Hacker News Reader

Comment by akoboldfrying | Hacker News Reader

>Obviously, this would be inappropriate behavior if it was happening to an actual human assistant, and I would deal with it.

Unless one person has some level of authority over the other, I don't see why this should be considered inappropriate. Not taking no for an answer, or any kind of retribution for being declined, are harassment and shouldn't be tolerated -- but just asking? I think that's something any man or woman should be able to ask any man or woman.

For avoidance of doubt: Asking someone out when you know very little about them isn't smooth. It won't impress many people. But I don't see it as morally repugnant.

View on HN

Someone at work in a customer-facing role is less free to handle these things like they want to, potentially at the risk of very real consequences to their job. If you work at a bar, or a mechanic's shop, or in the grocery checkout, a customer throwing a fit and spitefully getting your boss/management involved can lead to anything from straight up losing your job to just being a "difficult" worker and not getting the shifts you need.

If the people are not total strangers, it's different, but approaching someone that didn't volunteer to be in the situation, and can't freely respond, is absolutely inappropriate a lot of the time - I'd argue, at least.

(Obviously, a good employer should help you feel protected and safe in situations like this - but we all know that is not a choice many people get to make for themselves)

Thanks for responding. We might be mostly in agreement: I think the employee's concerns that you mention are genuine and important, but I see the root cause being some combination of the customer's and the boss's choices -- the customer being spiteful is the kind of retribution I consider harassment, and to the extent that they act that way because they're confident the boss will reflexively take their side, an abuse of power, though the boss also shares responsibility there. If both would instead behave like reasonable adults, declining an invitation would pose no threat to the employee's job security, and there would be no need to (formally or informally) regulate it.

I realise that that "if" isn't helpful to someone who has to deal with a reality where it doesn't (or even just might not) hold. But the point I want to make is that a culture in which we expect by default that the customer and boss will be reasonable, and shame them if they aren't, is just as possible as a culture where we expect by default that no one should ever ask anyone out at work, and shame them if they do. I often see people express things (like the sentence I quoted in my original comment) that nudge society further in the direction of the latter, but I think the former is better for everyone. Let's nudge it that way instead.

> But I don't see it as morally repugnant.

It is not seen as morally repugnant, it is seen as economically repugnant. If you were the server admin for a business and an old lady came in off the street asking if you would help her fix her computer, it is likely your boss would step in to put a stop to that too. The employer doesn't want to pay you to do things for other people.

If the old lady came to your house instead, nobody would give a rat's ass. Likewise, if 'Emily' were a real assistant and people were asking her out on dates using her personal email address, that'd be her problem. But when someone is paying you for your undivided attention...

If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time?

If so, this is a really interesting argument that I've never come across before. I do agree that it wastes company time, but I would think in such small quantities that it had very little impact -- on par with having a 5 minute chat with your office mate about their weekend.

I still have the impression that for many people who do object to this sort of thing, their objection stems from a feeling that being asked out at work is an uncomfortable or even frightening thing, something a person should not have to be subjected to.

> If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time?

No. Why would I have any feelings towards what other people do? That doesn't make any sense.

The quote is written from an economic perspective. If 'Emily' were real and a random person the author had never met, there would be no concern or attempt to stand in. Allison is concerned because they would have 'Emily' on the clock. It impacts Allison directly.

The cost in the case in the bot, despite being the exact same act, is so small it is immeasurable. As such, we get a 'funny anecdote' instead.

>Allison is concerned because they would have 'Emily' on the clock. It impacts Allison directly.

So... Alison's objection is that it wastes company time. Right?

If so: Can you see how that was what I meant all along?

If not: I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying.

Sure. Is there pertinence to the question?

I'm trying to understand why you replied "No" to my "If I understand you correctly, your objection to asking people out at work is that it wastes company time?"

AFAICT, everything else you have said, including your latest reply, is inconsistent with that.

That’s nice, but what does it have to do with the discussion?

Because your argument, if you are aware that you made it, is that it is “economically repugnant”. That is what you said, and that was your previous argument. You are now arguing with your own argument, saying “No. Why would I have any feelings towards what other people do? That doesn't make any sense.”

That is what it has to do with the discussion, that you are inconsistent and refuse to elaborate on your previous position by claiming it is other people’s position and that you “don’t care”.

Couldn't have said it better myself -- thanks!

The original comment questioned why the person in the article would be concerned about an employee receiving an email containing a request for a date. The answer is that they would have concerns because the worker is on the clock and it is costing them money to have their employee spend time dealing with the request (even if ultimately ignored).

Somehow that turned into my objection, which was illogical. It didn't make sense then and it makes even less sense that it keeps coming up. It has no relevance to the thread... or life in general.

What’s illogical is your inefficient response to the matter. You were asked a simple question, but because said question assumed it was your objection you proceeded to waste time asserting that you do not care, as if that somehow is an important distinction. It was your argument, your opinion on why it is repugnant, and it is how you would feel as the boss in that situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com