Hacker News Reader

Comment by uber_eng_throw | Hacker News Reader

Hijacking this top comment to provide some personal experiences.

I started as an engineer in the spring of 2014 and this was definitely the case there.

Top engineers were being poached from Google/FB and these people were trying to carve out territory in a quickly growing engineering team.

The misogynistic culture, in my mind, comes from most of the early employees being former frat bros. Culture was extremely heavy on the drinking; see "Work-cations" where most of the team would go to an exotic location which was half-hackathon/half boozefest. There were happy hours every week with open bar because all new employees would be flown to SF (no matter where home office was) for orientation.

Crazy, most ex-employees (even the early ones) acknowledge that the culture is bad but they got their $$$ so they won't have to work again for a long time, if ever.

View on HN

   > Top engineers were being poached from Google/FB and these people
   > were trying to carve out territory in a quickly growing engineering 
   > team.

It is always a bit sad when one of the top characteristic of an engineer from organization X is their political ability to carve out an empire.

I'm a bit surprised she doesn't have at least one law firm trying to get her to be the lead claimant in a class action lawsuit. Seems like she did everything right and has a pretty sold case. Of course she may have signed that option away when she left.

Also, in California at least, your employer has to give you your full personnel record if you request it. She might ask them to do that.

I'm a bit surprised so many people want to give her advice. She's already taken a really bold step and written cogently and in a balanced way about her situation, the toxic culture at Uber, and made it clear she's moved on to a better place. Why talk about what she should be doing and hasn't done as if there is only one way to resolve this? Why not give thanks to the writer for writing this and putting up with all the drama it will cause in the hope of a better world.

Why not talk about how wrong Uber was in every way and at every level - allowing a manager to attempt to proposition new direct reports for sex on their first day, not immediately firing them for this, trying to suppress this when taken to HR, rewarding the perpetrator, killing her career there for vague reasons, let alone all the other dysfunction she mentioned in passing? Even just one of those points means a really toxic culture. There are little bits of men's behaviour in every large organisation which resemble this, why not talk about that and ways to make this better? There are so many ways this story can inspire us to do better.

Listing what she can/should/coulda/woulda/shoulda is one way to avoid looking in the mirror and all that. It is one reason victim blaming is popular: If it is the victim's fault, then other people don't have to wonder what they might do differently or get off their lazy duff and walk the walk instead of just engaging in smack talk.

I appreciate you making the comment. I don't imagine it will go over well.

> It is one reason victim blaming is popular: If it is their fault, then other people don't have to wonder what they might do differently or get off their lazy duff and walk the walk instead of just engaging in smack talk.

I think the true reason is a bit deeper: victim blaming means that bad events can be compartmentalized to be the victim's problem. So a person engaging in it doesn't have to emotionally deal with the potential problems of the bad event, or even how it could affect them, as they can just say that they would have dealt with it better. A rendition of the just-world hypothesis, really.

That being said, I don't know if I'd call "she should sue" victim-blaming, even though the reason is probably about the same.

Good comment, but:

That being said, I don't know if I'd call "she should sue" victim-blaming, even though the reason is probably about the same.

This reminds me of some of the BS I have seen where people insist a woman should prosecute her rapist. One of the problems with this line of reasoning is that it makes it the victim's responsibility to try to right this wrong. What if she just wants to put the whole damn thing behind her and not let it eat any more of her life instead of dragging the pain out longer?

It still hangs something on her instead of other people stepping up to bat.

Hmm, perhaps I misunderstand the term?

I thought victim blaming referred to specifically blaming the victim for the event itself as / before it happened. Not for what the victim did or didn't do afterwards. Unsolicited advice, in poor taste, but not victim blaming by the definition I'm aware of.

I think most people here asking to sue want to see Uber pay, and they don't really have any equivalent leverage against Uber. There's more victim blaming in the "you should have known how HR works / you should have left" comments.

Sorry if it wasn't perfectly clear: I didn't say that it was victim blaming, just that it is problematic in a way that is not much different from victim blaming. So defending the suggestion as not victim blaming is kind of not great in my book.

It's always worth considering that "she should sue" is actually meant as "she has a clear right to sue, and I would applaud her receiving an appropriate amount of compensation should she do so, because that was completely unacceptable".

I tend to frame the sentiment as "That's lawsuit worthy and if she desires to bring one I wish her good luck and good hunting" for clarity, but I find that often people use "should" conversationally to mean "thing I would love to see happen" rather than "thing I believe the object of the sentence is required to do".

Yeah, I am aware of all that. I appreciate you making an effort to make a clearer distinction -- "that's lawsuit-worthy -- but I am less thrilled with having it explained to me that it is on the victim (or sympathetic women, like myself) to be emotionally sensitive to the intent of random internet strangers sloppily using "should" instead of being backed up on the idea that a predominantly male discussion group really ought to be making more of an effort to frame things carefully when they discuss what some woman has endured at the hands of other men.

> This reminds me of some of the BS I have seen where people insist a woman should prosecute her rapist. One of the problems with this line of reasoning is that it makes it the victim's responsibility to try to right this wrong.

Simply put, that's the system we have. It's designed with the assumption that having adversaries argue according to rules in front of a judge is a good way to figure out what really happened.

