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.

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.

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.

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.

Feel free to hang out with your friends at bars, but don’t make them mandatory for work. This principle is not complicated.

No disabled people nor pregnant women either then? This company is practically begging to be sued into oblivion.

Woe unto your career if you ever try to start a family, or get injured ziplining, or develop liver disease, or anything else that would keep you out of the good graces of mandatory-after-hours group events.