5 ms·

> Is everyone being super-stoked about Star Wars and Breaking Bad really a vital aspect of a company's identity? Is a shared passion for ping-pong over lunchtim

by lemevi 11y ago

> Is everyone being super-stoked about Star Wars and Breaking Bad really a vital aspect of a company's identity? Is a shared passion for ping-pong over lunchtime really an important part of a company's continued success? This is a different argument than one about age discrimination. Whatever the culture a company and its employees adopt, my point is that it isn't necessarily age discrimination if you are getting the "not a good culture fit" feedback. It's not the number of years you've been alive so much as an attitude, which is something you can change. If you're unwilling to, fine. If this makes you mad, I'm sorry. However your emotions sway you, it is still not age discrimination.

shepwalker 11y ago
But depending on how stringent your bounding box for "culture fit" is, you end up building an archetype for age, gender, education and ethnicity of your target employee. The point is is that if you're targeting people who behave like you, have plenty of shared interests and reflect your own way of doing things, those people are going to end up looking a lot like you too. I think the point that potatolicious is trying to make is that the ambiguity of "cultural fit" ends up becoming a path to hiring people who are very similar to yourself. An alternative approach would be to define explicit, concrete values that your company and team reflect, and look for hires that mirror those values instead of nebulous "cultural" fit.
nommm-nommm 11y ago
>it is still not age discrimination. The law may not agree with you. Ever heard of disparate impact? "In United States anti-discrimination law, the theory of disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on persons in a protected class" People over 40 are a protected class in US employment law. Now, policies that can adversely affect a protected class are ok as long as there is a legitimate job requirement. For example, being able to lift 50 pounds may be a job requirement that adversely impacts women and the disabled but its ok as long as the job actually requires heavy lifting on a very regular basis. Otherwise people are free to implement policies that are code for discrimination such as "able to lift 50 pounds" for a desk job. You'd have to prove in court a legitimate job requirement. I think proving" likes ping pong and beers after work" being a businesses concern may be an uphill battle even if you call it "attitude." Once you realize your hiring practices may exclude a protected class you really gotta do a second look over and ask yourself if it is really a business requirement. Other shops are able to ship products with more diversity and less ping pong.
s73v3r 11y ago
I would say that it is reasonable to assume the "not a good culture fit" IS discrimination until proven otherwise. And once again, with the supposed shortage of engineers, why isn't the company adapting?

by lemevi 11y ago

shepwalker 11y ago

But depending on how stringent your bounding box for "culture fit" is, you end up building an archetype for age, gender, education and ethnicity of your target employee. The point is is that if you're targeting people who behave like you, have plenty of shared interests and reflect your own way of doing things, those people are going to end up looking a lot like you too. I think the point that potatolicious is trying to make is that the ambiguity of "cultural fit" ends up becoming a path to hiring people who are very similar to yourself. An alternative approach would be to define explicit, concrete values that your company and team reflect, and look for hires that mirror those values instead of nebulous "cultural" fit.

nommm-nommm 11y ago

>it is still not age discrimination. The law may not agree with you. Ever heard of disparate impact? "In United States anti-discrimination law, the theory of disparate impact holds that practices in employment, housing, or other areas may be considered discriminatory and illegal if they have a disproportionate "adverse impact" on persons in a protected class" People over 40 are a protected class in US employment law. Now, policies that can adversely affect a protected class are ok as long as there is a legitimate job requirement. For example, being able to lift 50 pounds may be a job requirement that adversely impacts women and the disabled but its ok as long as the job actually requires heavy lifting on a very regular basis. Otherwise people are free to implement policies that are code for discrimination such as "able to lift 50 pounds" for a desk job. You'd have to prove in court a legitimate job requirement. I think proving" likes ping pong and beers after work" being a businesses concern may be an uphill battle even if you call it "attitude." Once you realize your hiring practices may exclude a protected class you really gotta do a second look over and ask yourself if it is really a business requirement. Other shops are able to ship products with more diversity and less ping pong.

s73v3r 11y ago

I would say that it is reasonable to assume the "not a good culture fit" IS discrimination until proven otherwise. And once again, with the supposed shortage of engineers, why isn't the company adapting?