It's not necessarily the best way to solve the kind of things it's used for, but we don't have an alternative.

> What if she just wants to put the whole damn thing behind her and not let it eat any more of her life instead of dragging the pain out longer?

I can certainly sympathize with that decision.

> This reminds me of some of the BS I have seen where people insist a woman should prosecute her rapist.

I was under the impression that criminal cases were pressed by the state, not any given individual.

The only thing the state may ask is testimony from the victim. If the victim is unwilling or unable to give that, then the case may just fall apart due to lack of evidence.

Which puts the pressure on the victim. Very few prosecutors are willing or able to bring a case to trial without the support / testimony of the victim (who is often the only witness).

That's correct. In a case with a surviving victim, the victim is almost certainly going to take the stand. The 6th amendment to the constitution contains the confrontation clause[1] which says, "…in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him." If someone strikes or stabs or shoots you, and that person stands trial, you will be on the witness stand and you will be cross-examined.

Public support for the confrontation clause isn't popular these days, but I am very glad the courts have continued to uphold it. To quote Crawford v. Washington[2], "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because the defendant is obviously guilty."

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause

2. http://federalevidence.com/pdf/2007/13-SCt/Crawford_v._Washi...

> If someone strikes or stabs or shoots you, and that person stands trial, you will be on the witness stand and you will be cross-examined.

Not necessarily. If someone stabs or shoots you in a public place, in full view of 50 other witnesses and 4K recording devices, then your testimony is unnecessary.

That said... in the US most crimes don't go to court so I can't really say what a hypothetical 'open/shut' case will look like in a court trial, because in reality the offender will plea-bargin immediately.

I'm confused by your comment. How does it fit with the parent comment? Your comment doesn't seem to make sense as either agreeing with the parent comment (as it nothing about giving advice) nor does it seem to contradict the parent comment (which isn't giving advice or giving Uber some kind of pass). Could you clarify?

We should be talking about the actions of uber and her manager, not what she should or could do. I don't think the author really needs commentary on what comes next, and if she wants it I'm sure she'll know who to ask. We could all usefully reflect on how to stop this happening though.

I hope that helps; if it doesn't perhaps consider why she wrote the article (I doubt it was to solicit comments on what her actions could be).

Personally everyone knows what Uber (and her manager) ought to have done and ought not to have done, and if there were any confusion, the article covered it in depth. I don't know what would be gained by restating it. OTOH, it seems at worst harmless and at best beneficial to offer advice on how to maximize her case against Uber, or to help others who find themselves in similar circumstances (especially those who may not be surrounded by subject-matter experts).

I think you have incorrectly attributed ChuckMcM's comment as advice. He was just musing about his surprise that a law firm hasn't already contacted her considering the strength of her case, and having a thought experiment about the outcome.

In this case, it would greatly benefit the public good to litigate. Unfortunately, the risk of lawsuits is the single greatest motivator for U.S. companies to combat sexism and harassment in the workplace. We would hope that companies would recognize the inherent value of encouraging the growth of a class of employees so they can be productive, but this isn't the case in most U.S. companies.

I think it's unlikely that Susan would choose to litigate. She is motivated to design systems, write books, and advance infrastructure engineering. Her personal gain from a lawsuit would be slim (what would the damages even be? She probably has no employment gap, considering her excellent reputation in engineering).

I'm not a lawyer but I imagine in this case the damages would be puntive. It's less about how she was harmed and more about the fact that the company has rampant sexual harassment and a history of not handling complaints properly. A good way to teach them (and others who are contemplating doing the same) a lesson is to make them pay an outrageous amount of money.

Not saying Susan should be the one to sue them, but someone certainly should. Along with the bad publicity one or more lawsuits would definitely get them to clean up their HR practices.

I think we're both in agreement about the greater public good of the litigation. I don't understand punitive damages so I can't comment.

I'm uncomfortable with assigning responsibility to an individual to undertake a crusade when there is little upside and a large downside.

I think this is a good point.

The discussion here really highlights how people combine what they are reading with what they are thinking into a combined message.

I was reading her account and the GP comment from the uber throwaway and making observational comments about people who spend time on political maneuver versus doing excellent work. I've known a number people over my career who got promoted often and achieved great "success" but did so by manipulating the organization and not by doing anything particular noteworthy.

In my experience, that sort of behavior can really only be stopped top->down. There isn't any way that I have found to help someone see that they are incorrectly evaluating employee contribution from a position below there grade level. And like the author found, if the bad behavior continues above your manager, then that is a level of brokenness you can't fix. And as you point out she got out and was moved on.

I also phrased it as an observation, but I am sure that on reading her account there may be lawyers looking for a big payday (Uber is vulnerable) who will approach her. It's what lawyers do. Generally more established companies have a tighter rein on their illegal management practices to make it harder on the lawyers :-)

Uber was wrong, on every level, and that was status quo. And the cost of naming that wrong and speaking of it is high. It is sad that they are not unique in that wrongness.

There is only one way to make this better, and that is to tie this sort of behavior to a loss of money. There are many things we might advocate which impact Uber financially; One is to sue them, One is to give witness to their wrongness so that others will not work there, One is to boycott them as a customer or driver.

