4 ms·

you’re paid to do your job. Being part of your job falls in the _doing the job_. What’s not on the contract is obviously not part of it. Doing hard drugs, as i

by skor 4y ago

you’re paid to do your job. Being part of your job falls in the _doing the job_. What’s not on the contract is obviously not part of it. Doing hard drugs, as is alcohol, is not part of any legal contract. My personal preference is to withdraw from any circumstances that include using hard drugs like alcohol with anyone you do serious work with. .. in fuzzy situations have a beer and make an excuse, it always works out better.

deltaseventhree 4y ago
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.
- a_techwriter_00 4y ago
  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?
  - deltaseventhree 4y ago
    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.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      >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...
      - deltasevenseven 4y ago
        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.
        coldtea 4y ago
        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.
        deltaseventhree 4y ago
        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.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >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.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
  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.
- mikem170 4y ago
  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.
  - deltaseventhree 4y ago
    > 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.
deltaseventhree 4y ago
You made edits, so I will address those: >Doing hard drugs, as is alcohol, is not part of any legal contract. Right but there's more to life then legal contracts. Many companies want a very close knit team. Part of this closeness comes from participating in extracurricular activities. Look beyond the legalities. If a team expects this and you know you don't want to provide this to the team, THEN why are you choosing to work for them? Why are you insisting on using the law to protect your employment for a company that obviously doesn't want you? Join the team that works for you. If you withdraw from all hard drugs, JOIN the company that doesn't HAVE that culture or leaves that CULTURE as OPTIONAL. For this guy in the article he joined a team that wasn't a good fit for him. Him getting fired was correct, he never fitted in. But I will say what's likely unfair is that the "fun" part should've been part of the job description. They should've put it in there, not explicitly but implied it such that this guy knew what he was getting into.
- skor 4y ago
  jumping into a fire or out of a plane is not on the contract but can be part of a “team building” activity. That is what i’m pointing out. > Look beyond the legalities haha, yeah thats the part that I want everyone to focus on in this debate.
  - deltaseventhree 4y ago
    > jumping into a fire or out of a plane is not on the contract but can be part of a “team building” activity. That is what i’m pointing out. There's a concept of common sense. With common sense we can easily rule out jumping off of planes and into fires without getting pedantic or technical. Let's use some of this sense when talking so things don't get overly technical. >haha, yeah thats the part that I want everyone to focus on in this debate. Do we let laws define what's right and wrong? Or do we use common sense? Obviously it's common sense. Because laws can have loopholes and what else is it but common sense that is used to identify these loop holes? In the end that is the basis for our judgement. Law is simply a way to codify our fuzzy sense of morality into an exact logic. The problem, however, is that it is often wrong (with loop holes and tax laws and such) and we have to fall back to a fuzzy sense of what is right or wrong. AKA common sense. Haha yeah, let's stick with common sense arguments rather then strict interpretations of the word of the law which is obviously flawed.

by skor 4y ago

deltaseventhree 4y ago

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.

a_techwriter_00 4y ago
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?
- deltaseventhree 4y ago
  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.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >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...
    - deltasevenseven 4y ago
      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.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        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.
        deltaseventhree 4y ago
        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.
coldtea 4y ago
>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.
A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
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.
mikem170 4y ago
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.
- deltaseventhree 4y ago
  > 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.

deltaseventhree 4y ago

You made edits, so I will address those: >Doing hard drugs, as is alcohol, is not part of any legal contract. Right but there's more to life then legal contracts. Many companies want a very close knit team. Part of this closeness comes from participating in extracurricular activities. Look beyond the legalities. If a team expects this and you know you don't want to provide this to the team, THEN why are you choosing to work for them? Why are you insisting on using the law to protect your employment for a company that obviously doesn't want you? Join the team that works for you. If you withdraw from all hard drugs, JOIN the company that doesn't HAVE that culture or leaves that CULTURE as OPTIONAL. For this guy in the article he joined a team that wasn't a good fit for him. Him getting fired was correct, he never fitted in. But I will say what's likely unfair is that the "fun" part should've been part of the job description. They should've put it in there, not explicitly but implied it such that this guy knew what he was getting into.

skor 4y ago
jumping into a fire or out of a plane is not on the contract but can be part of a “team building” activity. That is what i’m pointing out. > Look beyond the legalities haha, yeah thats the part that I want everyone to focus on in this debate.
- deltaseventhree 4y ago
  > jumping into a fire or out of a plane is not on the contract but can be part of a “team building” activity. That is what i’m pointing out. There's a concept of common sense. With common sense we can easily rule out jumping off of planes and into fires without getting pedantic or technical. Let's use some of this sense when talking so things don't get overly technical. >haha, yeah thats the part that I want everyone to focus on in this debate. Do we let laws define what's right and wrong? Or do we use common sense? Obviously it's common sense. Because laws can have loopholes and what else is it but common sense that is used to identify these loop holes? In the end that is the basis for our judgement. Law is simply a way to codify our fuzzy sense of morality into an exact logic. The problem, however, is that it is often wrong (with loop holes and tax laws and such) and we have to fall back to a fuzzy sense of what is right or wrong. AKA common sense. Haha yeah, let's stick with common sense arguments rather then strict interpretations of the word of the law which is obviously flawed.