Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    RE: "flirt with their collegues."
    
    The hard part is trying to figure out which ones are flirting and which
    ones are just being friendly because you share some common interest
    (e.g. use the employee wellness center), or because your face is
    familiar.
    
    Rich

>    From today's Boston Herald, orginally from the Times of London:
    
>    It appears that there is a boom in office romances.
    
    Who collects the statistics? You can't believe everything you hear from
    the British, you know...
    
    	Andrew.

    ... and with DEC, you have "flirting" on the network.  Ya don't have
    to wait until Monday, you can even do it from home.
    
    -dwight

re: <<< Note 937.0 by WMOIS::B_REINKE "if you are a dreamer, come in.." >>>
                          -< Rise in office Romances >-

>From today's Boston Herald, orginally from the Times of London:

    Interesting.  If it sells, print it !  There is an equally distracting
    reprint in another  notesfile  that  deals with hiking, specifically a
    pastime  called:  Peakbagging,  in  which  the  author  describes  the
    pastime  as  a  form  of  illness.    The  Boston  GLobe  printed  it,
    becausethey didn't know better.

    
>It appears that there is a boom in office romances. People are
    
    Is  there any implication in the phrase  "office  romances"  as  being
    restricted to clandestine romances, or just all romances in general ??
    
    At  one  point men had to go to bars, church groups, charity meetings,
    fund raisers,  etc  to  meet  "other people".  I guess some women went
    there also.  No, with all these reductions in drinking and smoking (as
    a life style);  these types of people need to meet elsewhere.
    
    I wonder if the "percentage" of such trysts and meetings have actually
    risen,  or is the aggregate  percentages  about  the  same,  with  the
    workspace replacing the drinking space (bars , etc) ??
    
>The article says that 'overwork, too little time for social life,
    
    If we consider the "executive style",  the  picture  of teh overworked
    executive is what their spouses tend to publicize, since their spouses
    spend  'so  much  time at work'.  But  how  many  of  these  allegedly
    'overworked'    people    are    truly  working  ?    At  parties    ?
    Conventioneering ? ... 
    
    Sometime during the past year a movie called  "Choices"  was  aired on
    TV.  The message is basically "as long as  one lives and breathes, all
    life  is comprised of choices".  How and which choices  we  choose  to
    excercise depends on our personal moral fibre and desires.
    
    If people were to choose a clandestine 'office romance' as a variation
    on the  theme  of  'stepping  out  on their spouse';  I would bet that
    these same people  would  do  the same if the office situation did not
    exist.
    
> "Many executives of both sexes actually look forward to going to
 
    During the few years  that I've been exposed to the workplace, this as
    aspect hasn't changed but any significant degree. There many be more 
    executives (quantity), but in my  opinion  their  desire  to engage in
    flirtatious conduct is about the same as before.   
    
    The major difference that I do see, is that fewer corporations require
    that their executives have moral fibre.  Not-so-many years back, and a
    few less today, some comapnies strictly  (publicly,  anyway)  enforced
    and exacted straight moral terpitude from their officers, in acordance
    with  their  own  interpretation  of  what  they called  'good  morals
    conduct'.
    

    I would have interpreted the article as saying that the work place is
    a good place to meet eligible partners.  And I think that is true, I
    think there is a lot of opportunity to fall in love at work or on the
    net.
    
    Any statistics around already committed individuals straying in the
    workplace might also be related to moral fiber or the close working
    relationships we have with people to whom we might be sexually
    attracted.
      

    Bob,
    
    I didn't take the article to mean 'clandestine' romances or
    affairs. I did find it interesting that the work place seems
    to be coming a common place to meet people of the opposite sex
    and thought that the members of H_R would enjoy discussing this.
    
    Bonnie

    Related to "clandestine" or not, not too long ago most of the single
    men I met were adamantly opposed to dating a woman who worked in the
    same company they did.  My own observations say that today that has
    changed, perhaps -- and likely -- for the same reasons given in the
    base note.  In those earlier days, the office romance seemed to be
    clandestine.  No so today.
    
    Karen

    I wonder if the "increase" in office romances is, in actuality,
    simply an increased openness along the lines Karen suggested (.7).
    It seems to me that a number of years ago I read that surveys
    indicated that the second most common place for a person to meet
    her/his spouse was in the workplace (school topped the list).
    Anybody else every read/heard of that pattern?
    