Sadly, there is no way to "fix" them because this appears to be cultural. That is the worst part for me, knowing about the rottenness in a company, knowing it "could" be addressed by a strong leader providing incentives for good behavior and disincentives for bad behavior, and knowing that no fixing will happen. That said if their competitors have a stronger (and better) culture, then they will be able to attract top talent in the space and dominate the market. We'll see if that works in this case.

Thanks for this comment - I agree with your points here. It is worth us all thinking about how to fix the broken culture, rather than thinking about what the author can do, she's done her part in a very brave way by writing this honest article.

> Why not talk about how wrong Uber was in every way and at every level - allowing a manager to attempt to proposition new direct reports for sex on their first day, not immediately firing them for this, trying to suppress this when taken to HR, rewarding the perpetrator, killing her career there for vague reasons, let alone all the other dysfunction she mentioned in passing?

Some of these things are actually violations of law in California, and the advice I would give Susan would be to pursue legal action.

> why not talk about that and ways to make this better?

A class action law suit may be the best way to make this better.

My partner was in a somewhat similar position. When she spoke to a lawyer, the lawyer asked her two questions:

1 - did she ever want to work in X industry again / was she comfortable with being blacklisted, legal or not;

2 - was she comfortable with this being what she did with the next two years of her life

It's a harder decision to make than you think.

Not to mention the unrelenting wave of assholery that would be generated on sites like, well, HN towards any woman that dared do what you suggest.

Most lawsuits don't reach the court room and end with a non-disparagement agreement. Perhaps it was worth asking another lawyer?

This is correct according to the various employment attorneys who have spoken at various 'managing within the law' training sessions I've attended over the years. Sometimes you can not only sue the company but the individuals who were involved. That should be a disincentive to managers but sadly it doesn't seem to sink in.

Great, less competition will make her cheaper.

In the world of grown-up business, as opposed to SV bro startups, that's just one new business opportunity arising to poach talent!

Thank you for the context. I have to admit that this thought did cross my mind. I wish Uber would be forced to pay dearly for their treatment of Ms. Fowler, but I don't want Ms. Fowler to be the one that has to sweat to make that happen.

> I'm a bit surprised she doesn't have at least one law firm trying to get her to be the lead claimant in a class action lawsuit.

How do you know she doesn't?

> It is always a bit sad when one of the top characteristic of an engineer from organization X is their political ability to carve out an empire.

When Organization X consistently scoops up the top graduates from the top schools, they end up with a glut of very smart engineers, most of whom are probably overqualified for their day-to-day work. Since brains and talent aren't distinguishing qualities, political cunning becomes the key differentiator.

> I'm a bit surprised she doesn't have at least one law firm trying to get her to be the lead claimant in a class action lawsuit.

Who's to say she doesn't? She just posted the article.

"Culture was extremely heavy on the drinking;"

For me this is a red flag.

    Booze + programming == pissed programming

This leads to bad code also bad team dynamics. Ultimately this will reflect on the product and bottom line. For individuals this reads like a culture where the barrel is creating ^bad apples^. Not a good look on a resume.

Why is this getting down voted? Am I missing something in bootload's post? Seems pretty reasonable to me. Don't get me wrong, I like to drink, but drinking and programming don't mix well for me at least. I need my brain cells working, not partying, when I'm trying to write code. Maybe that's my age showing.

"Why is this getting down voted? Am I missing something in boatload's post?"

@luckeydude, it's a sort of reaction test for brogrammers who work in toxic environments. I can't think of any job (not after hours) where alcohol improves your performance and output.

Probably because it's conflating drinking and misogyny.

Drinking and programming surely don't mix well. However, a culture that involves, or even promotes, drinking and partying doesn't have to be misogynistic. I've worked in companies that held parties several times per week, with plenty of booze, and they were nothing like what was depicted in TFA.

"it's conflating drinking and misogyny."

Good point @metafunctor, didn't even think of that.

Because it's telling people something that might be true and makes them uncomfortable.

We have a pro-drinking culture at my company due to the nature of the business and I haven't found that it's causing any problems. It's generally done outside of work or for specific events, and I've never felt unsafe on any gathering where a lot of drinking was going on.

This is a red herring, if anything.

I think there's a difference between a culture where people drink a lot vs a culture where people get black out drunk and irresponsible with it, though, and maybe Uber is more like the latter.

"We have a pro-drinking culture at my company due to the nature of the business and I haven't found that it's causing any problems."

Anecdotal.

If drinking is done outside work/events this isn't what is being described in the article. What about the personal who a) don't drink or b) harassed by those who do? Drinking at work tells me the place isn't interested in performance or their customers.

> Anecdotal.

Sure, but I'm not entirely sure what else you expect. Isn't your statement also anecdotal?

> If drinking is done outside work/events this isn't what is being described in the article.

Sorry, what article? It's not mentioned in the main OP, and the person a few parents up is talking about what sounds very much like events or after work happy hours. I can absolutely see how that can turn bad, I'm just saying it doesn't have to.

Are you really supporting drinking at work? Tell me about the great experiences through the eyes of other people.

"talking about what sounds very much like events or after work happy hours"

The number of engineers bleeding from uber suggests, drinking isn't ^the problem^ but one part of a bigger culture problem. Do you work at Uber?

