Is combining work and pleasure still possible? In the United States, the question has long been settled: intimate relationships between colleagues are a no-go! Officially, this is to prevent abuse, harassment and conflicts of interest. But in reality, this trend is slipping dangerously towards an intrusion into the private lives of employees, and sends a worrying message: your desire no longer really belongs to you.
CEOs sacrificed on the altar of corporate morality
Recent examples are edifying. In 2019, the boss of McDonald’s, Steve Easterbrook, was fired for having had a consensual relationship with an employee. No harassment, no proven abuse: only an internal policy prohibiting this type of relationship for managers.
In 2023, same scenario at BP. Bernard Looney is forced to resign not for an illegal or abusive relationship, but for not having declared past relationships with colleagues, prior to his appointment. Result: a forced exit and, in the process, 40 million dollars in lost compensation.
This logic is found in the rules imposed by tech giants. At Meta, an employee is only allowed one attempt to ask a colleague out. A refusal, even polite or ambiguous, definitively closes the door. So it’s better to be sure of your feelings!
At Google, executives must disclose any relationships, and the company can reorganize teams if it believes a “risk” exists.
“We do not legislate on desire“
These policies start from a laudable intention: to avoid pressure and abuse of power. But by wanting to regulate everything, they fall into a surveillance that infantilizes adults and transforms the office into a zone under permanent moral control.
As summarized by Eva JOY, community manager of JOYclub, a social network on sexuality: “What companies forget is that we don’t legislate on desire.”
In reality, the ban has never eliminated attraction; he often reinforced it.
“By imposing rigid rules, companies create exactly what they claim to avoid: secrecy, dissimulation, transgression.
By wanting to ban everything, we simply move relationships off the radar. Without making them any healthier.
Consent and hierarchy: the real debate
Let’s be clear: no one is defending harassment or abuse of power. They must remain strictly sanctioned.
But equating any consensual relationship with potential abuse is a mistake. The heart of the problem is not sex, but power: the actual ability to say no without fear for one’s career.
Rather than banning in principle, companies would benefit from investing in manager training, consent education and a culture of respect. This is where real prevention comes into play, not in the policing of feelings.
Should France follow this model?
The question is now asked: will the country of courtly love and the assumed separation between private and professional life import these American standards without debate?
Some French subsidiaries of international groups already apply them. It remains to be seen whether French companies will accept this anxious and litigious vision of human relations in the long term. But it’s better to stay vigilant.
Because behind these rules, a fundamental question remains: do we really want to sacrifice stories, couples, sometimes entire families born at work, in the name of maximum risk management?
By wanting to control everything, the United States risks forgetting the obvious: respect cannot be decreed by formula, and desire never disappears because it has been forbidden.