    Steve

I do find that it is incomparably much easier for me to meet people in the
work place that in any other environment, except for possibly a resort-type
environment.  Meeting women on the beach or at bars/nightclubs/etc. has
always been a rough one for me.  In those situations, I always feel "on the
spot" and generally awkward.  But, in work environments, it's a natural
flow.

Funny, I'm also one of those who has made it a point not to get involved
with someone in the same office.  Too much conflict between professional,
work attitude and the more casual, playful emotions.  Consequently, I need
a place that has a large work environment.  Lots of people (read
"women") that are not in my immediate work area, but with whom I come into
contact.

I have frequently thought that, if I could get a better handle on "how to
meet a total stranger," the probablility of finding that special lady would
tremendously improve.

    Am I the only female who refuses to date men that work in her same
    building?
    
    I find that sometimes if you have a breakup of a romance that is not a
    friendly breakup, that even the net is too small a place. Too many
    people know you were dating, etc, and too many people wonder why you
    aren't anymore (like its really their business!)...
    
    I've made it a habit to not get romantically involved with anyone that
    works in the same building as I. I just thought that stance was a good
    one to take.
    
    Reading the base note, it would seem that people are now advocating
    it...
    
    Do you *really* think its such a great idea? Why or why not?

	No, Gail, you're not.  I've even taken it one step further and
	refused to date people that work in my same company.  Of course 
	I've had a few exceptions, but I can count the number of DECcies
	I've dated on one hand.  And two have been foreigners living in
	other countries.

	It's imperative for me to maintain a life separate from my work
	life.  I already spend the majority of my waking time at work, I
	don't want to focus everything I have on people and events from 
	just one small aspect of this world.  I'm a diverse person with 
	diverse tastes.  I don't like being in social situations where I
	only hear conversations about Digital, noting, and who is doing
	what to whom.  Also, I would rather not come into contact with a
	person I am/was romantically involved with if I don't _choose_ to 
	come into contact with them.

	Carla

	 I wouldn't go so far as to say I wouldn't date someone at my
	 site or my building, but I certainly won't date anyone who I
	 see on a daily basis at work (ie, the same vicinity).

	 I don't like to feel that I have to be around someone
	 everyday, and I wouldn't want someone I dated to be involved
	 on the same project I was.....

	 I don't enjoy talking shop all the time...when I leave the
	 front doors of Digital, I am no longer a software engineer.
	 And I would expect someone I dated from work to not want to
	 chat about work all the time.

	 But, I don't deny any possibilites simply because of what
	 they do...and where they work.

	 kath

    re:  .12
    
    >>>	Never ever, get romantically or sexually involved with someone
    who works in your building.  Unless you're ready to be treated like
    a spouse from day 1.
    
    Mike, what if Kim Bassinger(sp) worked in your building, read your
    notes, got interested in the ole "Z-Man," and wanted to get to know you
    better, so she contacted you via network, and asked to get together???
    
    Well, what would you say???   Gee, whiz... sorry Kim!  :^)
    
    -dwight

.14>    Mike, what if Kim Bassinger(sp) worked in your building, read your
.14>    notes, got interested in the ole "Z-Man," and wanted to get to know you
.14>    better, so she contacted you via network, and asked to get together???
    
    
    Well, Dwight, so as not to make your reply sexist, lets say a Tom
    Cruise look alike worked on the first floor of my building, and the
    same scenario happened, but to me this time...  I would indeed turn him
    down.  but I'd even take it one step further.  A guy I dated was
    contemplating taking a job in the building that I now work in.  I told
    him if he did take it, I would stop dating him, right then and there.
    I didn't care if he took the job or not, but that if he did, I would
    not go out with him because *I* could not handle it. I happened to very
    much care for this male, but I would have walked out of his life totally
    if he had taken the job - and he was sexier [to me anyway] than Tom
    Cruise and I happen to think Tom Cruise is down right sexy!

    Have to agree with Gail, Carla and Kath.  Actually, its even harder
    here in Sydney.  When we move in May, we'll only have three buildings
    in Sydney.  But, my policy has always been not to get involved with
    anybody I *work* with.  Most of those places only had about 30-40
    employees.  Things changed a bit with DEC.  But, no, I would not become
    involved with anybody I worked with.
    
    ...dale
      

Gee when I'm here there are only 10 people in the whole building 2 are female
and both work in my department. So far I have only dated a few people from DEC
and they have always been from another departmant my minimum distance.