I think projektir is talking about how a team-drinks-together-outside-of-work culture can still be healthy.

Their "maybe Uber is more like the latter" description of an unhealthy culture I think makes it obvious they don't work at Uber.

"I think projector is talking about how a team-drinks-together-outside-of-work culture can still be healthy."

@mst fair enough point.

> Are you really supporting drinking at work?

Yup. 100%. Because I'm an adult and I and my coworkers know how to drink responsibly and not make a fool of ourselves and keep things relatively professional.

It's not like I'm taking shots of vodka at the top of every hour - it's maybe having a beer or two at the end of Thursday and Friday, or having a boozy lunch every now and then to celebrate a success or birthday or someone leaving.

>Are you really supporting drinking at work?

We have beer on tap at work. If I'm in the office late, having an occasional beer at 6pm or so seems perfectly reasonable.

Getting hammered is obviously way out of line but one beer is hardly the same thing.

> We have a pro-drinking culture at my company due to the nature of the business

what? what possible nature of business are you in that makes drinking more (or less) acceptable.

There is no such thing. at work, you work. if you want to get drunk, you aren't working.

> There is no such thing.

Works at a bar or brewery? Wine related startup? Sales?

none of those are any more pro drinking on the job culture than any other job.

you still have work to do, and you probably still have colleagues whose time is valuable that aren't as big on drinking as you think they are.

drinking and having fun is great. at my company, if i wanted us all to drink, everyone got the afternoon off and we went out.

He did said that the drinking was done outside of work hours.

he said the "nature of the business" made it more pro drinking. but thats not accurate. people's decisions might make for a more pro-drinking atmosphere, but a business can't.

Sales strikes me as as just perpetuating old habits. If a salesman has to get me drunk to make a sale, he's pitching a shitty product and he knows it.

The fermentation industries on the other hand are more legit.

Agreed. I know some folks who worked in the alcohol industry and drinking on the job was expected.

I think you are looking at it too narrowly. Drinking has an important social function in many cultures, western culture among them but by no means alone. Having good social interaction between coworkers is important. Of course, one has to be cognizant of the fact that not everybody drinks and not to exclude people that are not - by making sure drinking is not the only way people can interact socially. But having a round of beers once in a while with coworkers, among other things, is not that bad.

Of course, all that is about social drinking, not getting completely shitfaced to the point one loses control. That is never good.

Ever worked in hospitality? I can assure you that there are workplaces out there where drinking on the job is expected.

>I've never felt unsafe on any gathering where a lot of drinking was going on.

Are you a woman?

I am a good coder with a bad drinking habit who has worked at companies that were ok with drinking on site. While they handled it well and while I love an excuse to get together over beers and discuss coding, it's definitely a smell. Black out drunk has nothing to do with it. Hell, it would be preferable if people just passed out. The problem is all the folks who don't pass out but all of a sudden think this is a good time to declare their love for a coworker's body.

> Are you a woman?

Yes.

> The problem is all the folks who don't pass out but all of a sudden think this is a good time to declare their love for a coworker's body.

The problem is if they say something like that, the target is clearly uncomfortable, and then nobody else cares. Banning alcohol isn't going to fix something like that.

>We have a pro-drinking culture at my company due to the nature of the business

Do tell what business this is, because unless the industry is alcohol production, I'm having a hard time believing this is an instrinc quality of an industry and not just a "boys will be boys" excuse.

Alcohol use isn't an intrinsic quality of the legal industry but it might as well be.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4736291/

The following excerpt is the first sentence of the conclusion.

"Attorneys experience problematic drinking that is hazardous, harmful, or otherwise consistent with alcohol use disorders at a higher rate than other professional populations."

This morbid fact is actually taught in law school. Something like 10% of attorneys abuse substances, multiple times over the national average. To demonstrate the scope of the problem: a phone number for an assistance hotline is placed in bold on all Texas state bar cards.

I don't think having a drinking culture means drinking while programming. Quite the opposite actually.

"I don't think having a drinking culture means drinking while programming."

What is the union of work, drinking culture and SRE (the job the article refers)?

... ahem, the Balmer Peak disagrees:

https://xkcd.com/323/

duty calls hey?

https://www.xkcd.com/386/

Ha! Guilty!

I have to be honest, I know a lot of people who claim that they can write really good code if they've been drinking.

I just absolutely do not understand how that is even possible. If I have ONE beer, it throws off my ability to write good code, or hold all of the concepts in my head.

One of the weekly coworking meetups I go to always ends at a brewery (there is a brewery next door to the hackerspace where it is held), and while it is certainly a lot of fun being there brainstorming things, I don't understand how anybody gets actual code written after drinking.

> I know a lot of people who claim that they can write really good code if they've been drinking.

i know a lot of people who say they drive better if they've been drinking too. Doesn't mean it's accurate.

Alcohol definitely blunts fast reflexes. If it also hinders coding, it's not for the same reason. If I had to guess, a little could fix anxiety and perfectionism, while a lot will leave you too incoherent to make something work at all.

> If I had to guess, a little could fix anxiety and perfectionism

This is exactly what happens to me, so I sometimes will code after a bottle of beer or a glass of whiskey. But it has to be little - more alcohol and I start losing focus.

