The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1932-07-18

in your life? Sit down now and write
it to Jane Jordan and read your answer
in The Times!
CEVERAL young women have
~ written me asking my opinion
of firms which prohibit their en-
ployes from making social contacts
with each other after business
hours. Many offices have iron
bound rules that prevent any young
man in their employ from paying
attention to any young lady work
ing in the same Office. If they are
caught going together" the penalty
is discharge.
Many young couples now are
caught in an emotional jam. Where
as they have fallen madly in love,
they dare not see each other after
hours, and must depend upon sur
reptitious love making on the job.
Their pay is too precious to jeop-
ardize. They can not marry, be-
cause both need their incomes. l
am asked whether I think this
fair rule and begged to offer
solution for the situation. First of all
let nae say that
seldom have It's treat
heard OF more co+,,o fo,
PROFIT Gus ar
rang m INT for Love God
Cupid. There is
nothing that stimulates the little
blind God to ferocious activity as
quickly as little opposition.
Most girls haven't the sense to
make themselves unobtainable. II
their employers do it for them, it
should be regarded as an unex-
pected stroke of luck.
True, it is an extremely stupid
rule, because it creates the very
condition which the firm seeks to
avoid. 1t confirms my opinion that
the smart business man nearly al
ways is very dumb bunny in emo
tional matters. Any man who be-
lieves that he successfully can
legislate against love hasn't the
sense he was born with.
You can't throw group of young
people together in the same envir-
onment day by day and expect
that none of them will fall in love-
PropinQuity ever has been natures
greatest ally. The very fact that
people are work
Flame is ing together for a
common cause
oii'ou W gives them a mu-
RoSs' Ran tual interest for
q starting point.
The firms idea, of course, is to pre-
vent the dawdling, incoming, and
irritating eye-rolling that accom-
panies the first stages Of love. The
employers theory is that people
who are concentrated upon each
other will not pay attention to
business. Ineficiency and great loss
of time will result. Very true. But
does this silly prohibition prevent
the situation? Not at all.
AS soon as the boss back is
turned, his employees are holding
hands and kissing behind his door.
Since they have no other time for
love making, they make the most
of each opportunity, merrily wasting
his time without his knowledge.
His opposition only gives impetus
to their fervor and the tension gen.
Grated is infinitely worse for per-
sonnet efficiency that love affairs
with normal opportunity for ex-
pansion.
No lployer
has any right to Your Times
dictate the poll
cies Of his force Tour own
after business at Home
hours. He has no
justification for governing the pri-
vate lives of his employees. This
form of industrial paternalism is
about as unsuccessful as the old
fashioned pater familias who tries
to rule the roost at home. He is
cheated, fooled, and deceived on
every side and corner, because he
hasn't sense enough not to Issue
orders against the forces Of nature.
How much smarter it would be
for employers to make their rules
against love making in the office
and encourage it freely on the out
Sidel Every firm has a right to in