> Your point would make more sense if team building time (and drinks or whatever) was paid for by the company.
In my experience, usually it is. But you have a point, if it isn't, I don't think it's fair.
23 karma · joined November 19, 2022
In my experience, usually it is. But you have a point, if it isn't, I don't think it's fair.
>Why is it a requirement to join any team at all, which also happens to be an artificial construct?
It is not a requirement to join a team at all. You can join no team, and that is your choice. Likely though you will want to join a team to survive. In the past humans survived in groups. A human that is not part of a tribe likely had a low chance of survival.
Nowadays you need to join a team to get a salary. But nowadays you have an extra option. You can join something called a "professional" team which is a team that separates your personal life from your "professional" one. However the traditional concept of a "team" still exists and you can choose not to join such a team if choose not to.
I ask though that you have the wisdom to see why the concept of the "traditional team" still exists and why such teams are still effective in our society.
Think about it this way. Team bonding activities still exist. They exist for a reason and that reason is because the company that created that activity WANTS you to join it. The requirement is still there.
It is not unreasonable to see how some teams WANT these traditional bonding activities more then other teams. It all depends on the dynamics and for you to force the team to abide by your dynamics of "professionalism" is wrong. You have options, JOIN the team that works.
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.
Let's say there weren't any moral hang ups and people readily put this thing in job descriptions. If you refused when offered then it's fair game if you're fired.
I have no exact answer here, but I do empathize with your angle.
I would say the employer is at fault here for not making this obvious. BUT, firing the employee was correct. He didn't fit in, and HAD he known this, he shouldn't have joined.
Staying at the job WHILE knowing this is something that he shouldn't have done. He should have looked for another job and left as well. Quitting or getting fired is the inevitable outcome here.
Professionalism is an artificial construct. Throughout most of human history people operated as tribes and social groups. All the touchy and feely BS was inevitable.
Given that it's part of our biological and anthropological nature you literally cannot expect no team to be formed this way at all. Many teams want this level of synergy and because it is a natural part of our history and biology it is inevitable that many teams will be formed this way REGARDLESS of the law.
Learn to identify these teams and join the team that fits you. I think it is completely wrong to forcefully embed yourself in a team where you don't fit in and use the law to help you remain on this team and enforce your idea of professionalism. You will literally destroy the spirit of the team.
Under our current culture and law there will definitely be teams that value what you value. And that is where you fit in and that is the company you should join. But have understanding and empathy to see why this "bro-style" interaction and "alcohol fueled" bonding is necessary in other teams.
>Doing hard drugs, as is alcohol, is not part of any legal contract.
Right but there's more to life then legal contracts. Many companies want a very close knit team. Part of this closeness comes from participating in extracurricular activities.
Look beyond the legalities. If a team expects this and you know you don't want to provide this to the team, THEN why are you choosing to work for them? Why are you insisting on using the law to protect your employment for a company that obviously doesn't want you?
Join the team that works for you. If you withdraw from all hard drugs, JOIN the company that doesn't HAVE that culture or leaves that CULTURE as OPTIONAL.
For this guy in the article he joined a team that wasn't a good fit for him. Him getting fired was correct, he never fitted in. But I will say what's likely unfair is that the "fun" part should've been part of the job description. They should've put it in there, not explicitly but implied it such that this guy knew what he was getting into.
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.
Case in point. In japan the outside of work stuff is a requirement for every job. You literally need to hang out with the entire team after work. This is the opposite extreme. What I'm advocating for is _join a team that fits_.
Don't fucking insist that you're _doing the job_ on a team that obviously wants more.
Like someone shouldn't be obligated to stay after work to do "fun" stuff. But they shouldn't be constantly avoiding it and obviously not fit in at all with the company.
It's a fuzzy line that's hard to define, so I think the law is correct here in terms of drawing a line rather then keeping something ambiguous and fuzzy. But if we go beyond the law and look at it from a practical standpoint, this guy likely didn't fit in and likely wasn't a good team member in terms of getting along with people.
The laws say that work is just a job and if you do the work then you're good and that is the definition of the job, but it's often more then that. Your joining a team, a tribe a culture and sometimes many companies are looking for such a person.
Maybe they should list having fun in the job description. That we expect someone to have fun with us, be part of the culture and come to our parties and stuff like that. That would be a fair deal. I've been on teams where this stuff is important and on those teams they definitely didn't want a person who just came to work for a paycheck and left asap.
There are however tons of jobs where all they care about is your work and absolutely nothing else and I feel this guy should just look for that sort of job rather then trying to forcefully embed himself into a culture where he doesn't fit.
Residents in SF and NYC don't bother so it all goes to shit.
In terms of pollution, LA probably has the worst pollution but it's cleaner then SF and NYC. So it doesn't correlate. It's not the pollution. Pollution correlates more with car usage, of which LA takes the cake.
Griminess more has to do with population density, Of which, Tokyo takes the cake and also bucks the trend.
All of these problems occur because the US values individual freedoms over central authority. You will note:
Freedom doesn't imply any sort of longevity Either.
The problem with the west is that freedom is viewed as a sort of moral truth.
People assume that an authoritarian society is bad and that a society with freedom is good.
The truth is far more complex. What I say is an aspect of the truth, as is what you say.
What truly should absolutely never be conflated is the idea that one of these truths overrides the other.
There are cities with similar layouts to Tokyo but they aren't charming simply because those alleyways get really dirty. The griminess influences everything including the businesses and the crowds it attracts. It ends up influencing the whole flavor of the city.
The freedom to shit on the street in San Francisco shouldn't be a freedom that is valued At all.