Clearly you haven't heard of the Balmer Peak

So that's Uber's problem. They hired Google/FB engineers when they should've been hiring MS experts for Ballmer Peak calibration. /s

i code better after a few drinks - i end up focusing more on the forest rather than the trees.

They likely dont tackle work of significant complexity

This may be the case. I generally say I can't code worth a damn if I've had a beer or two, because my ability to really focus goes way down. But I've also had the experience of getting a bit buzzed and absolutely plowing through a whole bunch of easy-to-write code and enjoying it quite a bit, whereas it was otherwise kind of dull work.

For me, it can be a matter of actually doing it. I often suffer from analysis paralysis, so being a little tipsy means that I will actually write the thing. It'll be terrible, but it'll get done, and then sober me can go back and clean it up.

Or I'll go to far, write it, and it'll be unusable.

I used to do this sometimes in university. Haven't done it since entering the workforce, but they say sleep deprivation results in similar performance to being drunk. Not proud of it but I've found myself cornered into nightmare sleep deprived coding marathons by analysis paralysis / procrastination a number of times over the last few years. Alcohol might be preferable.

Alcohol increases confidence in one's abilities.

Everyone has some skill they insist they are "better at" when drunk.

Without a doubt, I am better at dancing (ok, less awful), if I have a drink or two ;)

My best results at pool always come between pint two and pint four.

I do not in any way shape or form endorse doing the same thing with writing production code.

Back in university days I often wrote assignments while tipsy and then edited them when sober. Cider was just perfect for silencing the inner critic to get some thoughts to paper.

Well, there you have me. My secret better-when-drunk talent is writing poetry and first messages on OkCupid.

These are only weakly connected.

From what I understand, there's a substantial body of research indicating that a slight suppression of the prefrontal cortex can reduce the sorts of inhibitive filters that constrain creative thought. Too much, obviously, and you impair your cognitive ability. Too little, and self-doubt and over-analysis rules.

Anecdotally, I've noticed that I'm significantly more fluent in my third language when I've had a drink or two. I get many, many more compliments. When I'm totally sober, I tend to trip up more and overthink the grammar.

There are lots of ways to reduce a hyperactive prefrontal cortex, including training (practicing art, meditating, etc.), but alcohol is by far the cheapest, quickest, and easiest.

"Hold my beer!"

"What?! Are you crazy?!"

"Don't worry, I got this."

Goes on to write vanilla JS.

There are certain types of code which I can unequivocally write better after a few drinks. It's honestly mostly low-complexity drudge work which needs to get done but when sober I can't power through it as fast due to (a) boredom and (b) overanalysis of simple tasks.

This certainly isn't all the code I write (far from it) and it's not for everyone, but it's definitely true for me. That's why I don't think saying alcohol and code can never mix is right, but I agree that it shouldn't be a daily occurrence or the central aspect of company culture. I don't think an optional, after-work happy hour on occasion is such a bad thing though.

I've found I'm markedly better at two specific types of programming activities while mildly drunk (the "mildly" part being quite crucial, for me this means two beers or a couple of slowly sipped glasses of whiskey). One is getting a large amount of boring mindless boilerplate out of the way quickly because the alcohol helps me not get too distracted from sheer boredom. The other is re-architecting high level design after getting stuck on a flawed approach - it seems easier to devise and consider more "out there" ideas without getting too bogged down in implementation details prematurely.

Obviously, that's just my personal experience and while I'm quite confident in my sample size, I wouldn't generalize it to anyone else. YMMV.

I can do exploratory coding when drinking, but I won't waste my time or an employers trying to write production code while drinking. As you note, it just doesn't work.

There is something called the Ballmer Peak, which has even been demonstrated in one study. Up to a point, the theory goes, creative work benefits from mild intoxication. Beyond that point, productivity goes out the window. For me, I believe that point is around two drinks. For you, it could be teaspoons. Either way, I wouldn't generally drink before the end of the work day.

Personally, I find coding is hardest when you're blocked or stumped. Sometimes it helps to turn off the inner critic and experiment with code in a way that might feel unproductive during normal work hours. How I approach a problem outside of work is my business as long as the solution is solid.

This should go without saying, but everyone's physiology is different. While most people get drowsy from pseudoeffedrine, it makes me hyper. That's why even if one treatment works for most people, it might not work for you.

> There is something called the Ballmer Peak

Wait, we're citing XKCD comics now as if they are peer-reviewed scientific journals?

There's actually one peer-reviewed study in a psychology journal. Granted, it's only one data point and might not be applicable directly to coding. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-alcohol-make-men-smarter-stu...

I'll add that alcohol starts as an upper. It gives you a buzz that makes you feel good and want to do stuff. That's obviously beneficial if you can focus it on a work-related task. Several people here corroborated that hypotheses by saying they do. I've done it, too, in many situations.

I sometimes code after drinking. Not often, because I'm obviously sharper when completely sober. But when I'm very stressed, my cognitive potential is significantly reduced. Taking the edge off with a single beer results in a great increase of productivity then.

Also, if you think people can't get actual, working code written when shitfaced, then I guess you haven't met the demoscene crowd ;).

