6 ms·

Yep. I'd decline and not get the job. I know that already [hint: I don't drink]. It is quite amazing how many people are completely oblivious to their own bias

Yep. I'd decline and not get the job. I know that already [hint: I don't drink]. It is quite amazing how many people are completely oblivious to their own biases.

facepalm 12y ago
Who says they are oblivious? Maybe they just don't like to hire people who don't drink. Why should they be obliged to hire them?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- opendais 12y ago
  I never said they should be obligated to hire them. It is really inefficient to pick IT, UX, Sysadmin, etc. talent based on whether they drink or not. So I'm assuming they are oblivious.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    I'm sure if they are desperate enough they will overlook the drinking requirement. Maybe the hiring situation is not that desperate yet. Edit: re "religious" argument: surely you can get some non-alcoholic drink at a bar? Water, if nothing else?
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Many people do not drink for religious reasons. You are not obligated to hire people who drink, but by virtue of employment discrimination laws, you are obligated not to discriminate against women and minorities in hiring.
      - jiggy2011 12y ago
        Do a much lower percentage of (non pregnant) women drink? If that's true I certainly never noticed it. But I'm not from the US.
        rayiner 12y ago
        The issue is partially that pregnant women don't drink (and disclosing pregnancy shouldn't be part of the job interview), and partially that bars can be uncomfortable places for women. A woman should not have to worry about the guy one table over eying her up while she's trying to land a job. Bars are casual places, and it's not wrong to check someone out or hit on them. Indeed, that's one of the reasons people go to bars: to find a date. But these characteristics also make them inappropriate settings for a job interview. Personal aside: my daughter isn't job searching any time soon (she's a toddler), but the idea of her having to do a job interview at a bar makes me want to sue someone. "Scorched earth" wouldn't even begin to describe it.
        jiggy2011 12y ago
        Wouldn't that depend on the choice of bar? There's a big difference between a nightclub at midnight and a gastropub during lunch time, especially since the latter will tend to also serve a selection of non alcoholic drinks. People checking you out would also be a problem you could just as easily encounter at starbucks or indeed in the office.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Wouldn't that depend on the choice of bar? There's a big difference between a nightclub at midnight and a gastropub during lunch time Typically, one does not refer to a gastropub or other restaurant (even one which, as most do and as a gastropub does by definition, includes a bar) as "a bar". When one refers to an institution as "a bar", that generally implies that one is referring to an institution that is solely a bar, not a restaurant with a bar. Having part of an interview at a restaurant (even one which serves drinks) is a very different environment than doing so at a bar.
    - opendais 12y ago
      > I'm sure if they are desperate enough they will overlook the drinking requirement. Maybe the hiring situation is not that desperate yet. Right now, IT is a strong labor environment [e.g. Programmers get multiple offers if they look for a job and pick the best/highest one]. If you are so foolish as to make "drinking" a requirement, that means you are reducing the pool and raising the cost of the employee. You are free to do that. Your competitor who is more sensible is going to have more breathing room financially because of your poor choices. That tends to be a feedback cycle that causes them to slowly and inevitably beat you in a capitalist society.
      - facepalm 12y ago
        "That tends to be a feedback cycle that causes them to slowly and inevitably beat you in a capitalist society." Exactly! That's how it should be. Saying you should do this or that is rather pointless. The hard evidence is success and failure.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        opendais 12y ago
        Which is why any competent person that was aware that the interviewer's biases was the primary mechanism informing hiring choices...would decline. I'm not sure why we need to talk this long about it to go back to the parent post?
      - boomlinde 12y ago
        Capitalism solves the problem? Let's say a company is based on a highly successful concept (say, like Paypal). Couldn't their potential advantage over their competitors in other regards than employment practises offset the cost of only hiring drinkers? I really don't think that handling this on a "free to do that" basis is practically useful. If you don't feel like excluding non-drinkers is an issue, feel free to entertain that opinion. I just don't think that capitalism is a viable solution.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > Edit: re "religious" argument: surely you can get some non-alcoholic drink at a bar? Yes, and surely you can socialize in a brothel without actually engaging in their primary service, but that doesn't mean that holding part of a job interview there wouldn't create a differentially hostile environment to (among others) people who have religious objections to prostitution.
