And I think it shouldn't be. Companies should be about work and professionalism, not culture and other touch feely BS.
At best, a cultural fit that would disqualify one is if they're a pacifict and the company makes weapons, or something similar.
Not if they don't like BS company mandated non-work activities, bro-style interaction, political partisanship forced upon employees, alcohol-fueld bonding, or "we overwork employees 24/7 because they are starry-eyed idiots fresh out of college with no personal life, and you should work like that too", and so on.
Professionalism is an artificial construct. Throughout most of human history people operated as tribes and social groups. All the touchy and feely BS was inevitable.
Given that it's part of our biological and anthropological nature you literally cannot expect no team to be formed this way at all. Many teams want this level of synergy and because it is a natural part of our history and biology it is inevitable that many teams will be formed this way REGARDLESS of the law.
Learn to identify these teams and join the team that fits you. I think it is completely wrong to forcefully embed yourself in a team where you don't fit in and use the law to help you remain on this team and enforce your idea of professionalism. You will literally destroy the spirit of the team.
Under our current culture and law there will definitely be teams that value what you value. And that is where you fit in and that is the company you should join. But have understanding and empathy to see why this "bro-style" interaction and "alcohol fueled" bonding is necessary in other teams.
Most things are.
Why is it a requirement to join any team at all, which also happens to be an artificial construct?
>Why is it a requirement to join any team at all, which also happens to be an artificial construct?
It is not a requirement to join a team at all. You can join no team, and that is your choice. Likely though you will want to join a team to survive. In the past humans survived in groups. A human that is not part of a tribe likely had a low chance of survival.
Nowadays you need to join a team to get a salary. But nowadays you have an extra option. You can join something called a "professional" team which is a team that separates your personal life from your "professional" one. However the traditional concept of a "team" still exists and you can choose not to join such a team if choose not to.
I ask though that you have the wisdom to see why the concept of the "traditional team" still exists and why such teams are still effective in our society.
Think about it this way. Team bonding activities still exist. They exist for a reason and that reason is because the company that created that activity WANTS you to join it. The requirement is still there.
It is not unreasonable to see how some teams WANT these traditional bonding activities more then other teams. It all depends on the dynamics and for you to force the team to abide by your dynamics of "professionalism" is wrong. You have options, JOIN the team that works.
<< The concept of Teams are not a an artificial construct. They are part of biology both inside and outside of human biology.
We might be getting a little esoteric here. If "Teams" is a concept then just from that name alone you can determine that it refers to an idea ( artificial construct ). And biology does not automatically wills teams into existence ( although it might happen to result in them as our environment seems to indicate ). Do you mean evolution?
<< Why is it a requirement to join any team at all, >> It is not a requirement to join a team at all. >> Nowadays you need to join a team to get a salary.
So it is a requirement?
<< Think about it this way. Team bonding activities still exist.
I think that is a really bad argument. Slavery still exists ( sadly ) and I would not even dream of thinking considering recommending it.
<< They exist for a reason and that reason
Yep, and now we evolved into something better. Could we move onto Team 2.0 so to speak?
<< It is not unreasonable to see how some teams WANT these traditional
I guess it depends. Some traditions are more upsetting than others. Would you advocate for a team that wants to continue a tradition of child sacrifice?
edit: removed specific god reference. it is not necessary for the argument to work
No, team is a name for a concept that exist outside of just an idea. Animals display team like behavior in things we term as "herds" or "flocks". Team is simply a name for cooperation or group behavior.
It is a biological concept for two reasons. First it exists in animals. Animals tend not to have culture or learned behavior. Most animals form social groups (aka teams) naturally with minimal culture indicating that a "team" is not an idea but that it is hard wired behavior within their brains.
The second reason is that humans are heavily influenced by cultures and ideas. A huge portion of our behavior across continents and peoples is divergent and different indicating that the behavior is "learned" or "created" out of ideas. The thing with teams is that it is a quality that is universal across cultures and peoples. There is no divergence. There is no culture that doesn't understand the concept of cooperation or teams. This makes it highly highly likely that the concept of a "team" is biological. It is behavior hardwired into our brain in the same way that pain or hunger is hardwired into our brains. All humans form teams, all humans get hungry.
The one difference here is that hunger forms a somewhat distinct sensation separate from consciousness in our brains so we can easily tell that "hunger" is distinct. Team building and forming is however woven directly into our consciousness so it's harder to see the separation between "learned" and "inborn". The outside evidence, however, points to biology as the origin. All cultures form teams and cooperate. All cultures get hungry.