>I just absolutely do not understand how that is even possible. If I have ONE beer, it throws off my ability to write good code, or hold all of the concepts in my head.

There are times when a problem is intractable and I get frustrated through thinking too much about an issue. Alcohol, like caffeine, has its place. I want to stress that I'm not talking about getting hammered at the office, or even mildly drunk, I'm talking about the fact that for some people, a single beer after many hours of work can be helpful in calming them down enough to focus on the whole problem again.

Alcohol can certainly have performance-enhancing effects: comically, the first Olympic disqualification for doping wasn't for steroid use or anything similar - it was for a man drinking "two beers" before his shooting match to calm himself down enough to operate at peak levels.

We have a "whiskey club", and regularly go to the pub where I work.

We don't do it at lunchtime. We don't do it during the working day. 5:30pm on a Friday? Let's have a glass of whiskey together.

Somebody joining/leaving, or we haven't been out together for a while? Let's go to the pub after work one evening.

There is a #drinks channel in Slack where people who fancy a drink after work co-ordinate, and several of will grab each other once a week for a couple of pints.

That does not mean we are drunk when coding. As for team dynamics, it means we know each other better and bond more frequently. Not a problem, I think.

The downside is that for people who don't want to engage in this or can't (have to look after family, etc.), it can feel exclusionary, so we spend some time making sure we do things with those people too.

"That does not mean we are drunk when coding. As for team dynamics, it means we know each other better and bond more frequently. Not a problem, I think. The downside is that for people who don't want to engage in this or can't (have to look after family, etc.), it can feel exclusionary, so we spend some time making sure we do things with those people too."

Sounds like a more balanced view of what I've seen at some companies. Implies grown-ups are in charge.

> As for team dynamics, it means we know each other better and bond more frequently. Not a problem, I think.

Except for the non-drinkers in your team. I suspect that they either

a) feel left out, because a non-drinker at a pub has a boring time, and has to keep justifying their empty glass

b) probably miss out on important decisions if a majority of the important people in a team are present, which is bad dynamics

c) maybe your team doesn't have any non-drinkers. What does that tell you in terms of diversity / inclusiveness?

I'm not pointing fingers at you specifically because you mention explicitly making plans around people who don't/won't drink, but i think there should be more awareness around this, especially since it can seep into the culture quite insidiously, and invisibly.

Some workplaces have sporting clubs that people participate in to grow closer to their coworkers. Yet if you don't like tenis, baseball, basketball, golf, or hiking then you are out of luck.

Every social activity will exclude people who don't like the activity by default. There's no real working around this.

Even if you just have a 'talking' club, you exclude people who aren't natural extroverts or find large group conversations to be maddening.

In essence, there's no way to be perfectly fair... so at best you can have different choices to try to be as inclusive as possible with limited time.

Absolutely true, also goes for video games, board games, or even going to movies or baseball games.

I once received a bottle of wine as a Christmas bonus from the founders of the small startup I worked at. I was the only person on the the who didn't drink and was pretty offended. Especially since it was well known that I didn't drink since this company celebrated "beer thirty" every Friday.

Well known you never drank or well known you didn't drink at work?

There is very little good that can happen when a company serves or provides mind-altering drugs to its employees. That includes alcohol.

A lot of good can happen, from a pleasant meal with wine to a fantastic night that the participants will never forget.

And also coffee of course. And sugary drinks. And chocolate[1] (won't spoil the link but the first phrase mentions "opioids" - like heroin, you know). I'd suggest just give out distilled water. Preferably without any container, so to not contribute to the pollution.

[1] http://www.ehow.com/how-does_5132052_chocolate-affect-person...

Well-known that I didn't drink at all.

>was pretty offended

You were offended by a gift? Just say thanks and give it away or throw it away.

The vast majority of company gifts are useless to many people. Most people can cloth themselves, buy drinks for themselves, buy bags for themselves, etc and have no need for whatever crap the company is getting them as a sign of appreciation.

Unless they demanded you chug the wine in front of them, you really should not have offended yourself this way.

> You were offended by a gift?

If I give an observant Jew a kilo of bacon as a gift, why shouldn't they be offended by my being an arsehole?

Same thing.

If the gift was specifically chosen for the individual, yeah, I can see being offended. In my experience, once companies reach a certain size, gifts are purchased and given in a one-size-fits-all manner. Inconsiderate, perhaps, but likely not intended to offend.

It was a team of 7. Including the two founders.

If you work for a company that has "reached a certain size", you should be aware that you'll have groups of people that make certain one-size-fits-all gifts inappropriate. Like pork products or alcohol in any country with a non-trivial number of Jews and Muslims.

Jew here. I wouldn't be offended. I'd thank the person, then find someone who could use it.

And if the person knew I kept kosher but still offered the bacon, I would laugh it off and then donate it.

Being easily-offendable is not a virtue. Being gracious is.

Drink soda water w/ bitters. Looks like a drink, tastes good, and satisfies anyone actually drinking.

I drink regularly; but every now and then I'll go a week or month without drinking. I'm currently in the middle of one of these periods; but I've still gone out to happy hour or events that involved drinking every day since it's started. I manage to have just as much fun sober drinking soda + bitters.