-j

    Many a beautiful principle has gone done in sweet love if the right
    one came along. I'd also be wary to start dating anyone I also have
    to work with, major reason being that I don't want any work related
    problems clobbering up the personal part of the relationship. I'd
    say it makes quite a difference whether someone has a direct work
    relationship with you, works close in the same office, or is in
    a completely different department doing totally unrelated work.
    
    The one relationship that looks difficult to me is between a DECcie
    and someone who works at a customer. That wouldn't make me think
    twice but at least three times.
    
    Ad

    Re:  several people's remark about not wanting to talk about work
    all the time, and needing time away from each other
    
    That's certainly a valid way to feel, but not everyone shares that
    preference.  For Neil and me, being able to discuss work, compare
    our different ideas and attitudes and experiences, and argue
    bitterly about whether the dictionary should be packaged with a
    database is a major part of our relationship.  In times when we've
    worked in very different groups, or even in different buildings,
    we haven't been as close.  When I'd talk about a problem, he had
    no frame of reference for how serious it was or what it meant, and
    vice versa.  The people we were each dealing with were only names.  
    
    Yes, sometimes work problems get into the personal relationship. 
    But that can happen when you're not working closely together, too,
    and this way at least we know the other person's having work
    problems and it's not that we're falling out of love or something
    really scary like that.
    
    I think we're probably the minority -- it seems like many more
    people feel comfortable with more space betweeen them. The
    important thing is to be aware of your preferences and the
    potential problems before you do get involved with someone. 
    
    --bonnie

 I would be very wary about dating someone from the same building as me, because
of the obvious trouble potential should the relationship fail. Having said this,
I met my wife down the hall from me at another company. :-)

 The Doctah

    I agree more with .20 than the rest of the replies. I tend to date ONLY
    men who work for Digital, for a couple reasons. One is that its much
    easier to meet someone in a work environment, as the article suggests.
    And two is what Bonnie says, its much easier to discuss stress, bad
    days, problems, etc. from work with someone who can truly understand
    the Digital "culture". When I was married (years ago), my husband
    didn't know a computer from a FAX machine, so coming home from a rough
    day and needing to talk about it or bounce ideas off of him was totally
    useless, which was part of what made us grow apart I believe.
    
    My general rule is not to date someone from the same immediate
    organization but same building, cluster, etc. is fine. If it doesn't
    work out, then its something we have to deal with if we happen to run
    in to each other in the hall or cafeteria. My current boyfriend works
    in a building about 5 miles from here and its wonderful since we can
    have lunch together if we want or can meet after work very easily. And
    we DO talk about work when we're together, but not exclusively. Its up
    to US to limit the amount of conversation that is devoted to work
    issues and we have enough other things in common that its been a pretty
    small percentage of the time so far. 
    
    I suppose since I've always worked in very large buildings for Digital
    since I've moved to N.E., its made a difference since its very easy NOT
    to run into an old boyfriend. A smaller building might make that more
    difficult.
    
    As for those of you who won't even date anyone from the same company,
    I'm assuming you work somewhere outside of the Mass.-N.H. area since by
    avoiding DECcies, you're automatically eliminating 50,000? people.
    That's a little drastic isn't it? Almost everyone I meet at sporting
    events, outside activities either works for DEC or has worked for DEC.
    Its hard to get away from them! If I met someone at a totally
    non-Digital related function, liked them well enough to be interested
    in continuing the conversation, then found out they worked for Digital
    in some group I'd never even heard of in a facility 50 miles away, I
    certainly wouldn't eliminate them from being a potential relationship!
    
    Debbie
    

    I have to agree with .10. I have had two relationships with
    co-workers end badly. (One at DEC, one esewhere.)
    
    Working with that person (same department) is extremely
    stressful. Being constantly reminded of an old mistake
    causes me to feel a lot of resentment.
    
    I'd tell Kim Basinger to take a hike if she worked here.
    Or maybe quit my job :-) 
    
    Dana
    

    I would feel lost if I weren't dating a DECie, I'd miss sharing
    mail messages, hot Notes topics, DEC issues etc... A great percentage
    of talks begin with, "I was reading about <whatever> in Notes/VTX..."
    
    Luckily in MA/NH you can limit yourself to persons at another sight.
    I an understand why someone in CO or CA wouldn't have that luxury. 

