Hacker News Reader

Comment by supportlocal4h | Hacker News Reader

I've heard it expressed in Japan that coworkers who were unwilling to drink in the obligatory after-work bar visit were untrustworthy. They were taking advantage of their coworkers. The drunk coworkers would share unguarded thoughts while the sober one wouldn't. All taking and never giving was unscrupulous.

Years ago, it was almost a requirement to participate. One rationale was that being drunk excused someone who spoke their mind. As speaking your mind to your boss was not allowed in sober company, but sometimes critically important to the success of a company, you had to at least pretend to be drunk and go along with everybody else's pretense. That's oversimplifying it, but you get the idea.

View on HN

> One rationale was that being drunk excused someone who spoke their mind

That's not why they do (did?) it, it is used to force management and employers to socialize, they have a very rigid social hierarchy and don't socialize much spontaneously, so they force themselves to do it.

It's the same reason why they have a lot of national holidays based on nature or events (Keirō no hi respect for the aged day, Kodomo no Hi childern's day, Tennō Tanjōbi the emperor birthday, the green day, the mountain day, the marine day etc. etc.) to force them to take a break from work.

If you require an excuse to exercise honesty there is every indication the climate is probably toxic, potentially abusive, and certainly coercive.

As if that wasn't already clear from the whole "die at your workplace" thing

I'm sure many Japanese salarymen would agree with your description. I used to work in a small familial company in Osaka where you didn't need an excuse to "exercise honesty", but from I gather it was the exception more than the rule.

So far of all the places I worked at it was probably the one I enjoyed the most in terms of atmosphere and relation with coworkers, alas the work was not particularly interesting. I still pay my former coworkers a visit from time to time.

Well, it's Osaka. A lot of Japanese wouldn't consider Osaka to be a part of Japan lol.

I’ve travelled to many places around Japan, never once has anyone told me that Osaka wasn’t in Japan.

There are lots of stereotypes about people coming from various cities/regions in Japan (Tokyo: cold, Kyoto: indecipherable, Osaka: uneducated/rude, Hokkaido: weird, Okinawa: lazy, etc.), but Osaka not in Japan? Never once.

Given the earnestness of the reply, may we suppose you are not from Osaka?

It's a running joke. A lot of stereotype of Japanese people simply doesn't apply to Osaka.

Eating while walking? Check. Jaywalk? Check. Cross road on pedestrian red? We do it all the time.

I only ever hear Japanese people say that Okinawa is not "real" Japan.

I’ve never seen such a place in the western world tbh. Most of the real talk happens over drinks after work.

It's called the Netherlands

Nice to hear that - I was about to rep Germany as well ;).

Though it's surprising how badly this can go even in close countries such as Switzerland.

I once left feedback such as "this 3h on how to use Powerpoint should only be 30min. It doesn't have a lot of content, and the teacher clearly isn't interested" on a company course (where it was explicitly requested).

I was summarily called into an HR meeting to explain that such direct language was not appropriate.

I did not make it much longer at that company.

As a Belgian I can confirm. The Dutch are considered very blunt. We Flemisch people are more subtle and diplomatic. But in a working environment, it's actually pretty good to just be brutally honest about stuff, even when you step on other peoples toes.

Good for people who enjoy it but I do not.

Alcohol is a drug which has very bad effects on my system and I try to avoid it when possible.

If this is the condition for serious business for someone they will have to do business somewhere else.

You will have to do business elsewhere.

I don't mean that entirely, but understand the position from which you negotiate. I'm sure someone who abstains can do well, but I will say that many business relationships are formed from having some drinks and feeling friendly/chatting/etc.

It depends on your role entirely. Management level or engineer you don't need to be a drinker only on certain social company events. If you are on the Sales team you likely need to be in order to close deals and be part of the team. However I am curious if that is changing within the new Covid ERA. Hopefully this is vestiges of the past and we will move past an alcohol based era. It can be a catalyst for problems in the workplace. To be fair it does have some positive attributes as well. edit: typos

1. I managed to do business without taking drugs as long as I can think.

2. I am used to people coming to me for advice and my services. I never needed to advertise etc. so THEY will have to do business else where just as I said.

3. Just because in your opinion (data please) "many business relationships are formed from having some drinks" does not lead to "ALL business relationships are formed from having some drinks". This is a flaw in your logic.

4. If "feeling friendly/chatting/etc." is the reason for you to take drugs then I advice you to do therapy or something else to learn to be friendly, chatty etc. without the need to take drugs. If you need drugs to achieve this all the time this is a clear indicator that you have serious issues.

I don't doubt 1 and 2, 3 is putting words in my mouth, and 4 may be valid but misses the point. The very idea that "drinking lowers inhibitions" is the point of the article: That the inherent social guards and barriers begin to lower when people feel others in the room are willing to drink and bond with them.

