Hacker News Reader

Comment by deltaseventhree | Hacker News Reader

It's more then that for certain companies and teams. If that's what you want join the team where you _only do the job_. Don't join the team that demands more social bonding and friendship. This guy joined a team where he obviously didn't fit in.

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.

View on HN

>It's more then that for certain companies and teams.

It shouldn't be, and those companies should be sued, fined, and law-mandated out of existence, not excused.

>In japan the outside of work stuff is a requirement for every job.

And how does that work out for the family life, life-work balance, and fertility, suicide rates, and depression rates?

In some countries you can also be whipped or groped at work and nobody cares or it's even legal. Doesn't make it right either.

I assume "this job takes team bonding so seriously that when the boss tells you to get drunk with him or get in bed with another random employee, that's just part of the job, so don't work here if you're not cool with it" is always on the job description or at least disclosed up-front in a job interview so that everyone can make an informed decision about whether or not they're a good culture fit, right?

You assume correct. Obviously this stuff can't be written down in the description but it is still the employers responsibility to IMPLY that this debauchery is expected as part of team bonding.

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.

>You assume correct. Obviously this stuff can't be written down in the description but it is still the employers responsibility to IMPLY that this debauchery is expected as part of team bonding.

If one is so open about it, like about firing employees for not drinking like the boss likes, can they post the details of the company you work at or run?

Should be no big deal, right? It's an acceptable social thing, and not sociopathic madness, so should bring no ill consequences if it's made public...

Yeah I work for google.

Let me reword my sentence a bit because I left some things implied but a lot of people didn't pick up on it. It should be an expectation put FORTH in the JOB DESCRIPTION before the employee is hired.

It is a reasonable expectation, PROVIDED the employee knew about the expectation BEFORE he is hired.

If he didn't know about it, and the expectation was sprung on him, then it is UNFAIR.

It's acceptable or reasonable, whether it's "pur forth in the job description" or not, any more than "candidate must be able to tolerate light racism", or "must be OK with managers groping them" would be.

You are conflating it with sexual harassment and racism. That is OFF TOPIC.

It is very reasonable to put forth in the requirement:

    We are looking for a candidate who can get along with the team. The team likes to party and drink and they all tend to be very young. They do a lot of extracurricular activities together after work. Please only apply if you feel you can fit in well.

Are you telling me it's fair to pretend you're all of the above qualities and take the job? Then when the manager tries to fire you for misrepresenting yourself you use the law to protect yourself and make the entire team miserable by staying on the team even though you stick out like a sore thumb?

No, it's not. The above job description is honest and fair game. Let's not take this into other tangents that have to do with racism or sexual harassment. Be reasonable.

> they all tend to be very young

In the US, that would be inviting an age discrimination lawsuit. It's admitting that the company preferentially hires young people (which is illegal), and implying that older people wouldn't "fit in" and would thus be discriminated against.

>Are you telling me it's fair to pretend you're all of the above qualities and take the job?

No, I'm telling you is unfair, unethical, and illegal in many jurisdictions, to ask for the above qualities for an unrelated job (that is, you could ask a wine taster to be alcohol as part of the job. A developer or a show salesman, not so much, and it doesn't matter if it's on the job ad - putting it on the job ad is already icky, and in many jurisdictions illegal).

You can't ethically ask potential employees to "party and drink" for doing a job that's not related to bars and parties, whether it's software engineering or operating a crane.

The whole exchange seems to lack an understanding of the law (e.g. related to age or forcing things like drinking, or even the legality of asking for those things in the ad and/or firing someone who doesn't comply), and even why people would find it offensive and hummiliating. It's all about "but I pay and want a funny partying team", not very far from "but I pay and I want to be able to spit on the face on my employees every morning. If I put it on the job description surely they can't complain!".

Not to mention it's the legal duty to protect employees' health, and alcohol consumption is unhealthy, AND against certain religions AND destructive with certain conditions.

Might as well ask "no muslims", or "no diabetics" in your software engineering job ad.

Japan is admittedly a very interesting case. They are effectively forced to be social and maybe even environmentally conscious ( and little things there like segregating every piece of trash would drive me nuts ).

I still think parent is right despite overriding social mores. I believe individual has the right to 'self-select' ( and most reasonable people would at first opportunity, but there can be extenuating circumstances like, well, money ), but I also believe that once he/she is there, he/she has every right to stay in. The job may want more. The society may want more, but individual can always simply say no.

The work from home vs return office struggle is similar in nature even though it appears different on the surface.

Your point would make more sense if team building time (and drinks or whatever) was paid for by the company.

Otherwise people are spending their time for the company's benefit, without being reimbursed.

Companies could reimburse people for team-building time, like drinks after work, but they choose not to. They want something for nothing. They want coworkers to feel like they are part of a family so they won't leave for a different job, they want to motivate people to work harder for the team, instead of hiring enough employees, etc. They want to take advantage of people's better natures in order to generate more profits for the owners.

EDIT: Some may read your comments as being in favor of being taken advantage of, part of the team or family the company advocates for, until the day you get laid off, and are no longer part of the group at happy hour or whatever.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com