Separately, the New York Post said it was believed that O'Reilly paid "multimillions of dollars" to settle the suit.

The deal likely involves payment of millions of dollars to Mackris, since the two sides were discussing an offer of well over $2 million when negotiations broke down, say sources close to O'Reilly...

...Fox believed Mackris had tape recordings of the long, highly detailed conversations alleged in the suit, but Morelli never confirmed that, saying only that they had concrete evidence. O'Reilly and his attorney, Ronald Green, never denied that the Fox commentator had used such language, but said he never broke the law and questioned whether Mackris was truly offended or was taking words and phrases out of context....

And now ... more allegations, just allegations:

..."I was put in a position with a man that, whenever he would call me at work or at home, work-related, he would say jump and I'd say how high and I would jump," Mackris told CNN earlier this month. "I'm not used to saying no to this man on any level. I had said no to him and no to him and no to him and no to him and no to him and no to him about his saucy language. . . . He had threatened that anybody who ever would speak of it would be raked through the mud. . . . I was absolutely threatened."

And this is what you call evidence? I've got more evidence for the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot.

Sorry ... the clock is still ticking! GO!

Now how about you show us the evidence against Letterman?

His own words admit to having relations with subordinates.

Argument made --- done.

Have you imagined somewhere I've attributed your opinion here to your politics? Because I don't recall doing that.

Your conclusions about Bill O'Reilly strongly lean in that direction; and that's more evidence for me to believe than you have used in believing he paid off someone. Perhaps the case was formally dropped when it became obvious she had no case against Bill --- things may have fallen apart for her. Her attorney may have become aware of this and stopped the formal proceedings. Maybe it was shown she was lying. Will you even consider those options? If not, I rest my case. Remember ... Bill did not have to even make an apology of any kind during the entire ordeal.

So you are saying O'Reilly and Letterman are not celebs? Huh?

No ... not at all. I was making 2 points.

1) That celebrities get treated differently than the average Joe on the street.

2) That left of center celebrities get treated/viewed differently than right of center ones.

Do you still miss my points?

 

[Lithrael]

Heh. Do you object to employer/employee relationships where the employee does not get a raise?

 

[Just thinking]

Heh. Do you object to employer/employee relationships where the employee does not get a raise?

There are far more reasons than raises to have concerns over that situation.

1) Favoritism (on job performance, meeting objectives, duties, time off, etc.)

2) Promotions

3) Exposure to special opportunities that are used to judge performance

4) Bonuses and/or Stock options

5) Invitations to upper supervisory events (making friends with the right people)

... and I'm sure there are other more subtle things that pop up from time to time.

 

[Lithrael]

Seems to me those are all equally big/bad factors in an employee simply making friends with an employer. And it doesn't seem to me that I would want to work in the sort of place where the bosses are not allowed to be friendly toward the employees.

Down that road you only reinforce the ridiculous divisions we have between people of differing income levels for, IMO, no very good reason.

 

[Just thinking]

Being friendly has little to do with it ... I'm speaking of romantic involvement. Yet I'm sure you wouldn't like it if a boss was "friendly" toward one person (a co-worker) where they strongly benefited from my list above and you didn't.

 

[Lithrael]

And I'm asking why romantic involvement tips the scales of your 'oh no, unfairness warning' meter when friendship doesn't. Do you mean the sort of employers who would risk doing something disrespectful towards their employees because of a romantic relationship would not also risk the same because of a friendly relationship?

ETA to respond to your ETA: Well of course I'd be annoyed if a boss showed favoritism to an employee because they were friends. But I don't think the way to deal with that issue is to condemn all employee/employer friendships. And the same goes for employer/employee relationships.

 

[Just thinking]

Down that road you only reinforce the ridiculous divisions we have between people of differing income levels for, IMO, no very good reason.

Really? ... I assure you that were I to exist or not, those feelings will still be present. It's as unavoidable as gravity. Do you dismiss my judicial argument made earlier?

 

[Just thinking]

And I'm asking why romantic involvement tips the scales of your 'oh no, unfairness warning' meter when friendship doesn't. Do you mean the sort of employers who would risk doing something disrespectful towards their employees because of a romantic relationship would not also risk the same because of a friendly relationship?