I didn't say it was a requirement, but you have an air of hubris about you regarding your abstinence, and it's worth pointing out that many people drink with respect to their health and well being, and that it is indeed a part of many business relationships. It is also NOT a part of many.

There are markets where a B2B sales representative who does not drink would be utterly ineffective as many potential customers won't even listen to their pitches without an alcohol-filled setting, and would not take them seriously if they would organize such a setting but don't participate themselves. The same applies for existing customers, they would refuse meetings/pitches/deals if they don't "have contact" with the assigned representative, so being a non-drinker makes someone unemployable in such roles.

If people need to be on drugs to consider your product, maybe it's time to take a long hard look at what it is you're selling?

It's not about markets for some niche products, it's about geographical markets where you can't negotiate a wholesale distribution deal for a line of shampoo or a refrigerator brand if you're not willing to drink with your partners.

> it's about geographical markets

In most states in the US business transactions negotiated in the presence of alcohol (any alcohol) renders a contract void due to legally provable diminished capacity. It sounds like you are taking unnecessary risks without approval from your corporate legal advisors.

I do not need a sales department because my services and products speak for themselves and people want to have them. They come because of reputation and part of this is being sober, punctual, efficient and professional.

I am sad for you when you need to do this and I am happy for myself not to be in this position where one would force me to take drugs to do my job.

Caffeine and sugar are drugs with similar strength to alcohol in different mental state directions. You come off as judgmental and full of yourself with that kind of rhetoric. If this is how you talk to partners and customers, you must have really amazing products and services.

While its true that sugar is more addictive than cocaine neither sugar nor caffeine induce people to commit sexual assault or impair the ability to operate machines. Could you produce a single instance where somebody was arrested for DUI where the intoxicant was sugar or caffeine?

Perhaps I am judgemental too, but your argument is hilariously absurd and decidedly without evidence.

That is a geopolitical subcultural anomoly. Where I live, over the course of my corporate career, virtually nobody has communal drinks after work. There is a combination of driving commute and family obligations that eliminates that possiblity.

If an important aspect of real work happens outside of work, this is bad, no? (for employees)

Leaving aside the relative merits of various systems of resource allocation, any society wherein one must work to be able to procure food and shelter includes at least a small element of coercion, even if the only force at fault is nature/physics (due to your body’s need for input energy). Farm or die, as it were.

We’ve extended that with specialization, and some societies have patched over it with regulations, but ultimately there is a natural coercive force applied on Earth with regards to “work”: hunger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

Coercion directly suggests threats and force, which is suggestive of toxic retribution. That is completely different than an ethical order from a supervisor to a subordinate to perform a job task directly related to their job or area of responsibility.

In my current job I am a manage of managers owning a small helpdesk department. When I need something done I tell my junior managers the task to accomplish and expect the results in a given time frame. I don't have to threaten harm or use fear as a tool, because that's hostile and toxic.

Perhaps instead you mean influence. Good leaders will attempt to realign the goals and thoughts of their staff to the goals of the work using rewards and positive reinforcement.

Lol, that's almost saying that you are being coerced to eat, drink and breath (by nature?). At that point, the word has lost its meaning.

"Being alive is coercion!"

This is such an over intellectualisation.

What is coercive here? You can't call the innate physical realities of your own body acting within its self coercion.

This is patently false. You drink at the nomikai because everyone drinks at the nomikai. If you don't join, then you are seen as not being a team player. It's as simple as that. There is no subterfuge going on. Hell, the boss is usually the one that ends up the most drunk. Yes, perhaps some people may use it as a way to gain some insight, but you can apply that to anything.

And in addition, whatever is said or done at the nomikai stays in the nomikai. It's a way for the team to blow off some steam and be honest with each other. The next day, people carry on as if it never happened. I've been the drunk guy and the sober guy in these situations. You do learn a lot, but it's not the purpose of the gathering.

Source: I've lived and worked in Japan and Korea for over a decade.

You open with, "This is patently false," but then don't really seem to contract what the OP said.

Exactly my confusion!

OP is saying nomikais are about trust. P is saying they are about team, and that they help bring the boss down and lift the workers up.

Nomikais are both. If anything it's just an excuse to drink, and each company or team would decide how they drank. It starts in college with bukatsu nomikais. And there are good ones, and the ones where the ring leader is arrested for serial rape. That happened at Todai, and is definitely not normal, but unless you're the leader (there is always a leader) how are you to know until you show up and everyone starts drinking? Much like frat recruiting in the States. My year, someone died (1997 I think it was).

Yeah, it could be both. Also the two are somewhat complementary. Hence my (apparently typo'ed) statement that it didn't contradict the OP's comment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com