>So it is a requirement?
No it's not a requirement.
>I think that is a really bad argument. Slavery still exists ( sadly ) and I would not even dream of thinking considering recommending it.
For THAT specific comment I am saying that team bonding activities exist for a reason. A purpose. That is VALID supporting evidence for my point.
You are conflating that point with Morality which is completely separate. For example there's plenty of examples of wars and conflicts between people who didn't bond well. People have died because of failure of team bonding. Therefore team bonding should be a requirement. Is that valid? No. The truth is much more complex.
That being said Team bonding has it's place. There is reasoning for why it exists and conflating it with slavery is really taking it too far. We both know the importance of team bonding. If you're not bonding with your team at work, then you're focusing your time on a different team outside of work. You value team bonding. Likely it is your family. Should I conflate this with slavery? Is that a reasonable tangent? No.
>Yep, and now we evolved into something better. Could we move onto Team 2.0 so to speak?
I would say we didn't. We have no idea whether it's team 2.0 or a regression. You have no evidence for this either way. I would say that the current configuration of "professional teams" just fits your current work style and life. It works for you, so you like to think it's "team 2.0" when really we need data to know either way.
>I guess it depends. Some traditions are more upsetting than others. Would you advocate for a team that wants to continue a tradition of child sacrifice?
This is taking it too far. Let me reword this in a way that makes more sense and still conveys your point without being ludicrous. The restaurant Hooters exclusively hires employees based off the tradition of breast size and lacking a penis. Do I advocate that?
Yes I do. Each team has different requirements, short of child sacrifice I think a requirement like being similar to the team and enjoying team bonding activities is NOT unreasonable.
IMO that is a valid metric to hire someone.
What fun, eh?
You're speaking from towers of huge privilege with mininal compassion. If you think what you're forcing people working for you to do - or lose their job - is bonding, think again.
Thus you are the one speaking from a place a minimal compassion. Think on that.
Let me put more emphasis on what I thought was implied but didn't get through. I think these things need to be part of a job description.
If the expectation is MADE clear to the employee before he is hired, then it's fair game. He volunteered for this stuff. I am not advocating forcing this stuff onto people who didn't know about it.
The problem is etiquette. It's sort of not good to put this in the job description officially so employers need to somehow subtly convey this employees that this is what will be expected.
You might be surprised, but even if not, using the "less privileged" card from a position of someone in power enforcing illegal and unethical mandates on potential and existing employees is not the best application for it.
>The problem is etiquette. It's sort of not good to put this in the job description officially so employers need to somehow subtly convey this employees that this is what will be expected.
No, the problem with doing something illegal (that you can't explicitly put in the job description even) AND douchey is that it's illegal and douchey.
"How you'd do this bullying coercion subtly so you get what you want and screw the employees" is not a real problem.
It's not a card. I don't even care to reveal it. I revealed it ONLY because someone decided to use identity politics against me for no goddamn reason.
And here you are turning it around again. Let's just stop with this vile nonsense.
>No, the problem with doing something illegal (that you can't explicitly put in the job description even) AND douchey is that it's illegal and douchey.
Do not fucking insult me. Calling me douchey is fucking rude and against the rules here. Either speak to me respectfully or don't speak here at all.
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.
>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.
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.
We expect you to drink and bond with the team. We are looking for a person who is very similar and can fit in very well socially with the team we have built.
Let me ask you, do you think what the later person did is fair?
If an employer want an employee to spend the time between 17:00 to 01:00 at a bar then they can do what the owner of the bar do, employ a person to be in that bar. If the french law is similar to other countries then they would have to pay night wages, follow maximum work hours, and follow work safety regulations. There will also be a work contract that cover those hours.
If they don't want to employ a person for this job, or they don't want to follow the law that regulate employees, then don't use employees.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
In the US, that would be inviting an age discrimination lawsuit. It's admitting that the company preferentially hires young people (which is illegal), and implying that older people wouldn't "fit in" and would thus be discriminated against.
No, I'm telling you is unfair, unethical, and illegal in many jurisdictions, to ask for the above qualities for an unrelated job (that is, you could ask a wine taster to be alcohol as part of the job. A developer or a show salesman, not so much, and it doesn't matter if it's on the job ad - putting it on the job ad is already icky, and in many jurisdictions illegal).
You can't ethically ask potential employees to "party and drink" for doing a job that's not related to bars and parties, whether it's software engineering or operating a crane.