      - facepalm 12y ago
        Oh dear, if you want to accommodate for all religious preferences, it will become tricky soon. What if some religious person thinks homosexuals are bound for hell and they will be contaminated if they work alongside them? Seems like a real problem to me: either you discriminate against the religious person, or you discriminate against the homosexual, can't have them both. In fact if you think requiring drinking is discriminating, your are discriminating against the people who drink. There is just no way to get it right. What if the company owner is religious and doesn't want to hire people who drink for religious reasons - would that be better/OK? Sounds like a lot of bullshit to me - better to discard all the PC bullshit and go for what you really want. Honestly, personally I'd prefer to have colleagues who are not very religious. Maybe the law forbids screening for that, but I still think it is a sensible preference to have. (I am not currently hiring anybody, so I hope I am allowed to say that...).
        jdbernard 12y ago
        Or you keep interviews in a professional setting so as not to discriminate against either. That's the whole point of being professional. I'm a Christian, but I have no problem working for or with practising Muslims, as long as regular attendance at the Mosque is not a job requirement. I don't drink, but I have no problem working for or with people who like to drink, as long as regular attendance at the bar is not a job requirement. Edit To speak to your examples: the religious person should have the professionalism to keep their views of homosexuality out of their attitude at work. Similarly, the homosexual should keep their views of religion out of work. Tolerance does not mean agreement. It means we agree to disagree and get along with each other despite the disagreements.
        12y ago
- potatolicious 12y ago
  Nobody's saying they should be obliged - but their complaints about how hard it is to hire people should now be taken with a larger grain of salt. It certainly shows where on the spectrum they lie, between "wants to hire people to do a job" and "wants to hire people to hang out with". Personally, I've got plenty of friends I care deeply about and want to go drinking with, and while I'm not opposed to grabbing a beer with coworkers from time to time, my primary reason for showing up is to do good work, not play developmentally-delayed fraternity grabass. A company that places "drinkbuddyability" before "workability" is a place that's toxic to me. I feel that there is a growing disconnect in the industry, and a growing contingent of the industry that has reinterpreted tech's historical desire to be easy-going and not-uptight into some sort of frat-like organization.
  - EdwardDiego 12y ago
    Yep, precisely, I get on well with most of my workmates, and we have a few beers on Fridays together, but it's not mandatory. We're not hiring friends, we're hiring competent people we can get on with. Of all my workmates I'd only really call three of them friends outside of work.
- pessimizer 12y ago
  Meritocracy != Buddyocracy?
- tptacek 12y ago
  It's a little alarming how quick the thread here backed away from this point, to reassure you that nobody is really saying that anyone is obligated to disregard drinking habits. No. People should definitely be reinforcing this (very real) ethical obligation. Don't select candidates based on their willingness to go to a bar during the interview process.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    But why? I am not claiming it is a good idea. It wouldn't appeal to me at all. But why shouldn't people be free to hire in that way? What if the boss is somebody whose main lifestyle is hanging out in bars. Or the company wants to disrupt the nightlife business. I think people commenting and downvoting me have too much prejudice. You have a certain image of a company in mind, and judge by that. What about people who quit their jobs to run a company the way they like. Maybe they quit their job so that they can run their company from a bar. Lot's of companies are being run from Starbucks (or so I hear), is that despicable too? Legal things aside. I don't know about bars. It seems legal to meet candidates in a cafe, or over lunch? Or what if you go out partying and you meet somebody who you want to hire by chance? Even if you don't do it deliberately - if the hiring manager just likes to party and goes out every night, he would automatically be "discriminating" against people who don't go out, because they would have a lower chance of meeting him and being hired. Edit: would you say then that any looking for "cultural fit" is unethical?
- eli_gottlieb 12y ago
  There's a difference between a legal obligation and a rational move. It's not illegal to refuse to hire non-drinkers, but it is both irrational and even (if your firm becomes powerful in the labor market) somewhat unethical.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    I'm not claiming it is a good idea to do so, I am just questioning the claim that companies shouldn't be allowed to do so. I think most commentators here immediately think of a big, powerful corporation and poor, desperate employees jumping through hoops to get any job. But that certainly isn't the normal case. If somebody is motivated to fund a company to be able to run things in a way they enjoy, they should be allowed to do so (of course there are limits, but liking to hang out with colleagues is not the limit). Imagine you are hiring your first employee, ever. Is it really outrageous to want to hire somebody you get along with well (more than just "being professional")? That person will be the only other human being you will be exposed to for a majority of your time. Maybe in a big open plan office with hundreds of employees those concerns are less important (among hundreds, you will find some likeminded souls). But not every company is that big.
    - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
      >Is it really outrageous to want to hire somebody you get along with well (more than just "being professional")? This depends how well. I don't need to hire someone I would go out at night with. I am not hiring friends or prospective spouses. I need to hire someone who will get the job done.

