In theory, this may work in small businesses. In practice, there are very serious problems with a) potentially being subtly pressured into a relationship because your job depends upon it and b) potentially getting promoted because of whom you are sleeping with instead of that being based on job performance.
The military treats certain situations similar to statutory rape because if you are being threatened or pressured in some way, the perp will expect you to swear it is consensual. They jail officers (or did at one time) found to be sleeping with the wives of lower ranking men in their unit, and her testimony is irrelevant.
This is considered a morale issue in the military. You don't want an officer to have to order a man to do a job that might kill him under circumstances where the motive might be "I want you dead so I can have your wife."
The stakes may be lower than that in most jobs, but I think the effect of wondering why Sally got promoted or wondering if Anna got fired because the boss asked her out and she said "no" is still incredibly corrosive to the environment. I don't see any good coming from it.
Hey I'm sorry but it's disgusting to compare a romantic relationship to rape, and then I don't like the sexism in your comment. Also, army is an extreme case in comparison with anything that's not army. I'm not a US citizen so what I know about your army is limited to what I see on the news, but what I know of armies in general is that they are organisations of legitimised killers with loads of weapons at their disposal and tamed with the power of dogma and discipline and submission. So go figure.
Whatever, staying on topic: if some people abuse a given freedom, it does not mean that the freedom itself need be banned. The abusers need be punished. In my mother tongue we have this expression: don't burn the quilt for the flea. The initiative for a relationship need not come from the superior, and in case it does, it need not be corrupt and exploitative. And then it's not that the lower-ranking one is always a Sally or an Anna, can also be a Joe or Tom. (edit:) At the end of the day, each case is different and should be taken in its own.
You say you don't see any good in it, but partners of such relationships that lead to happy families will beg to differ. Usually people get to meet each other in school, work or friend gatherings. It's not like you can stop people in the street and ask them out.
I am not comparing a romantic relationship to rape. I am telling you that there are ways to coerce someone into sex that look completely polite on the surface. If you want your business to function well, it should never be okay to put someone in the position of feeling they have to date their boss to keep their job.
It was perfectly fine to date people from work at my old job. It was not fine to date someone whom you had power over. There were plenty of people there that were married to other employees or dating other employees. In some cases, they worked closely together.
Such a policy protects both the boss and their underlings. It means the boss doesn't have to worry if someone is asking them out in hopes of sleeping their way into a promotion. No one is allowed to ask their boss out either.
Edit: Since you say you are foreign, "Statutory rape" is a term that means you had sex with someone who was legally too young to consent. So even if that individual was totally enthusiastic about sleeping with you, due to their status as a legal minor, they are not deemed competent enough to fully consider the consequences of their actions and provide informed consent. It does not mean you dragged someone off down an alleyway and violently assaulted them.
This is pertinent in situations where one party is not in a position to freely say "no" because the other individual has power over them (or some other advantage that is allowing them take advantage of someone).
Dating need not include sex. Sex is not abuse. And that there is possibility of abuse does not mean that the abuse will happen. Precautions need be taken, but an outright ban is uncivil, because it carries prejudice towards individuals, i.e., the superiors are filthy exploiters who'll do anything for sex and the underlings immoral people who'll trade their bodies and emotions for professional returns.
WRT statutory rape, I didn't know, sorry. WRT me being foreign, I din't know that HN was a US-centric forum.
I did a little googling, and it appears that countries like China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, France, and Germany all have the concept of statutory rape, even if you aren't familiar with that particular wording in English.
Y Combinator, the company that owns and runs Hacker News, is headquartered in San Francisco, California, USA. There are plenty of people who participate in discussion here that are not from nor in the US. But, yes, it skews US-centric.
The point is that the concept of "consent" gets rather fuzzy as power imbalances increase.
This applies to all sorts of things. It's why click-wrap eulas have limits on what they can do. It's why there are limits on what companies can put in employment contracts. It's why romantic/sexual relationships between adults and children are often illegal. It's why consumer protection laws exist.
it's disgusting to compare a romantic relationship to rape
Maybe, but it's also perfectly reasonable to ask how much of a power imbalance there is, and whether claims of consent can actually be trusted.
The military treats certain situations similar to statutory rape because if you are being threatened or pressured in some way, the perp will expect you to swear it is consensual. They jail officers (or did at one time) found to be sleeping with the wives of lower ranking men in their unit, and her testimony is irrelevant.
This is considered a morale issue in the military. You don't want an officer to have to order a man to do a job that might kill him under circumstances where the motive might be "I want you dead so I can have your wife."
The stakes may be lower than that in most jobs, but I think the effect of wondering why Sally got promoted or wondering if Anna got fired because the boss asked her out and she said "no" is still incredibly corrosive to the environment. I don't see any good coming from it.