7 ms·

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 a

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.
        jiggy2011 12y ago
        I'm thinking of something that is more half way between, this might be more of a British phenomenon as I think our bar culture is somewhat different to the one in the US.
        scott_s 12y ago
        English pubs are not quite the same as American bars. I wish that we had more pub-style establishments. American bars - even the ones that serve decent food - typically turn into semi-nightclubs after 9 pm.
        rayiner 12y ago
        Obviously you have to consider the social context. A place that's the local watering hole at night could just be a convenient lunch spot during the day. But the article mentioned going to a bar after dinner, which is generally a time and setting where people are out to drink and meet people to date. And yes, you can encounter unwanted attention anywhere, but at a bar at night, certain sorts of advances are acceptable and expected. Indeed, I'd raise an eyebrow if someone complained about getting unwanted but otherwise harmless attention at a bar. Those advances aren't what is inappropriate--it's holding a job interview in that setting that's inappropriate.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      There's a difference between each of these three things: 1) Drinking, and 2) Going to a bar of one's own choice, with one's chosen companions, socially, and 3) Being expected (even if not stricly required) to go to a bar "socially" with one's employer or potential employer as part of an activity which may have consequences for one's employment.
- 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

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.
        jiggy2011 12y ago
        I'm thinking of something that is more half way between, this might be more of a British phenomenon as I think our bar culture is somewhat different to the one in the US.
        scott_s 12y ago
        English pubs are not quite the same as American bars. I wish that we had more pub-style establishments. American bars - even the ones that serve decent food - typically turn into semi-nightclubs after 9 pm.
      - rayiner 12y ago
        Obviously you have to consider the social context. A place that's the local watering hole at night could just be a convenient lunch spot during the day. But the article mentioned going to a bar after dinner, which is generally a time and setting where people are out to drink and meet people to date. And yes, you can encounter unwanted attention anywhere, but at a bar at night, certain sorts of advances are acceptable and expected. Indeed, I'd raise an eyebrow if someone complained about getting unwanted but otherwise harmless attention at a bar. Those advances aren't what is inappropriate--it's holding a job interview in that setting that's inappropriate.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    There's a difference between each of these three things: 1) Drinking, and 2) Going to a bar of one's own choice, with one's chosen companions, socially, and 3) Being expected (even if not stricly required) to go to a bar "socially" with one's employer or potential employer as part of an activity which may have consequences for one's employment.
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