4 ms·

Isn't using Burning Man for networking and for discussion of business in itself problematic, as it excludes a significant (majority?) of the population that wou

Isn't using Burning Man for networking and for discussion of business in itself problematic, as it excludes a significant (majority?) of the population that would prefer to avoid going to alcohol/drug/sex fueled parties?

ChuckMcM 8y ago
Burning man, golf courses, bdsm parties, bridge games, yes all are problematic when they are "where business gets done." I have called out inappropriate venues for deciding workplace things in the past, my experience is that the person who arranged the situation understands it is inappropriate and they either don't care, or they want it that way.
- jandrese 8y ago
  Of all of the places where you shouldn't discuss business, Burning Man is near the top. The whole situation is weird. The victim applied for a position and was rejected. A week later she finds the guy who rejected her at Burning Man (on accident?) and he apparently gets the wrong idea about why she is there. It's pretty clear the guy needs to leave his job regardless if he was willing to reconsider her application if she took him up on the offer. Google doesn't need a casting couch manager.
  - ChuckMcM 8y ago
    I completely agree, I was just responding to the GP comment not the story as a whole.
- naasking 8y ago
  You haven't explained why they should care. As long as all participants agree to the venue, then what's the problem?
  - ChuckMcM 8y ago
    You will select against any participants who aren't interested or willing to meet you at the venue.
    - naasking 8y ago
      Let me quote my post again: > As long as all participants agree to the venue, then what's the problem? So your reply is invalid. At best, you might argue that it will select against people who are unwilling to speak up or raise objections. So what's the appropriate norm in this scenario: ban any place that could possibly be contentious to anyone, or encourage speaking up about your preferences? Suddenly it makes sense why the people don't seem to care about "appropriateness of venue", because they expect their fellow co-workers to be adults and equals, and speak their minds if they don't like something. Let's not pretend that enforcing "appropriate" meeting venues is the only viable option here.
      - ChuckMcM 8y ago
        In your statement, 'all participants' is problematic. Does everyone who works at Google go to Burning Man? Of course they don't. The only venue where the set of participants can actually meet the standard 'all' is the business itself or a business event. The canonical example from history is men getting business done while playing golf at the 'club'. Restrictions on the club (like men only in Atlanta) or ability of other employees to participate (women, disabled) disenfranchised those employees with respect to the kinds of decisions that were getting made on the golf course. It is inappropriate and it is bad for the company.
        naasking 8y ago
        > Does everyone who works at Google go to Burning Man? Of course they don't. And if anyone in a group meeting for work purposes doesn't like that venue, then they can say so. > The only venue where the set of participants can actually meet the standard 'all' is the business itself or a business event. No, that's the only venue if you want to restrict the agency of all the adults involved. This isn't necessary unless you think people are too mentally weak to voice their opinions. > The canonical example from history is men getting business done while playing golf at the 'club'. Restrictions on the club (like men only in Atlanta) or ability of other employees to participate (women, disabled) disenfranchised those employees with respect to the kinds of decisions that were getting made on the golf course. Hate to break it to you, this is still how a lot of business is conducted. There's no indication at all that this is "bad for the company". If one of the people involved were a woman, or were disabled in some way, then they are one of the participants that can voice their preference for a venue, and clearly some venues simply won't work for them. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but people develop the ability to negotiate and compromise by the time they're 10 years old. There's no need to establish a nanny state where venues that disadvantage those that aren't even participants are ruled out from the outset.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

Burning man, golf courses, bdsm parties, bridge games, yes all are problematic when they are "where business gets done." I have called out inappropriate venues for deciding workplace things in the past, my experience is that the person who arranged the situation understands it is inappropriate and they either don't care, or they want it that way.

jandrese 8y ago
Of all of the places where you shouldn't discuss business, Burning Man is near the top. The whole situation is weird. The victim applied for a position and was rejected. A week later she finds the guy who rejected her at Burning Man (on accident?) and he apparently gets the wrong idea about why she is there. It's pretty clear the guy needs to leave his job regardless if he was willing to reconsider her application if she took him up on the offer. Google doesn't need a casting couch manager.
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  I completely agree, I was just responding to the GP comment not the story as a whole.
naasking 8y ago
You haven't explained why they should care. As long as all participants agree to the venue, then what's the problem?
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  You will select against any participants who aren't interested or willing to meet you at the venue.
  - naasking 8y ago
    Let me quote my post again: > As long as all participants agree to the venue, then what's the problem? So your reply is invalid. At best, you might argue that it will select against people who are unwilling to speak up or raise objections. So what's the appropriate norm in this scenario: ban any place that could possibly be contentious to anyone, or encourage speaking up about your preferences? Suddenly it makes sense why the people don't seem to care about "appropriateness of venue", because they expect their fellow co-workers to be adults and equals, and speak their minds if they don't like something. Let's not pretend that enforcing "appropriate" meeting venues is the only viable option here.
    - ChuckMcM 8y ago
      In your statement, 'all participants' is problematic. Does everyone who works at Google go to Burning Man? Of course they don't. The only venue where the set of participants can actually meet the standard 'all' is the business itself or a business event. The canonical example from history is men getting business done while playing golf at the 'club'. Restrictions on the club (like men only in Atlanta) or ability of other employees to participate (women, disabled) disenfranchised those employees with respect to the kinds of decisions that were getting made on the golf course. It is inappropriate and it is bad for the company.
      - naasking 8y ago
        > Does everyone who works at Google go to Burning Man? Of course they don't. And if anyone in a group meeting for work purposes doesn't like that venue, then they can say so. > The only venue where the set of participants can actually meet the standard 'all' is the business itself or a business event. No, that's the only venue if you want to restrict the agency of all the adults involved. This isn't necessary unless you think people are too mentally weak to voice their opinions. > The canonical example from history is men getting business done while playing golf at the 'club'. Restrictions on the club (like men only in Atlanta) or ability of other employees to participate (women, disabled) disenfranchised those employees with respect to the kinds of decisions that were getting made on the golf course. Hate to break it to you, this is still how a lot of business is conducted. There's no indication at all that this is "bad for the company". If one of the people involved were a woman, or were disabled in some way, then they are one of the participants that can voice their preference for a venue, and clearly some venues simply won't work for them. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but people develop the ability to negotiate and compromise by the time they're 10 years old. There's no need to establish a nanny state where venues that disadvantage those that aren't even participants are ruled out from the outset.