Hacker News Reader

Comment by deltaseventhree | Hacker News Reader

Find a job where no one expects you to drink. Simple.

Drinking is culturally dominant in Europe but what's also culturally dominant is that drinking shouldn't be forced. And many companies follow this rule from a cultural standpoint.

There are many teams that have fun and allow employees to not join in on the fun. BUT there are teams where this is sort of expected. For you: join the former team not the later and have empathy to see why the later team exists.

Many companies are looking for a team with synergy which is more then just coming in, doing the work, and leaving. If you don't have this synergy, don't join. Join the company that works for you.

View on HN

>Find a job where no one expects you to drink. Simple.

It's not the job of a fucking employer to expect you to drink or not drink. Except if you work at a hostess bar.

It shouldn't even be put as an option to "expect you to drink". Like employees shouldn't also "just find a job where they don't except you to laught at their sexist remarks at you" should not be an option.

>BUT there are teams where this is sort of expected.

There are also teams were sexual harassment, racism, bullying etc is expected. So?

Sexual harassment and racism and bullying aren't what I'm talking about. Please don't take this in a flame-war direction.

I am explicitly talking about partying and having fun in extra curricular activities with employees. I'm saying regardless of the law, it's fair for an employer to expect this of the employee ONLY IF the employee KNEW about this expectation before joining.

I make a case for this by saying how this type of stuff does in fact benefit the team overall.

Drinking is extremely harmful, and if you want to partake in that - fine.

But making it an expectation for a job that has nothing to do with alcohol? Yeah no.

Alternatively: you should find a friend group that isn’t your coworkers if you want to have more selective control over who is “in” with your group.

>But making it an expectation for a job that has nothing to do with alcohol? Yeah no.

Why not? I want my employee to fit in with the team. If they drink then I want someone who drinks. This is reasonable. There are subtle performance effects on the ENTIRE team when hiring someone too divergent.

As an employer I want my employees to all be friends. If I make this request in the job description I think that's perfectly fair. If I spring this request unknowingly onto someone who just got hired then it's unfair.

>Why not? I want my employee to fit in with the team. If they drink then I want someone who drinks. This is reasonable.

In what universe? Sorry, but only a sociopathic boss would consider this "reasonable".

In fact, if what you wrote as "reasonable" was explicitly stated as an expectation in company communications, the company could be sued out of existence, and would surely could Twitter-red out of business too, and any team manager in a larger company would be fired with the compamny trying to disassociate with it as much as possible...

>In what universe? Sorry, but only a sociopathic boss would consider this "reasonable".

My point is it is reasonable for an employer to LOOK for an employee with these characteristic qualities.

It is unreasonable for an employee to demand this behavior out of you when they didn't inform you up front that's what they hired you for.

So in other words, this kind of stuff needs to be put in the job description. It needs to be explicit. In that case it is fair.

>I am explicitly talking about partying and having fun in extra curricular activities with employees.

Yeah, and I am explicitly liking it to other unacceptable things, as it itself is.

Nobody should be forced to drunk, or party, as part of "extra curricular activities with employees", or seen as a spoil-sport for not doing so, much less even considering firing him.

To see how disturbing this can go, consider employee that was once an alcoholic and wants to fully abstain fun or not, or someone having traumatic experience by having an alcoholic in their family...

To be frank, your position is beyond the pale. It's only considered because of old-school disturbing manner of thining about what a company (or team within one) should be able to expect from someone working for them.

>To be frank, your position is beyond the pale.

No, I think you're misinterpreting. Let me elucidate my position in more detail.

It is fair game for the employer to be upfront about all of this stuff BEFORE the employee is hired. It needs to be in the job description. The employer wants someone who can bond and party with the team, and it is within his right to look for such a person.

It is not right for the employer to find a person who is not this person then force him to conform.

That is my stance. Looking for employees who like to drink, party and socialize with the entire team is fair game.

Obviously the man in the article was hired because the employers THOUGHT he was that person. The fact that he wasn't was miscommunication likely from both parties. Regardless of the law he doesn't fit in with the team at all. Getting fired is bound to happen.

The same argument could be made about companies that hire only men, or companies that hire only roman-catholic christians.

Just look for a different company!?

Most people don't have multiple job offers lined up, which is why it's important that employees have some protection.

And it's usually for the best of everyone. Even if you enjoy the social activities of your job, at some point you might decide not to go drinking every week, and you shouldn't be fired for that.

And you shouldn’t be pushed to quit because of that either.

This crosses certain lines. Into sexism and racism.

Should men be hired as wet nurses and midwives? I think the answer is No. At certain times it's not appropriate.

But that's besides the point. Let's not get into this because it's a flamewar topic.

>Most people don't have multiple job offers lined up, which is why it's important that employees have some protection.

I agree. Put it this way. I think it's fair game for the employee to HAVE this protection if he didn't know it's part of job.

But if he knew, and he's taking advantage of this protection then it's not fair game.

>And it's usually for the best of everyone. Even if you enjoy the social activities of your job, at some point you might decide not to go drinking every week, and you shouldn't be fired for that.

I think it's quite obvious if you read between the lines that he's not fired for not drinking. He's fired because he didn't fit in and doesn't get along with the team.

Nobody fires someone just because they didn't drink but is a cool guy to get along with. Basically what's going on now is a lot of people don't like him, and people are forced to work with him.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com