Slightly OT, but do you have a recommendation for bitters other than Angostura? I like it, but I'd like to diversify my home cabinet.

Fee Brothers make some decent bitters, I have an Aztec Chocolate one that's really good with soda or in drinks.

I'll check them out. Thanks.

Peychaud is probably the second biggest brand. Since I drink this at bars, it really depends on what they have on hand. Most good bars will have a selection of 5-10+ different bitters. I like grapefruit bitters; I've also had really good spicy chili bitters. Many like orange bitters. Just ask the bartender for recs, they usually love chatting about this stuff.

The best part of this drink is that they rarely charge me anything for it. I'll usually tip a couple bucks per drink, and everybody ends up happy!

I'll give Peychaud a look. Thanks for the rec.

> satisfies anyone actually drinking.

If your culture is one where that's necessary then the entire management chain should be fired.

With rare exceptions, I'm a non-drinker. Nowhere in Europe have I ever had an issue ordering a coke instead of an alcoholic drink, even when hanging out with people getting completely shitfaced.

Is this seriously a thing in the US? Feeling like you have to drink if you're surrounded by people drinking? I keep hearing stories like that. Nobody is going to judge you for not consuming alcohol - if anyone does, they're certainly not people I'd want to hang out with regardless of whether drinks are involved.

It doesn't hurt not to give a fuck, once in a while.

It's not a problem for anyone other than the overly self-conscious, who are looking for reasons to explain their anxiety. Literally no one cares.

I was once rejected from a job interview at a DC startup because I didn't order a beer when they took me to lunch.

Even if that is what they said, do you honestly believe that was the real reason?

Beyond the slightest doubt.

Well, it's safe to say you dodged a bullet then :)

This seems a reason so stupid to reject somebody that either a) they didn't like you but didn't want to tell you the real reason, but didn't care enough to think about a plausibly sounding fake one; or b) you dodged a major bullet as these people had seriously messed up priorities. I'd bet on a) but can't exclude b) completely of course.

Interesting. What do you mean by self-conscious ?

https://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2014/01/26/how-to-be-... for examples.

The tl;dr is that people who are insecure will attempt to rationalize their feelings, and this frequently includes feelings of judgement and persecution from others where none exists.

I believe I was rejected after a job interview because of not drinking.

Another boss I had any a different job told me he fired someone for not partying with everyone else. If you went to these parties and didn't drink, the boss would harass you all night.

I agree with you that many people are just self conscious, but it's not exclusively that way.

Both of your cases sound like shitty places to work.

It's not that people will judge you IME, but that it's really fucking boring.

What's boring about it?

Unless being drunk is your idea of fun (in which case it seems doubtful you'd be a non-drinker), I cannot understand how drinking liquid A at a party is any more boring than liquid B.

As a person who does not necessarily enjoy drinking (nor does so very regularly), I would say that being sober around people who are drunk is objectively less enjoyable than being drunk around drunk people.

In fact a graph of my enjoyment as a non-drinker (in my experience) would probably be inverse to a graph of the enjoyment of the people getting progressively more shit-faced.

I can no longer drink, due to medical issues. I'd still go out with my team for the bonding, and probably just leave early every time. I really like how the Chef Community Summit has drinking and dry events, like Game Night. Making inclusivity a goal is fun for everyone!

I'd also like to point out that this kinda does leave out the women. I'm at an age where most of my friends are getting married or having babies.

If you're pregnant, this basically means that you can't be a part of the team's social gatherings for at least 9 months straight.

It's ok to get a coke or water at a bar.

Whatever you choose to do, some subset of the team will end up being left out. Some of my team occasionally go out for a drink+meal. Usually when some remote workers are in town for the day, and we go out after work. Yes, it excludes people with families/other commitments. But lots of other activities would exclude exactly the same people; you can't force the whole team to be sociable after work hours.

We do these things:

1) We don't make any decisions when team members are missing; they have to be done during work hours when everyone is able to participate 2) There's no obligation to drink (why would there be?); several of the team don't drink, and there is no pressure to do so, they get soft drinks/tea/coffee/whatever they like

As someone who is very shy and introverted, it's one of the few times I actually go out socially, and it's a time to unwind and have a chat with your coworkers and associated friends/partners/family. I don't think doing this has any negative impact upon the rest of the team, so long as you don't do any serious discussion and decision making which excludes others.

>"As for team dynamics, it means we know each other better and bond more frequently"

Is drinking actually bonding though?

Definitely. Alcohol is a social grease. Facilitates having fun, kills off stress temporarily. All conductive to bonding, even if not strictly necessary.

I guess we have different definitions of bonding then, because that just sounds like regular drinking to me. In my opinion a bond is forged through some meaningful connection or meaningful shared experience. I just don't find knocking pints back to be meaningful experience. Its a bond that lasts until the pub closes. I say this as someone who drinks as well.

Alcohol does not create a meaningful bonding experience by itself (unless you're out tasting some very rare and special beverage). It matters what you're doing while drinking. Personally, I find hours-long conversations over beers to be quite good at building rapport with people.

This is my point, if the drinking doesn't matter so much as the "what you're doing" why does booze need to be involved at all?

"hours-long conversations over beers" sounds like getting wasted to me or at at very least tipsy.