    Gail

    RE: .24
    
    Gail, I too would feel a loss if I couldn't share notes/VNEWs/VTX with
    whom I was seeing, I don't think you have to limit yourself to not
    seeing DECcies, I just think that you should not date them if they are
    in the same building is all.

Having dated women from all ends of the spectrum, the only conclusion I've come
to is that it depends on the people.  I was seriously pursuing a job not too
long ago which would have moved me 3-4 aisles away from the person I was dating.
It never crossed my mind to break up with her if I got the job.  Nor was it
ever a possibility to not go for the job because I would now be in the same
building as her.  To have done so would have been, in my opinion, crazy.  Both
were very positive things in my life and to put one over the other would have
been very limiting.

Of course, if this were a perfect world and I was given the choice of working
with the person I was dating and otherwise, I'd chose the other.  But things
aren't so perfect, especially given how many nice people (and how easy they
are to meet) just within Digital NorthEast.

Jim

    Re: sharing.
    
    In this context I have to smile remembering the last woman I dated
    who wasn't a DECcie but who really liked having computers and PC's
    at her work. Since I am a PC specialist that gave us something to
    talk about. 
    
    Many a potential nice romantic talk stranded in a discussion about
    LOTUS 123 or something like that. It's not always good to have much 
    professional knowledge in common.
    
    Ad

    
    When going out in the Mass/Merrimack area to clubs or something either
    my self or one of my friends runs into a deccie. Never fails.
    
    There are jus too many of us out here! :-)
    
    
    d.

    Some time ago, I was in a relationship with someone else who works for
    this company. Her job was different, both in technical area and in job
    content, from mine.
    
    This was good. That we worked for the same company enabled us to
    talk about how work was going, to understand what was going well and
    badly for the other, but prevented us from falling into the trap of
    having long detailed conversations about work.
    
    Unfortunately, other aspects of the relationship were pretty
    disastrous, but that's life...
    
    	Andrew.

Unfortunately, as I know from experience, making sure that you date someone
from another facility is no guarantee that things won't turn nasty when the
relationship ends.  Some of you might be surprised at the damage someone
can do from a distance if they are of a malicious state of mind.  And it might
even happen months or years later, for no apparent reason.  The best you can
do is shrug it off when it happens.

Some couples I know love to be together frequently during the work day.  I
would prefer not to do that, myself, but that's just personal preference.

			Steve

    >  ...but prevented us from falling into the trap of
    >  having long detailed conversations about work.
    
    But for some of us, that's an advantage, not a trap.
    
    --bonnie

    
    RE:
    .30> Some of you might be surprised at the damage someone can do from 
    .30> a distance if they are of a milicious state of mind...
    
    Was it on this notesfile or perhaps the famous 'box that someone 
    was airing the  "difficulties" of 'em relationship with a fellow deccie?
    I believe the base noter even went on to mention the first name of the 
    person for the whole public to know.
    
    Does anyone remember what became of William Agee and Mary Cunningham(sp?)
    of BENDIX Corp. ?  They were both executives in the same hqts.
    Any memories of this couple ?  I believe it was big news in the
    corporate world somewhere in the late 70s' or early 80s' .
    

    The Bendix couple did get married and were living in California
    the last I heard.  I believe they were both working for different
    startups at the time.
    
    But that was several years ago -- don't know what happened to them
    since.
    
    --bonnie

    They also soaked their company for a very lucrative "golden parachute"
    settlement after driving it down the tube....
    

    One thing that has to be watched out for (by men especially) is the
    possibility of attempting to start a relationship being refered to as
    sexual harassment.
    
    FORTUNE magazine mentions being able to find 978 news stories on it in
    the fisrt 11 months of 1989.  It does raise some questions when they
    mention an instance where a psychology professor complained that the
    Christmas mistletoe presented a harassment problem (it was taken down).

    
    Anyone working out here who wants to meet the opposite sex
    might as well move to the East Coast, stake out the freezer at
    Safeway, or join a dating service.
    
    There just aren't enough people out here to give any kind of
    a cloak of anonimity to such shenanigans as dating someone in the
    building. Besides it seems a little politically incorrect after the
    Farley shootings. 
    
    How do most people meet? Beats me. Parties? Overlapping circles 
    of friends? Safeway? Health clubs? All seem like possibilities. 
    