Of course not ... which is why the situation does not in most cases stand, or even get tollerated by company policy.

 

[Lithrael]

I do dismiss your judicial argument. It's a different situation.

Of course not ... which is why the situation does not in most cases stand, or even get tollerated by company policy.

OK. I respectfully disagree. The douche who gives perks for sex is the same douche who takes all his friends on the company retreat.

ETA: I think where I'm coming from is this: There is no way to take the politicking and bullcrap and second guessing and envy out of the workplace. People are simply like that, on the whole. So to single out and blanket-condemn employer/employee relationships seems useless to me. Sure, when you're looking at ways to minimize potential conflict in the workplace those concerns are most visible, but going after that is like... Seeing the tip of an iceberg and thinking if you cut it off then the problem would be mostly taken care of.

 

[Just thinking]

I do dismiss your judicial argument. It's a different situation.


OK. I respectfully disagree. The douche who gives perks for sex is the same douche who takes all his friends on the company retreat.

My list is for all concerns that will arise in the minds of co-workers ... most of which can never be proven directly, yet still come up. Look back at my post ... I said to have concerns over that situation. And this is so real that many companies have strict policies relating to it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are far more reasons than raises to have concerns over that situation.

1) Favoritism (on job performance, meeting objectives, duties, time off, etc.)

2) Promotions

3) Exposure to special opportunities that are used to judge performance

4) Bonuses and/or Stock options

5) Invitations to upper supervisory events (making friends with the right people)

... and I'm sure there are other more subtle things that pop up from time to time.

Which is why when some of these relationships are formed, one of the 2 resigns. Is Letterman's company his or is it a publicly traded company? If you own the company, so what if a favored employee gets a raise? If the raise comes out of money the boss has no right to give away, like Wolfowitz giving his gal a big fat raise at the World Bank, that smacks of corruption. But if one owns the company, one can do what one wants.

But even in those cases where a boss does not have the right to favor an employee, the idea that men and women of unequal status shouldn't fraternize or date or form relationships in any workplace ever is ridiculous. If a relationship evolves, one of the two parties resigns. If the relationship doesn't go anywhere, then the fact two people dated or had mutually desired sex, then there is no problem.



As for your claim I must be talking about harassment while you have narrowed the discussion to appearances and ethics, it's a straw man to dismiss what I've said on that basis. My opinion is no different if only appearances and ethics are involved. It still depends on the individual case. Like I said, there is no reason to make developing the relationship in the first place taboo. You can manage it by having one person resign if need be. You could have a third party approve raises if that was the issue. What ever the specific issues, there is more than one way to manage them besides treating the workplace like a caste system or acting like no manager is trustworthy ever so one should never allow a boss the opportunity to give a partner a raise. Maybe you should never turn you back on the boss if all of them are that unethical.

 

[Just thinking]

Which is why when some of these relationships are formed, one of the 2 resigns.

Yes ... because it establishes an uncomfortable environment for all of the subordinate's co-workers. A very real and serious issue.

Is Letterman's company his or is it a publicly traded company? If you own the company, so what if a favored employee gets a raise? If the raise comes out of money the boss has no right to give away, like Wolfowitz giving his gal a big fat raise at the World Bank, that smacks of corruption. But if one owns the company, one can do what one wants.

Yes ... he can. And he is then free to create what most will agree is a strong potential for an uncomfortable environment for all of the subordinate's co-workers. Don't for a moment think that people in a private corporation are somehow different than workers in a public one.

But even in those cases where a boss does not have the right to favor an employee, the idea that men and women of unequal status shouldn't fraternize or date or form relationships in any workplace ever is ridiculous.

Then they should do as you originally posted ... one of the 2 resigns. And keep in mind, co-workers are not subordinates.

If a relationship evolves, one of the two parties resigns. If the relationship doesn't go anywhere, then the fact two people dated or had mutually desired sex, then there is no problem.

I've got a bridge for sale ... interested?