Yep. I'd decline and not get the job. I know that already [hint: I don't drink]. It is quite amazing how many people are completely oblivious to their own biases.

facepalm 12y ago

Who says they are oblivious? Maybe they just don't like to hire people who don't drink. Why should they be obliged to hire them?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
opendais 12y ago
I never said they should be obligated to hire them. It is really inefficient to pick IT, UX, Sysadmin, etc. talent based on whether they drink or not. So I'm assuming they are oblivious.
- facepalm 12y ago
  I'm sure if they are desperate enough they will overlook the drinking requirement. Maybe the hiring situation is not that desperate yet. Edit: re "religious" argument: surely you can get some non-alcoholic drink at a bar? Water, if nothing else?
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Many people do not drink for religious reasons. You are not obligated to hire people who drink, but by virtue of employment discrimination laws, you are obligated not to discriminate against women and minorities in hiring.
    - jiggy2011 12y ago
      Do a much lower percentage of (non pregnant) women drink? If that's true I certainly never noticed it. But I'm not from the US.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        The issue is partially that pregnant women don't drink (and disclosing pregnancy shouldn't be part of the job interview), and partially that bars can be uncomfortable places for women. A woman should not have to worry about the guy one table over eying her up while she's trying to land a job. Bars are casual places, and it's not wrong to check someone out or hit on them. Indeed, that's one of the reasons people go to bars: to find a date. But these characteristics also make them inappropriate settings for a job interview. Personal aside: my daughter isn't job searching any time soon (she's a toddler), but the idea of her having to do a job interview at a bar makes me want to sue someone. "Scorched earth" wouldn't even begin to describe it.
        jiggy2011 12y ago
        Wouldn't that depend on the choice of bar? There's a big difference between a nightclub at midnight and a gastropub during lunch time, especially since the latter will tend to also serve a selection of non alcoholic drinks. People checking you out would also be a problem you could just as easily encounter at starbucks or indeed in the office.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > Wouldn't that depend on the choice of bar? There's a big difference between a nightclub at midnight and a gastropub during lunch time Typically, one does not refer to a gastropub or other restaurant (even one which, as most do and as a gastropub does by definition, includes a bar) as "a bar". When one refers to an institution as "a bar", that generally implies that one is referring to an institution that is solely a bar, not a restaurant with a bar. Having part of an interview at a restaurant (even one which serves drinks) is a very different environment than doing so at a bar.
  - opendais 12y ago
    > I'm sure if they are desperate enough they will overlook the drinking requirement. Maybe the hiring situation is not that desperate yet. Right now, IT is a strong labor environment [e.g. Programmers get multiple offers if they look for a job and pick the best/highest one]. If you are so foolish as to make "drinking" a requirement, that means you are reducing the pool and raising the cost of the employee. You are free to do that. Your competitor who is more sensible is going to have more breathing room financially because of your poor choices. That tends to be a feedback cycle that causes them to slowly and inevitably beat you in a capitalist society.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      "That tends to be a feedback cycle that causes them to slowly and inevitably beat you in a capitalist society." Exactly! That's how it should be. Saying you should do this or that is rather pointless. The hard evidence is success and failure.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - opendais 12y ago
        Which is why any competent person that was aware that the interviewer's biases was the primary mechanism informing hiring choices...would decline. I'm not sure why we need to talk this long about it to go back to the parent post?
    - boomlinde 12y ago
      Capitalism solves the problem? Let's say a company is based on a highly successful concept (say, like Paypal). Couldn't their potential advantage over their competitors in other regards than employment practises offset the cost of only hiring drinkers? I really don't think that handling this on a "free to do that" basis is practically useful. If you don't feel like excluding non-drinkers is an issue, feel free to entertain that opinion. I just don't think that capitalism is a viable solution.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Edit: re "religious" argument: surely you can get some non-alcoholic drink at a bar? Yes, and surely you can socialize in a brothel without actually engaging in their primary service, but that doesn't mean that holding part of a job interview there wouldn't create a differentially hostile environment to (among others) people who have religious objections to prostitution.
