Question?

S

Stirituprebel

New Member
I have an ethics question. Is it ok as a boss to contract for services to the husband of your employee to perform the same services that that employee does during the work day for you?
 
B

bresamil

wandering aimlessly
Stirituprebel said:
I have an ethics question. Is it ok as a boss to contract for services to the husband of your employee to perform the same services that that employee does during the work day for you?
Click to expand...
What are your company's policies on nepotism? :shrug:
 
itsbob

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Stirituprebel said:
I have an ethics question. Is it ok as a boss to contract for services to the husband of your employee to perform the same services that that employee does during the work day for you?
Click to expand...
No, why should you not give him the work if he's qualified to do it?
 
sushisamba

sushisamba

Purrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Stirituprebel said:
I have an ethics question. Is it ok as a boss to contract for services to the husband of your employee to perform the same services that that employee does during the work day for you?
Click to expand...
What intersection do they work? :shrug:
 
B

bresamil

wandering aimlessly
itsbob said:
It's nepotism on who's part??
Click to expand...
The last company I worked at would not hire any married couples or relatives. That policy was in writing. Their reasoning was that home troubles could spill over into the work place and disrupt productivity. Employee fraternization was also verboten.

In this company there are a few instances of relatives. This company feels the most important thing is how qualified the person is for the job, not who they are related to.
 
aps45819

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
bresamil said:
The last company I worked at would not hire any married couples or relatives. That policy was in writing. Their reasoning was that home troubles could spill over into the work place and disrupt productivity. Employee fraternization was also verboten.

In this company there are a few instances of relatives. This company feels the most important thing is how qualified the person is for the job, not who they are related to.
Click to expand...
I'll assume you don't work in St. Mary's : :killingme
 
S

Stirituprebel

New Member
Lets just say for example, the supervisor of planning needs a program to track bill paying, they go to their boss and request a custom program. The boss goes to the supervisor of plannings husband and contracts with them to provide the program. The responsibility for the bill tracking is then shifted away from the supervisor of planning and onto the supervisor of construction. The new program is never provided although it is requested by the construction manager on several occasions. The supervisor of planning tells the construction manager that her husband is working on it. This goes on for more than a year. Meanwhile, the software engineer husband provides invoices that get paid, that benefits both his wife(who requested the program) and himself. Confusing is it not?
 
B

bresamil

wandering aimlessly
Stirituprebel said:
Lets just say for example, the supervisor of planning needs a program to track bill paying, they go to their boss and request a custom program. The boss goes to the supervisor of plannings husband and contracts with them to provide the program. The responsibility for the bill tracking is then shifted away from the supervisor of planning and onto the supervisor of construction. The new program is never provided although it is requested by the construction manager on several occasions. The supervisor of planning tells the construction manager that her husband is working on it. This goes on for more than a year. Meanwhile, the software engineer husband provides invoices that get paid, that benefits both his wife(who requested the program) and himself. Confusing is it not?
Click to expand...
Sounds more like a good case for terminating for default.

Oh and APS, I'm right here in Lexington Park and so was the previous job, but both companies are owned by out of state organizations.
 
aps45819

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
Stirituprebel said:
The boss goes to the supervisor of plannings husband and contracts with them to provide the program.
Click to expand...
Sounds like your boss needs to decide what he's going to do with about a contract in default. I suppose they paid up front.
 
Railroad

Railroad

Routinely Derailed
Stirituprebel said:
Lets just say for example, the supervisor of planning needs a program to track bill paying, they go to their boss and request a custom program. The boss goes to the supervisor of plannings husband and contracts with them to provide the program. The responsibility for the bill tracking is then shifted away from the supervisor of planning and onto the supervisor of construction. The new program is never provided although it is requested by the construction manager on several occasions. The supervisor of planning tells the construction manager that her husband is working on it. This goes on for more than a year. Meanwhile, the software engineer husband provides invoices that get paid, that benefits both his wife(who requested the program) and himself. Confusing is it not?
Click to expand...

It sounds like the situation which gave rise to your question, also answered your question. Since it didn't work out, obviously it wasn't a good thing to do. There should have been a formal contract with a specified, formal delivery of product. If so, and the engineer didn't provide the product within the specified time period, sue the engineer for breach of contract or terminate the contract for cause.

If you didn't do a formal contract, terminate your gentleman's agreement immediately and cut your losses.
 
kwillia

kwillia

n/a
aps45819 said:
Sounds like your boss needs to decide what he's going to do with about a contract in default. I suppose they paid up front.
Click to expand...
But since rebel's boss is the spouse of said defaulter... it seems rebel is implying it would be detrimental to personal income should rebel's boss stop payment on said defaulted contract...:eyebrow:
 
aps45819

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
bresamil said:
Oh and APS, I'm right here in Lexington Park and so was the previous job, but both companies are owned by out of state organizations.
Click to expand...
Guess it's not as hard as it used to be to hire 10 people here that aren't related. :lol:
We have a modified version of the rule, family members can't work in the same departments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top