> This is my point, if the drinking doesn't matter so much as the "what you're doing" why does booze need to be involved at all?

It doesn't. But it can be, because - besides the "social grease" benefits it confers, which I mentioned before - why not?

Very much so! Not talking shit-faced, but just normal drinking. It's one of the fastest ways to get to know a person, a lot of people naturally let their guard down, and it provides a casual atmosphere to get to know each other.

It also provides a shared experience that is an easy conversation starter when meeting sober later on "hey, thanks for last night! Where did you end up going after.." etc.

Obviously YMMW, in EU/Denmark it's a very common way to "crash course" people on each other when you suddenly find yourself in a new environment with nobody you know (university, new work). Then again, I'd say EU drinking is a lot more mature than the US one. We usually get introduced to it a lot earlier in life, and have a gentler intro curve rather than going from zero-100 real quick, when entering college or the likes.

Drinking at work, per se, is not inherently a bad thing. It really depends on culture. It depends on whether it's responsible drinking, social drinking, or it's irresponsible, Bing drinking. There are cultures where people have a beer or two or wine glass during lunch and these people are not typically misbehaved louts. But there is a responsible culture around the drinking.

Just because there's drinking at work, doesn't mean they drink while programming.

I've worked at plenty of places with a social drinking culture and never could we be bothered to actually code and drink at the same time. Maybe we might have a boozy friday lunch every now and then, but usually retros and 'meetings' like that followed

Also, I think the statement "extremely heavy on the drinking" is so subjective and up to personal interpretation.

"Workcation" is an incredible idea, as is letting employees work remotely for x weeks/ months per year from wherever they want. Even though it's not vacation-vacation it's still a revitalizing, memory forming experience, and if you want a happy motivated work force, I think it's a great idea.

That and a sound proof studio with piano on premise would be enough to make me quit my job.

That said Uber's been on my douchebag radar at least since their execs bragged about threatening journalists. Hopefully your acquaintances already sold their shares on secondary markets because losing ~3 billion a year would worry me if I was expecting to get rich from them.

The booze thing gets exaggerated at many places. It is usually the marketing/HR/business dev/sales teams that indulge in that culture. The engineering team is usually much more constrained in their alcohol consumption, although the media groups them with the frat boys from sales.

i don't know many BD/sales people who contribute to hackathons...

seems like the person above you was speaking specifically about engineers.

I don''t agree with this at all. This certainly hasn't been my experience. Enthusiastic appreciation of craft beer and Scotch are very much a part of tech startup culture.

Try working for a Civil engineering company :-) I no longer drink snakebite and black at lunch :-)

I went to visit the instagram office on the fb main campus and saw a huge liquor exhibition.

There are tons of bars at FB. My experience was that people would only go on the fortnightly drinking event, and then it was mostly grabbing an hors dourve and then retiring back to their desk after a single bottle of that. It's pantomime of a drinking culture.

Longtime friend was there in 2011 iirc when they were still "Ubercab" and was cut bc he was "not a culture fit". Aka quiet Russian hacker types not wanted in the frat brotherhood.

>"Crazy, most ex-employees (even the early ones) acknowledge that the culture is bad but they got their $$$ so they won't have to work again for a long time, if ever."

Can you explain why they don't have to work again? How did they become wealthy? Those options aren't worth anything if the company doesn't IPO.

Can you elaborate more on the misogyny that was part of the culture?

So far you've only identified that they like drinking, traveling and were part of the Greek social system in university.

What I'm looking for are instances of demeaning women, discounting their achievements, systemic disapproval for the words of women, favours being handed out on the basis of gender, solicitation of sexual favours in non-equal power relationships, or if no examples can be provided then at least people stating that they are 'in favour' of such, or are lax in enforcing rules against such.

I don't mean this as an attack of any sort (the article gives examples after all). I simply want to know more.

Did you not read the article? Literally has an example of everything you are referring to.

The person I'm responding to actually worked at Uber, so they can potentially give more information than what the article contains.

What do you have against talking to other witnesses 'of the crime' so to speak?

My bad, I have nothing against talking to other witnesses of the crime and wasn't paying attention and didn't know the person you were talking to was an Uber employee and had additional context to provide.

I just thought you were being a jerk and didn't read the article. Oops.

Saying that they "poached" engineers make it look like they are property of a company and can't move looking for better opportunities.

I don't like that word either, but it seems to be the standard term.

"Hired" would work just as well here.

Uber recruiters once emails about 100 engineers in my company the same email...except they managed to swap around the first/last names on all of them.

Most recruiters are comically bad at targeting -- apparently there isn't enough downside to just carpet-bombing as many e-mail addresses as they can find -- but this does not mean that recruiting is inherently wrong.

The funny bit was the swapped names, it's like they had a spreadsheet but shifted a column down. Didn't double check the names against emails so I assume it was automated.

Just curious, what happens to employees who don't drink?

They dehidrate and crumble.

Did any of you folks talk about the enormously unethical ways you treat drivers? Those folks who are mostly poorer than you who do the actual work that provides value?

I find it laughable to hear Uber engineers cry about how unfairly Kalanick treats them.

Self-awareness 0.

this is almost on the same level of stupidity as "All lives matter".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com