    Those hotblooded Minnesotans can't be trusted with something
    incinderary like mistletoe ;-)
    

Personally, I don't beleive that a man should date a woman in the same
country, if he lives in the U.S., that is.  It is generally known that
American women, as a rule, have an attitude.  Some even have two.  :^)

But those people at Customs can be such a pain in the butt, that you may have
to adapt or look a bit harder to find someone who isn't on a crusade.  :^)
Most guys adapt.  Real men don't.  :^)  

                      Am I joking???  I'll never tell!!!

As for dating people in the same building, that's pretty wild.  Suppose you
are dating someone in another building and they move into yours, and you 
really LIKE this person!  Suppose you look like the dog's dinner and this
person is your last hope, eh?

And heaven forbid that person get an account on your cluster!  That's just too
close to home.  :^)

-dwight

>	Check your NETSERVER.LOGs for PHONE connects.  :^)

    	Darn frustrating when you don't have the netserver logs kept
    around!  Or when your system has phone disabled! :^)

    	amy

>	Check your NETSERVER.LOGs for PHONE connects.  :^)

         Good one, Mike!...;^)

        All I can say is, I THINK DEC MEN ARE *GREAT*

Mikki

    re: .38
    
>	Check your NETSERVER.LOGs for PHONE connects.  :^)
    
    That doesn't work if anyone else on your node/cluster was at the same
    party!  8-)

>    	Darn frustrating when you don't have the netserver logs kept
>    around!  Or when your system has phone disabled! :^)


	 easy to remedy.  If you have your own node (ie, I have
	 WORKN:: in my office) then hack your NETSERVER.COM to write
	 all node connections into a file and/or to post them in your
	 banner.

	 I did it, and it works wonders.  It also tells you who is
	 sending you mail before you get it! (Only if they are
	 connecting directly to your node, of course).

	 kath

    
    Well Ultrix will leave you a log in /usr/spool/mqueue/syslog,
    regardless. 
    
    It also tells you if someone is attempting to fool with your 
    DECnet objects...
    

    Congratulations Mike!  Or should I give you my sympathy?  Hmm...with
    the luck I'm having around here, maybe I should move sites.
    
       - Larry   ;-)

    re .45 - no sympathy needed...

    Huh...wazzat?  The big Z-man eating crow?  Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
    Must be a figment of my imagination. Yeah... I'm daydreaming...
    that's it!
    
    Skip

Well, Mike, if you still have an account on MILKWY, you could delete .12, but
otherwise you run into one of the risks of mentioning office romances in the
notesfiles...

			Steve

re: .44, .46...

    is this too cutesy for words, or what?

    Like the old Val-Talk expression
    
    "Like gag me with a spoon... totally"
    
    Skip

    re .50, .51
    
    it's even worse in person...

    can someone please explain to me what "eating crow" means?

    it's like eating your words, or having to retract a statement, or
    having to take the words "I told you so" because the unsufferable truth
    eventually does out.....
    
    -Jody
    

    oh wow.
    
    i never would have guessed from what i have seen in the hallways
    here at work.  whatever else, i know that .12 is definitely not true.
    
    jonathan (who tends to be the last to find out about these things...)
    

    re .56 
    now jonathan, you found out pretty early on...

    So who *is* this mystery woman, Mike?  
    
    She's gotta be really something to bowl you over!
    
    :)Barb

    at the risk of being too, too cutesy for words...

    re: .60
    
> "iso-air :== same-air
    
    Actually, the prefix 'iso' (from the Greek 'isos') means 'equal', not
    'same'.

    re .61 iso=equal, not same
    
    ahhh, but in dreamland (where i was when this little weirdness was
    uttered), iso-air meant same-air...
    
    only a true nerd dreams about iso-air, but at least my subconscious
    screwed up the definition.
    
    lee

    Er, uh, I think you're losing me here unless it's...
          
    Naw, couldn't be...
                       
    No way!            
    
    C'mon, clear up this impossibility for me!
    
    Still shaking my head,
    Barb

    Looks like you've figured it out, Barb!  8-)

.63>    Still shaking my head,

.65>	You too, huh?  :^)

    
    
    Yea Mike, but at least he doesn't hear anything rattling....
    
    :-)

    re .63.........YIPPEEEE!!!!!!!  I *WASN'T* the last to figure it out!
    
    re .57.........i did?  well, i did see one plus one, but to be honest
    i was extremely slow in putting it together...........
    

    That's okay, Mike, I didn't know I was a "he" either.  I wonder
    if it stems from the time my mother told me I had to be the "man
    of the family?";)
    
    Barb (he*rself)