fraternization policy

[davis002]

This thread is directed more towards the supervisors and managers, but rank-and-file officers are welcome to provide input.

I am working on drafting a clear and readily understandable fraternization policy. The policy would address fraternization between officers and client employees, customers, patrons, etc. Does anyone here work for a company what has any written policies addressing fraternization? Further, does anyone have any suggestions?

Thanks in advance for your input!

[CAR54]

At my company fraternization is discouraged.

"Interpersonal relationships have shown to interfere with the officers ability to treat all employees fairly and equally and is discouraged".

In the event it happens we (the officers) are to inform our supervisor of the relationship.

Personally I don't know of a single officer who's had any luck hooking up with any of the employes at this site, probably because most of the women know how little we make!..and none of us look like Tom Cruise (more like Uncle Fester).

[Mall Director]

Our Policies...

As you may have well guessed, I am the Director of Security for a Mall, so hopefully this helps, LOL...

Our Corporate has the Policy written that "Interpersonal relationships are not permitted between Officers and Mall Merchants or Department staff".

Now working at a mall, you can guess its a free fest. The director I took over from, due to his incompetency, was involved with different merchants, as well as his staff (who I cut out most of) were engaging in this behavior flamboyantly. Every one in the mall knew who was with who and doing what... Its a Mall, rumors and gossip are the requirements to work there, LOL!

I understand two aspects to this field. One, being why its not permitted, and the difficulties arrising from engaging with others. Confidentiality can also be comprimised. So, I uphold this policiy to a point.. explaining the 2nd aspect...

People are human, and if some one finds another that a mutual interest is shared, you really can not control every aspect of ones life.

So my remedy is this.. "I do not encourage nor condone a relationship beyond work with any customer, merchant, officer or staff, for any reason. But if you do decide to engage in a relationship with one of these, the following conditions apply- 1) It will not involve work at all, 2) If I or anyone else finds out about it, and confirms this, turn in your issued items with a resignation or stop the relationship, 3) If I find out, from a later incident, that a relationship occurred, even though it is no longer, and confirm it, be ready to answer for it and have a full investigation to determine an outcome."

I had one Officer, who was attemoting to engage in a relationship with a cutie at a store. I knew he was attempting, but doing so quietly. I started monitoring this behavior. Until one day, she came to me with a problem. He had made an innapropriate comment to her. I quickly investigated it, and gave the officer 2 options..

1) He was to be placed on probation for 6 months, loose his supervisor rank, dropped to the lowest grade Officer, and restricted to desk duty for 1 year, or

2) He hands me his resignation notice, giving 2 weeks or more. I would allow him to depart peacefully with his name intact, but would not give him a letter of recommendation.

I got a 30 day resignation notice, and the remainder of his time was spent in the property room, conducting inventory.

I also just recently got done with another supervisor dating a mall merchant. The relationship was over by the time I found out, and she had left the mall all together on her own interest of a new boyfriend. I immediately put him under investigation. Come to find out, he thought he was in love, lost over $2000 in "loaning" it to her. He was hit pretty hard by this female. After the investigation, and determining he lost severely, and was salvagable, he lost his supervisor status, and is my desk officer until June of 2007.

This is a good example in that he is a reminder to the others of this policy. He will remain an example, and afterwards, we will re-review him for any consideration. Sometimes going directly by a blanket policy can be helpful, but there are a few cases in which it may perhaps be better to remedy the whole issue by maintaining the Officer that violates policies for multiple reasons. It is based purely on a case by case, and every angle has to be covered.

[LavianoTS386]

^ Christ at the hospital my g/f was my fellow officer (which meant just for sanities sake having to do patrols seperately) but we got our work done well.

It's hard not to develope interpersonal relationships with co-workers. It's always appeared to work to my advantage in the past getting people to comply with policies; I could sneak a friendly warning or reminder into the conversation.

The only leeway I suppose you could say I'd give was a promise not to write them up if they complied.

