5 ms·

I guess I’m an “older coder”, though my knees are doing OK, but never in my life would I have wanted to work at a place where there’s mandatory attendance at sk

by wrs 8y ago

I guess I’m an “older coder”, though my knees are doing OK, but never in my life would I have wanted to work at a place where there’s mandatory attendance at ski trips and zip-lining. That sounds utterly awful. Maybe you’re attributing something to age that is just a matter of taste? And maybe that’s not a good way to limit your hiring?

curun1r 8y ago
Nothing was mandatory and, in fact, the team leads purposefully organized events to be inclusive to everyone on the team. That was the whole point...by including an older, less-physically-capable team member, it was no longer an option to do fun, youth-oriented team events. And that person was excluded from work-related conversations that happened at after-work bar trips, which caused some awkwardness when the rest of the team aligned behind a significant decision and the excluded team member felt like he wasn't consulted. The team had a 20s-oriented culture and all but one team member participated. You can call it age discrimination, but he didn't fit the culture. And by trying to force him into the culture, with the best of intentions, the company lost the rest of the team to other positions/companies. I guess what I'm saying is that many employees want their work to have a social component and will seek out employment that gives them that. So companies that don't include a culture fit criteria can risk alienating those employees. One would hope that a large enough company can use cultural fit as a sorting criteria more so than a filtering criteria. But the narrative that prevails here...cultural fit is just a code word for discrimination...feels too naive and lacking nuance. Human social interaction is complex and seeking to view workers as interchangeable cogs based on their capabilities to do work is much too simplistic. Which is not to say that cultural fit isn't an excuse to discriminate, which it often is. I'm only trying to point out that it's a really complex issue that has no universally correct side or answer. It's almost always situational and there's no blanket policy or rule that you can apply to address the issue. Trying to force companies to be culture-fit-blind causes its own set of problems. And I say all this as a 40s coder, so I'm sure I'd miss out on a number of positions based on cultural fit.
- xyzzy123 8y ago
  Perhaps you could have had a variety of team (or wider company events) where not everybody needed to go to every one. On a practical basis, more “all hands” (aka mandofun) events do need to be inclusive. In normal companies at least. This is usually considered alongside basic personnel stuff like catering for allergies and dietary preferences at shared meals. In my experience most organisations don’t have huge problems with this although the mandatory fun often isn’t. I also believe that major company/team decisions probably shouldn’t be made at bars but I get that not all companies are for everyone.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- astura 8y ago
  >Nothing was mandatory Sounds like it was mandatory. >And that person was excluded from work-related conversations that happened at after-work bar trips, which caused some awkwardness when the rest of the team aligned behind a significant decision and the excluded team member felt like he wasn't consulted. If not going creates a problem, it's mandatory, period. Additionally, arranging your work discussions and decisions around alcohol consumption can absolutely be considered religions discrimination as many people don't consume alcohol for religious reasons and you certainly don't have any business justification for it. Also discrimination on pregnancy status. I'm sorry but "some employees desire youth-oriented forced 'socialization' after work hours" is not a justification for breaking the law, it just isn't.
  - baobabKoodaa 8y ago
    > Additionally, arranging your work discussions and decisions around alcohol consumption can absolutely be considered religions discrimination as many people don't consume alcohol for religious reasons and you certainly don't have any business justification for it. Also discrimination on pregnancy status. What a bizarre claim. Your parent poster explicitly said they tried to organize group activities where everyone - including the old man with bad knees - could participate. Knowing this, it's safe to assume they didn't have pregnant employees (if they chose alcohol related activities while striving to include everyone). > If not going creates a problem, it's mandatory, period. Again, such a weird position to take. So, in your opinion, no after work events should ever take place unless every single employee is present at all times and during all discussions? After all, that's what you were referring to with that "problem": a worker who is not present at an after-work discussion, leading to a slightly awkward situation the next monday.

by wrs 8y ago

curun1r 8y ago

Nothing was mandatory and, in fact, the team leads purposefully organized events to be inclusive to everyone on the team. That was the whole point...by including an older, less-physically-capable team member, it was no longer an option to do fun, youth-oriented team events. And that person was excluded from work-related conversations that happened at after-work bar trips, which caused some awkwardness when the rest of the team aligned behind a significant decision and the excluded team member felt like he wasn't consulted. The team had a 20s-oriented culture and all but one team member participated. You can call it age discrimination, but he didn't fit the culture. And by trying to force him into the culture, with the best of intentions, the company lost the rest of the team to other positions/companies. I guess what I'm saying is that many employees want their work to have a social component and will seek out employment that gives them that. So companies that don't include a culture fit criteria can risk alienating those employees. One would hope that a large enough company can use cultural fit as a sorting criteria more so than a filtering criteria. But the narrative that prevails here...cultural fit is just a code word for discrimination...feels too naive and lacking nuance. Human social interaction is complex and seeking to view workers as interchangeable cogs based on their capabilities to do work is much too simplistic. Which is not to say that cultural fit isn't an excuse to discriminate, which it often is. I'm only trying to point out that it's a really complex issue that has no universally correct side or answer. It's almost always situational and there's no blanket policy or rule that you can apply to address the issue. Trying to force companies to be culture-fit-blind causes its own set of problems. And I say all this as a 40s coder, so I'm sure I'd miss out on a number of positions based on cultural fit.

xyzzy123 8y ago
Perhaps you could have had a variety of team (or wider company events) where not everybody needed to go to every one. On a practical basis, more “all hands” (aka mandofun) events do need to be inclusive. In normal companies at least. This is usually considered alongside basic personnel stuff like catering for allergies and dietary preferences at shared meals. In my experience most organisations don’t have huge problems with this although the mandatory fun often isn’t. I also believe that major company/team decisions probably shouldn’t be made at bars but I get that not all companies are for everyone.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
astura 8y ago
>Nothing was mandatory Sounds like it was mandatory. >And that person was excluded from work-related conversations that happened at after-work bar trips, which caused some awkwardness when the rest of the team aligned behind a significant decision and the excluded team member felt like he wasn't consulted. If not going creates a problem, it's mandatory, period. Additionally, arranging your work discussions and decisions around alcohol consumption can absolutely be considered religions discrimination as many people don't consume alcohol for religious reasons and you certainly don't have any business justification for it. Also discrimination on pregnancy status. I'm sorry but "some employees desire youth-oriented forced 'socialization' after work hours" is not a justification for breaking the law, it just isn't.
- baobabKoodaa 8y ago
  > Additionally, arranging your work discussions and decisions around alcohol consumption can absolutely be considered religions discrimination as many people don't consume alcohol for religious reasons and you certainly don't have any business justification for it. Also discrimination on pregnancy status. What a bizarre claim. Your parent poster explicitly said they tried to organize group activities where everyone - including the old man with bad knees - could participate. Knowing this, it's safe to assume they didn't have pregnant employees (if they chose alcohol related activities while striving to include everyone). > If not going creates a problem, it's mandatory, period. Again, such a weird position to take. So, in your opinion, no after work events should ever take place unless every single employee is present at all times and during all discussions? After all, that's what you were referring to with that "problem": a worker who is not present at an after-work discussion, leading to a slightly awkward situation the next monday.