 

[Just thinking]

As for your claim I must be talking about harassment while you have narrowed the discussion to appearances and ethics, it's a straw man to dismiss what I've said on that basis. My opinion is no different if only appearances and ethics are involved. It still depends on the individual case. Like I said, there is no reason to make developing the relationship in the first place taboo. You can manage it by having one person resign if need be. You could have a third party approve raises if that was the issue. What ever the specific issues, there is more than one way to manage them besides treating the workplace like a caste system or acting like no manager is trustworthy ever so one should never allow a boss the opportunity to give a partner a raise. Maybe you should never turn you back on the boss if all of them are that unethical.

Well, I really never argued the harassment angle ... and in this case I will certainly understand your using it. But as for the romantic involvement, the corporations are way on the other side of your feelings with that. It's just too delicate (and serious) an issue. Too many times too many things have gone sour ... and too many companies have been hurt by it. In the end, it's simply seldom tolerated. It may not bother you, but it does bother many people.

 

[sugarb]

And I'm asking why romantic involvement tips the scales of your 'oh no, unfairness warning' meter when friendship doesn't. Do you mean the sort of employers who would risk doing something disrespectful towards their employees because of a romantic relationship would not also risk the same because of a friendly relationship?

ETA to respond to your ETA: Well of course I'd be annoyed if a boss showed favoritism to an employee because they were friends. But I don't think the way to deal with that issue is to condemn all employee/employer friendships. And the same goes for employer/employee relationships.

My experience has been that more favoritism is shown toward friends of generally the same gender than toward "romantic" partners, anyway. It's fairly common, even in government, and no one complains much about it.

I think what disturbs me about this entire thing is this: why are we assuming that adults who have a sexual relationship (short term or long term) are having a ROMANTIC relationship? It has also been my experience that, for men in particular, sexual "indescretions" aren't at all "romantic". And...myself and other women I know have also had sexual involvements that weren't "romantic", just mutually beneficial where nothing else was expected. With co-workers, friends, and yeah, even bosses.

Now, about David Letterman...personally, I'm stunned that women find him attractive (lol), but...so what if they do? So what if two adults decide to have sex? Doesn't mean there's "romance". Doesn't mean there's any favoritism being shown. Doesn't always even mean there's any "cheating" going on.

In the interest of "equality", I think it would be wise for people to stop assuming women are automatically influenced in some mystical way by money, power, and fame.

 

[Starthinker]

If I have sex with my boss I'd better get a raise or preferential treatment otherwise what am I doing it for? If a pretty intern threw herself at me I'd probably be weak, too.

There's more than one way to look at this. My main motivation for becoming rich and famous is so that women will throw themselves at me.

 

[RandFan]

If I have sex with my boss I'd better get a raise...

I always get a raise when I have sex.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Letterman has been dating Lasko since 1986. They got married in March, 2009. That's only six months. They have have a five-year-old son, Harry. Letterman's assignations with his crew were occurring long after Harry was born.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but having children doesn't preclude you from sleeping around. <insert thousands of examples here>

Oh, I don't know if you all are aware of this little tidbit of info, but Regina Lasko was a Late Show staff member. So if you have a problem with interoffice dating, or employers dating employees, perhaps you need to go rethink your argument.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, I don't know if you all are aware of this little tidbit of info, but Regina Lasko was a Late Show staff member. So if you have a problem with interoffice dating, or employers dating employees, perhaps you need to go rethink your argument.

I think policies against interoffice dating can be appropriate. That said, I don't care to judge any individual guilty of such. That is between the person and his employer and perhaps significant other (assuming they are not the same).

 

[Roadtoad]

Just catching up from time on the road...

I've worked in places where someone cuter than me, (imagine that!), someone who was willing to twitch her ass was able to get preferential treatment. Sometimes, sex was involved, sometimes, it wasn't. But the fact is, it happens. People will tend to use the advantages they perceive they have.

I found it odd that a lot of this took place while I was working in "Christian" radio, but there it was. Attractive women who were perceived by our boss as being "available," women who were single, usually, got the better end of the deal than married, overweight dudes like me.

This is emerging more and more as a matter of finely split hairs, tiny details that may or may not have made any difference. Should Letterman have been banging subordinates, regardless of their talents and abilities? No. He should have kept his pants zipped, and if he wanted a relationship with certain women, he would have been better served by waiting until they were in a better standing than they were. Yes, Merril Markoe is an incredibly talented writer, (someone I sometimes enjoy reading, oddly enough), but when she was a subordinate, it was a bad move on both her part and Letterman's for her to be involved with him.