[kingsman]

We have a non-fraternization policy, but no one ever follows it. I have mentioned to my supervisor several times that we should not be having relationships with people within the complex.

So what do I do when one of the guys I work with has a cousin who lives there and they spend the entire shift talking? Or the guard who is developing a relationship with one of the girls who lives here to the point that she sits in the booth with him for several hours of his shift?

(they can't fool around. She keeps him awake.)

Or am I just to strict?

[aka Bull]

I can't specifically state the exact policy for our hospital at the moment. Though we do have married couples at the hospital (in different jobs). One of my officers is married to another employee (not in security).

While I can understand having some limited non-fraternization policies, I would say that what should be the rule is that any relationship does not compromise the professional ethics the officer should be following. Any act or behavior that is a failure by an officer to enforce the rules equally (i.e. showing favortism) should be dealt with in the investigation and if found to be valid the officer should be disciplined accordingly (using progressive discipline) based on the seriousness of the violation.

For example say the officer knew of and concealed theft by the person he/she is involved with, that in effect makes him/her an accessory to the crime. If the investigation concludes this then the officer would likely be fired and I would strongly recommend the officer be turned over to law enforcement for possible criminal prosecution.

Of course any unwanted behavior by an officer towards the person he/she is trying to become involved with is a serious violation of behavior and should be dealt with accordingly.

Otherwise if there is no unethical behavior, rules violation, confidentiality violations, or illegal acts......live and let live (or maybe a Clintonian "don't ask, don't tell").

I would add that there should not be fraternization between a supervisor and an employee they supervise. Ethical violation in my book.

[N. A. Corbier]

^ Christ at the hospital my g/f was my fellow officer (which meant just for sanities sake having to do patrols seperately) but we got our work done well.

It's hard not to develope interpersonal relationships with co-workers. It's always appeared to work to my advantage in the past getting people to comply with policies; I could sneak a friendly warning or reminder into the conversation.

The only leeway I suppose you could say I'd give was a promise not to write them up if they complied.

I knew a guy who was dating a co-worker. He was terminated the next day. It was the third time he was dating co-workers.

[HotelSecurity]

I just found out an hour before reading this thread that one of my Officers was dating an hotel employee from another department.AND SHE'S MY DAUGHTER With the himan rights laws here in Quebec I really don't see how I can stop it as long as it stays out of the workplace.

As a general rule hotel employees are not allowed to go places with guests.

As for employees we usually say, be friendly, not friends.

[ctbgpo]

God I'm glad I have BOYS !!!
I am a part-time hospital security officer, my wife is a Paramedic in the same city, and is in and out of the hospital alot. As long as we both act profesionally I don't see a problem. In my experience I know of lots of Police, Fire, EMS whom have dated, some worked out some didnt, some where able to be professional and some havent. I firmly belive you shouldnt get your meat where you get your bread, but that's just me.

[knotquiteawake]

I lived with my supervisor (now field division commander) last summer, and am now roommates with another officer, i also live with another two university employees (all 7 of us guys are in some way affiliated with the University).

"connecting" with the university community is strongly encouraged in my work.

[Mr. Security]

Seek legal counsel on any such policy. I believe that Guardsmark ended up in litigation over similar policies in California.

[N. A. Corbier]

I think an important thing here is that before disciplining anyone, you have to answer the following question (Which Department of Labor will ask in the form of a demand letter...)

How are company operations adversely affected by __________________, which creates an undue hardship on my company?

The same question you have to ask when creating exemptions in ADA hiring guidelines, such as physical fitness standards.

Unless you can establish a clear potential for ethics violations, or fraudulent activity, its very hard to state that there's an undue hardship on the company that requires you to discipline or terminate an employee.

A good example of a prohibited relationship is supervisor <-> employee, where the supervisor is a family member or significant other. You can generally prohibit this because of the potential for ethics violations.

Keep in mind that generally speaking, we do not have "ethics" to violate in this industry. This means that ethics must be written up, and everyone in the agency has to execute an agreement to fufill them while at work. Unlike some professions, the courts have shown we can't regulate what our employees do off the clock so long as it does not cause an undue hardship on the company.

