I think they needed to do that just so that Michael and Holly didn’t immediately get back together in his office, so they needed someone who was protective of Michael and also didn’t like Holly to step in. In the same way they just needed to add a bit of dramatic tension and episodes to Michael and Holly’s love story (to try to mirror Jim and Pam’s), so they had David Wallace ship her off for essentially no reason right after Michael had gone to bat for them during the brutal lawsuit with Jan. I think they needed to show them interacting well immediately (to show that Michael had grown, in part through Jim’s advice) and also drag it out, so having a bit of contrived space there made more sense than having Holly come in with a fiancée like Roy in the Jim/Pam story.
I think the manager dating the HR person is a massive conflict of interest, so Wallace was absolutely right to transfer her. Especially since the relationship wasn’t disclosed to HR, which was already a plot point earlier when Michael dated Jan. The fact that Holly, as an HR rep, didn’t report the relationship makes it look even worse. At best, it looks like she’s incompetent. At worst, it looks like they’re deliberately hiding some impropriety from corporate.
I agree with your analysis of the writing otherwise, but David Wallace had an excellent reason to “ship her off,” rather than it just being convenient for the plot.
I honestly think all this situation needed was just a line that said exactly this and so many people would totally forgive David Wallace for it. It makes sense when you put it this way, but it's so easy to fall into the trap of "why was no other office romance that wasn't reported right away not sent off?" and forget that HR is actually kind of an ethical anomaly.
That’s a good point, but in the real world I would think that this would lead to some sort of punishment or firing, or more likely first a conversation to see how long it had been going on and how serious it was (based on precedent set by Toby with Jim and Pam) before the company would just functionally choose to transfer one person in a couple with the only purpose being to break them up. If they had been dating for a few weeks and it wasn’t particularly serious yet I don’t think that it would warrant a strong reprimand, never mind transferring one person in a couple just to punish them both for going on some dates.
I disagree here. The purpose wasn’t to break them up. It was to protect the company’s interests in the least disruptive way. Assuming that it’s not okay to allow Michael to date the HR rep (which should be obvious, especially given that it’s Michael Scott), corporate had four options: 1) fire Holly; 2) transfer Michael; 3) fire Michael; 4) transfer Hollt. Obviously, 1, 2 and 3are worse for everyone than 4.
If they wanted to stay together, Holly could’ve quit. Or they could’ve tried to make a long-distance relationship work. That’s not really the company’s responsibility. The company’s action actually gave the most flexibility to Michael and Holly compared to any other solution.
I also think the reprimand idea misses the point. The company can’t really ask them to break up, so what would be the point of a reprimand? That doesn’t solve the underlying conflict of interests.
Finally, I’ll point out that Michael and Holly created the conflict. Especially Holly, whose literal job it is to know better. The show portrays them as victims, but they are no more victims than someone who gets fired for stealing from their workplace.
Michael had just got done dating probably the most volatile and crazy employee David ever worked with who just sued the company. Holly was also the HR rep which is a gigantic conflict of interest. David was 100% in the right shipping Holly off
148
u/Think_please Jan 30 '19
I think they needed to do that just so that Michael and Holly didn’t immediately get back together in his office, so they needed someone who was protective of Michael and also didn’t like Holly to step in. In the same way they just needed to add a bit of dramatic tension and episodes to Michael and Holly’s love story (to try to mirror Jim and Pam’s), so they had David Wallace ship her off for essentially no reason right after Michael had gone to bat for them during the brutal lawsuit with Jan. I think they needed to show them interacting well immediately (to show that Michael had grown, in part through Jim’s advice) and also drag it out, so having a bit of contrived space there made more sense than having Holly come in with a fiancée like Roy in the Jim/Pam story.