Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a supervisor you are probably obligated to report the violation of the anti fraternization policy and can be disciplined yourself for failing to report it.
The fact that he’s married isn’t really relevant for the work purposes but it sounds like they are violating a policy and, even if not, most companies have rules designed to ensure that people aren’t in a position to give their paramours work related favors (eg ensuring that they aren’t involved in the other persons evaluation or in any promotion process).

This is OP. Him being married is relevant in this situation. But they are on the same level, so it’s not a special favors situation.

For work, no. I'm guessing your handbook doesn't specify a different consequence for married APs vs single APs?
But I can see you judging from here, so please don't confuse workplace policy with your own sense of morals or ethics.

Found the AP!

PP you replied to. I am telling you this kindly: no one cares who is married and who is carrying on with who. You must protect your workplace environment, for your own good. Now this can be done one of three ways:

1. Pretending nothing happened, if it makes your life easier. Consider short term and long term.
2. Tell them privately, and verbally, that they need to be more discreet otherwise the matter goes to HR, as per policy.
3. Go directly to HR, per policy.

Before taking any of these steps, you might want to talk to the other senior person on the emails.

MORALITY DOES NOT COME INTO IT. You have to choose wisely according to your best interests. This will depend on your workplace culture, what are the likely consequences for each of these options, and the repercussions to you.

Has to be 1 or 3, 2 leaves OP open to liability. How many people scroll down emails? Maybe OP didn't this time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Where has OP told us this was military, for God's sakes? Who are these people making stuff up?

Or does OP not adhere to basic message board etiquette and posts without identifying themselves?

They were responding to the person who said no job cares about adultery.

Anonymous wrote:Today I received a work-related email addressed to me and three other people. The chain made it very clear that two of those people are having an affair (the sender and another person).

It appears that the sender meant to grab a different email chain between the two paramours, and add me and other person with a question about the conversation (I.e: “I’m looping Jim and Kim in for their insights.”), but instead grabbed a relatively explicit email chain between them, planning a rendezvous-vous (it didn’t seem like the first time).

The two people added to the chain (me and the other person) are senior to the two original parties.

No one has responded to the email yet, but I do have an answer to the question at the top of the chain.

What should I do? Start a new email and answer the question? Tell HR? Ignore it?

For what it’s worth, we have a pretty strong anti-fraternization policy. He is married. She is single.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a supervisor you are probably obligated to report the violation of the anti fraternization policy and can be disciplined yourself for failing to report it.
The fact that he’s married isn’t really relevant for the work purposes but it sounds like they are violating a policy and, even if not, most companies have rules designed to ensure that people aren’t in a position to give their paramours work related favors (eg ensuring that they aren’t involved in the other persons evaluation or in any promotion process).

This is OP. Him being married is relevant in this situation. But they are on the same level, so it’s not a special favors situation.

For work, no. I'm guessing your handbook doesn't specify a different consequence for married APs vs single APs?
But I can see you judging from here, so please don't confuse workplace policy with your own sense of morals or ethics.

Found the AP!

PP you replied to. I am telling you this kindly: no one cares who is married and who is carrying on with who. You must protect your workplace environment, for your own good. Now this can be done one of three ways:

1. Pretending nothing happened, if it makes your life easier. Consider short term and long term.
2. Tell them privately, and verbally, that they need to be more discreet otherwise the matter goes to HR, as per policy.
3. Go directly to HR, per policy.

Before taking any of these steps, you might want to talk to the other senior person on the emails.

MORALITY DOES NOT COME INTO IT. You have to choose wisely according to your best interests. This will depend on your workplace culture, what are the likely consequences for each of these options, and the repercussions to you.

Anonymous wrote:Just pretend you didn't notice. No one will thank you for intervening. Whereas you may cause misery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a supervisor you are probably obligated to report the violation of the anti fraternization policy and can be disciplined yourself for failing to report it.
The fact that he’s married isn’t really relevant for the work purposes but it sounds like they are violating a policy and, even if not, most companies have rules designed to ensure that people aren’t in a position to give their paramours work related favors (eg ensuring that they aren’t involved in the other persons evaluation or in any promotion process).

This is OP. Him being married is relevant in this situation. But they are on the same level, so it’s not a special favors situation.

For work, no. I'm guessing your handbook doesn't specify a different consequence for married APs vs single APs?
But I can see you judging from here, so please don't confuse workplace policy with your own sense of morals or ethics.

It matters in a military workplace.

Then maybe OP should have specified that, because that it not the norm in other workplaces. Most of them don't even have any policy regarding relationships at work, and for those that do, a lot of people turn a blind eye. 99% of posters on DCUM have no clue what goes on in the military and it's not expected that they should know.

Anonymous wrote:

Where has OP told us this was military, for God's sakes? Who are these people making stuff up?

Or does OP not adhere to basic message board etiquette and posts without identifying themselves?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a supervisor you are probably obligated to report the violation of the anti fraternization policy and can be disciplined yourself for failing to report it.
The fact that he’s married isn’t really relevant for the work purposes but it sounds like they are violating a policy and, even if not, most companies have rules designed to ensure that people aren’t in a position to give their paramours work related favors (eg ensuring that they aren’t involved in the other persons evaluation or in any promotion process).

This is OP. Him being married is relevant in this situation. But they are on the same level, so it’s not a special favors situation.

For work, no. I'm guessing your handbook doesn't specify a different consequence for married APs vs single APs?
But I can see you judging from here, so please don't confuse workplace policy with your own sense of morals or ethics.

It matters in a military workplace.

Then maybe OP should have specified that, because that it not the norm in other workplaces. Most of them don't even have any policy regarding relationships at work, and for those that do, a lot of people turn a blind eye. 99% of posters on DCUM have no clue what goes on in the military and it's not expected that they should know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a supervisor you are probably obligated to report the violation of the anti fraternization policy and can be disciplined yourself for failing to report it.
The fact that he’s married isn’t really relevant for the work purposes but it sounds like they are violating a policy and, even if not, most companies have rules designed to ensure that people aren’t in a position to give their paramours work related favors (eg ensuring that they aren’t involved in the other persons evaluation or in any promotion process).

This is OP. Him being married is relevant in this situation. But they are on the same level, so it’s not a special favors situation.

For work, no. I'm guessing your handbook doesn't specify a different consequence for married APs vs single APs?
But I can see you judging from here, so please don't confuse workplace policy with your own sense of morals or ethics.

It matters in a military workplace.