Example, we can fire someone for a security related conviction, just as we can refuse to hire someone. In Wisconsin, EEOC laws specifically state you may not discriminate against felons in hiring practices. The State Licensing Board for Private Security (Which is really just the Real Estate General Board) makes it a disqualifier to have a felony on your record for a license.

However if I have a guy who has a slew of non-violent felonies apply to a non-licensed position, and those felonies do not put an undue hardship on my company, I must hire him if he is the most qualified applicant at the time. I can request, for free, that he be bonded through the state in the form of a Fidelity Bond, which guarantees me that he will remain loyal and not violate laws or trust. If he does... I get the bond in full and get to terminate him.

[Mall Director]

I think an important thing here is that before disciplining anyone, you have to answer the following question (Which Department of Labor will ask in the form of a demand letter...)

How are company operations adversely affected by __________________, which creates an undue hardship on my company?

The same question you have to ask when creating exemptions in ADA hiring guidelines, such as physical fitness standards.

Unless you can establish a clear potential for ethics violations, or fraudulent activity, its very hard to state that there's an undue hardship on the company that requires you to discipline or terminate an employee.

A good example of a prohibited relationship is supervisor <-> employee, where the supervisor is a family member or significant other. You can generally prohibit this because of the potential for ethics violations.

Keep in mind that generally speaking, we do not have "ethics" to violate in this industry. This means that ethics must be written up, and everyone in the agency has to execute an agreement to fufill them while at work. Unlike some professions, the courts have shown we can't regulate what our employees do off the clock so long as it does not cause an undue hardship on the company.

Example, we can fire someone for a security related conviction, just as we can refuse to hire someone. In Wisconsin, EEOC laws specifically state you may not discriminate against felons in hiring practices. The State Licensing Board for Private Security (Which is really just the Real Estate General Board) makes it a disqualifier to have a felony on your record for a license.

However if I have a guy who has a slew of non-violent felonies apply to a non-licensed position, and those felonies do not put an undue hardship on my company, I must hire him if he is the most qualified applicant at the time. I can request, for free, that he be bonded through the state in the form of a Fidelity Bond, which guarantees me that he will remain loyal and not violate laws or trust. If he does... I get the bond in full and get to terminate him.

Wow, now thats what we call "impressive"!! LOL! Very beneficial write up! Thats an area that should really be covered on the supervisor level, or management level.. And I bet alot of agencies fail to cover this area! Thanks for the heads up on the State law aspect of EEOC.

This also gives me more direction in attention to detail, for adding to policies in depth, on this issue. I love safeguards!

[sgtnewby]

Defeating the purpose...

What I tell new guys when I'm training them is this;

There are a lot of good looking women that work here. You might at some point feel compelled to ask one of them out. My advice, don't. We are here to make people feel safe, secure, and comfortable. If you hit on a staff member and the feeling is not mutual, they will no longer feel comfortable around you, which defeats your purpose for even being here. There are plenty of fish in the sea beyond what you see here. You are here to work and protect, make some good money, and retire comfortably, don't screw it up.

[Bill Warnock]

What I tell new guys when I'm training them is this;

There are a lot of good looking women that work here. You might at some point feel compelled to ask one of them out. My advice, don't. We are here to make people feel safe, secure, and comfortable. If you hit on a staff member and the feeling is not mutual, they will no longer feel comfortable around you, which defeats your purpose for even being here. There are plenty of fish in the sea beyond what you see here. You are here to work and protect, make some good money, and retire comfortably, don't screw it up.

Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant, government owned-contractor-operated or GOCO, had a guard that was hitting on some of the federal employee for a date. Federal Ammunition, the contractor at that time, tried to fire him for his conduct and it didn't fly. They couldn't do it because such conduct was not in writing in Federal's standards of conduct. The US Army civilian personnel officer had to step in and Federal moved the guard to its own production plant. It took nearly a year to get that done.
Enjoy the day,
Bill