    - facepalm 12y ago
      Oh dear, if you want to accommodate for all religious preferences, it will become tricky soon. What if some religious person thinks homosexuals are bound for hell and they will be contaminated if they work alongside them? Seems like a real problem to me: either you discriminate against the religious person, or you discriminate against the homosexual, can't have them both. In fact if you think requiring drinking is discriminating, your are discriminating against the people who drink. There is just no way to get it right. What if the company owner is religious and doesn't want to hire people who drink for religious reasons - would that be better/OK? Sounds like a lot of bullshit to me - better to discard all the PC bullshit and go for what you really want. Honestly, personally I'd prefer to have colleagues who are not very religious. Maybe the law forbids screening for that, but I still think it is a sensible preference to have. (I am not currently hiring anybody, so I hope I am allowed to say that...).
      - jdbernard 12y ago
        Or you keep interviews in a professional setting so as not to discriminate against either. That's the whole point of being professional. I'm a Christian, but I have no problem working for or with practising Muslims, as long as regular attendance at the Mosque is not a job requirement. I don't drink, but I have no problem working for or with people who like to drink, as long as regular attendance at the bar is not a job requirement. Edit To speak to your examples: the religious person should have the professionalism to keep their views of homosexuality out of their attitude at work. Similarly, the homosexual should keep their views of religion out of work. Tolerance does not mean agreement. It means we agree to disagree and get along with each other despite the disagreements.
      - 12y ago
potatolicious 12y ago
Nobody's saying they should be obliged - but their complaints about how hard it is to hire people should now be taken with a larger grain of salt. It certainly shows where on the spectrum they lie, between "wants to hire people to do a job" and "wants to hire people to hang out with". Personally, I've got plenty of friends I care deeply about and want to go drinking with, and while I'm not opposed to grabbing a beer with coworkers from time to time, my primary reason for showing up is to do good work, not play developmentally-delayed fraternity grabass. A company that places "drinkbuddyability" before "workability" is a place that's toxic to me. I feel that there is a growing disconnect in the industry, and a growing contingent of the industry that has reinterpreted tech's historical desire to be easy-going and not-uptight into some sort of frat-like organization.
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  Yep, precisely, I get on well with most of my workmates, and we have a few beers on Fridays together, but it's not mandatory. We're not hiring friends, we're hiring competent people we can get on with. Of all my workmates I'd only really call three of them friends outside of work.
pessimizer 12y ago
Meritocracy != Buddyocracy?
tptacek 12y ago
It's a little alarming how quick the thread here backed away from this point, to reassure you that nobody is really saying that anyone is obligated to disregard drinking habits. No. People should definitely be reinforcing this (very real) ethical obligation. Don't select candidates based on their willingness to go to a bar during the interview process.
- facepalm 12y ago
  But why? I am not claiming it is a good idea. It wouldn't appeal to me at all. But why shouldn't people be free to hire in that way? What if the boss is somebody whose main lifestyle is hanging out in bars. Or the company wants to disrupt the nightlife business. I think people commenting and downvoting me have too much prejudice. You have a certain image of a company in mind, and judge by that. What about people who quit their jobs to run a company the way they like. Maybe they quit their job so that they can run their company from a bar. Lot's of companies are being run from Starbucks (or so I hear), is that despicable too? Legal things aside. I don't know about bars. It seems legal to meet candidates in a cafe, or over lunch? Or what if you go out partying and you meet somebody who you want to hire by chance? Even if you don't do it deliberately - if the hiring manager just likes to party and goes out every night, he would automatically be "discriminating" against people who don't go out, because they would have a lower chance of meeting him and being hired. Edit: would you say then that any looking for "cultural fit" is unethical?
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
There's a difference between a legal obligation and a rational move. It's not illegal to refuse to hire non-drinkers, but it is both irrational and even (if your firm becomes powerful in the labor market) somewhat unethical.
- facepalm 12y ago
  I'm not claiming it is a good idea to do so, I am just questioning the claim that companies shouldn't be allowed to do so. I think most commentators here immediately think of a big, powerful corporation and poor, desperate employees jumping through hoops to get any job. But that certainly isn't the normal case. If somebody is motivated to fund a company to be able to run things in a way they enjoy, they should be allowed to do so (of course there are limits, but liking to hang out with colleagues is not the limit). Imagine you are hiring your first employee, ever. Is it really outrageous to want to hire somebody you get along with well (more than just "being professional")? That person will be the only other human being you will be exposed to for a majority of your time. Maybe in a big open plan office with hundreds of employees those concerns are less important (among hundreds, you will find some likeminded souls). But not every company is that big.
  - eli_gottlieb 12y ago
    >Is it really outrageous to want to hire somebody you get along with well (more than just "being professional")? This depends how well. I don't need to hire someone I would go out at night with. I am not hiring friends or prospective spouses. I need to hire someone who will get the job done.