So none of these women seem to want to sue Letterman? Seems fair to me. The whole thing is, as Letterman himself put it, rather creepy, so, to my way of thinking, we're better off putting the whole thing behind us.

Oddly enough, I find I'm in agreement in part with Cicero: Why was the audience applauding? Letterman behaved like an idiot. I can see a CBS attorney had to be sitting there, shaking his head, asking, "What were you thinking, Dave?" This opens up a huge can of worms for the network, and it puts a rather ugly spin on things, even as we're hearing about some of the rude remarks from Don Hewitt of 60 Minutes regarding women, and particularly as we're seeing Katie Couric, featherweight embarrassment anchor, filling a chair that was once held by Walter Cronkite.

If there's a bright spot to this, it's that Letterman approached this head-on. Unlike Bill Clinton, ("I did not have sex with that woman...") and Gary Condit, (aka, "Gary Condom"), he owned up right away and told the truth. If there's a lesson here, it's that people will forgive when you're truly honest about what you've done, and you demonstrate you're willing to change direction. Hell, maybe that's why people were applauding. It seems to me, though, that Letterman handled it with far more class than many others have in the past.

 

[GreNME]

Oddly enough, I find I'm in agreement in part with Cicero: Why was the audience applauding? Letterman behaved like an idiot. I can see a CBS attorney had to be sitting there, shaking his head, asking, "What were you thinking, Dave?" This opens up a huge can of worms for the network, and it puts a rather ugly spin on things, even as we're hearing about some of the rude remarks from Don Hewitt of 60 Minutes regarding women, and particularly as we're seeing Katie Couric, featherweight embarrassment anchor, filling a chair that was once held by Walter Cronkite.

If there's a bright spot to this, it's that Letterman approached this head-on. Unlike Bill Clinton, ("I did not have sex with that woman...") and Gary Condit, (aka, "Gary Condom"), he owned up right away and told the truth. If there's a lesson here, it's that people will forgive when you're truly honest about what you've done, and you demonstrate you're willing to change direction. Hell, maybe that's why people were applauding. It seems to me, though, that Letterman handled it with far more class than many others have in the past.

Totally not what I saw at all.

What I saw Letterman doing was taking the reigns of the topic and driving the conversation. From that point on, despite the criticisms that can rightly be levied on him for fooling around on his wife, the fact is that he's established himself as the person with the credibility to discuss what actually happened and put the accuser/blackmailer's feet over the coals in public view. In doing so, he turned the tables on someone who was doing something that people appear to consider at least as bad as cheating or worse, and as a result he was able to ride the media coverage on this from the stance of a victim instead of an aggressor. The fact that he's got a sense of humor and was able to leverage that for laughs and for light-hearted (though tenuous) support gives him the opportunity to play the publicity game from a slight vantage point of moral high ground, while at the same time he had the savvy to publicly voice his humility about having his work cut out for him at home and apologizing to both his wife and his staff.

I'll bet plenty that Letterman consulted with the network and legal counsel before airing the dirty laundry, and that it was agreed-upon ahead of time how it would be done. He was ready following the weekend of gossip with at least five minutes of monologue that was well-crafted and written specifically to address the topic while deflating the outrage.Even his seemingly sarcastic apology to Palin seemed to be placed after his apologies to family and staff specifically to clip the predictable barbs from the Palin supporters who have been jumping with glee at the knowledge of this news. Absolutely nothing of Letterman's handling of the issue came across even slightly ad-libbed or unconsidered, and he performed it deftly and came across sincerely enough that I think most of the television audiences out there are convinced that he's not a bad guy, as well as likely to consider any Palin-esque attempts to use it as an attack vector poor form and petty.

You see, Letterman had less to lose the whole time. The blackmailer had their whole scheme to lose if Letterman went public. Palin and supporters had little to gain as far as moral high ground and much to lose as far as political capital if they attempt to ride the topic further. Comedians make careers out of allowing themselves to be taken down a notch or two and building themselves back up through jokes and teasing, and what Letterman did here was control how many pegs he got knocked down. Call it class or public image skill or whatever, Letterman figured out the most beneficial way to handle it and did his best to make sure it went that way. So far it seems to have been done very well.