Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldtea | Hacker News Reader

>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?

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com