The whole exchange seems to lack an understanding of the law (e.g. related to age or forcing things like drinking, or even the legality of asking for those things in the ad and/or firing someone who doesn't comply), and even why people would find it offensive and hummiliating. It's all about "but I pay and want a funny partying team", not very far from "but I pay and I want to be able to spit on the face on my employees every morning. If I put it on the job description surely they can't complain!".
Not to mention it's the legal duty to protect employees' health, and alcohol consumption is unhealthy, AND against certain religions AND destructive with certain conditions.
Might as well ask "no muslims", or "no diabetics" in your software engineering job ad.
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.
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.
In my experience, usually it is. But you have a point, if it isn't, I don't think it's fair.
E.g. previous company was full of young, attractive, single people and they loved to go out together. Fine, but I shouldn't be dinged for being older, married, and not very attractive and not being comfortable with bars and hot tubs. (Especially when any sort of friendliness towards young women is lasered in on, and not worth the professional risk)
Let me put it this way. If the job description expects it to be out of office and YOU chose to work for THAT job, then it's fair game to fire you should you choose not to live up to the spirit of the description.
But it shouldn't be forced upon you if it's not part of the job description.
Overall though I don't think it's much of a problem. Most companies are, like you said, they leave the participation to be optional and everyone is cool with it.
I mean, i don't drink anymore, and i avoid having sex with people i work with at all cost nowadays. Why is the alcohol more part of the team culture than promiscuity?
To be completely honest, i think promiscuity (even when not helped by alcohol) is a better team-builder than alcohol. I mean, most of us have been students, i expect the US to have a more involved punk and hippie culture than my country (and in my country, sex was pretty much expected in these circle when i was a student) and if i read the "frat" stories right, you don't even have to be a fringe leftist to use sex as a team-building tool, it seems to be more mainstream.
I also have been a youth camp counselor, and been with coastguards during summertime, those are at least two job where promiscuity is expected (you don't HAVE to partake, and you won't be fired if you don't), and i built stronger friendships there than at my first CS internship where the only teambuilding tool was alcohol (and food).
Let's say there weren't any moral hang ups and people readily put this thing in job descriptions. If you refused when offered then it's fair game if you're fired.
I have no exact answer here, but I do empathize with your angle.
For example, alcohol. Alcohol is still culturally dominant, especially in Europe. Does your take mean if you don’t want to drink, you should just keep quitting?
Drinking is culturally dominant in Europe but what's also culturally dominant is that drinking shouldn't be forced. And many companies follow this rule from a cultural standpoint.
There are many teams that have fun and allow employees to not join in on the fun. BUT there are teams where this is sort of expected. For you: join the former team not the later and have empathy to see why the later team exists.
Many companies are looking for a team with synergy which is more then just coming in, doing the work, and leaving. If you don't have this synergy, don't join. Join the company that works for you.
Just look for a different company!?
Most people don't have multiple job offers lined up, which is why it's important that employees have some protection.
And it's usually for the best of everyone. Even if you enjoy the social activities of your job, at some point you might decide not to go drinking every week, and you shouldn't be fired for that.
Should men be hired as wet nurses and midwives? I think the answer is No. At certain times it's not appropriate.
But that's besides the point. Let's not get into this because it's a flamewar topic.
>Most people don't have multiple job offers lined up, which is why it's important that employees have some protection.
I agree. Put it this way. I think it's fair game for the employee to HAVE this protection if he didn't know it's part of job.
But if he knew, and he's taking advantage of this protection then it's not fair game.
>And it's usually for the best of everyone. Even if you enjoy the social activities of your job, at some point you might decide not to go drinking every week, and you shouldn't be fired for that.
I think it's quite obvious if you read between the lines that he's not fired for not drinking. He's fired because he didn't fit in and doesn't get along with the team.
Nobody fires someone just because they didn't drink but is a cool guy to get along with. Basically what's going on now is a lot of people don't like him, and people are forced to work with him.
It's not the job of a fucking employer to expect you to drink or not drink. Except if you work at a hostess bar.
It shouldn't even be put as an option to "expect you to drink". Like employees shouldn't also "just find a job where they don't except you to laught at their sexist remarks at you" should not be an option.
>BUT there are teams where this is sort of expected.
There are also teams were sexual harassment, racism, bullying etc is expected. So?
I am explicitly talking about partying and having fun in extra curricular activities with employees. I'm saying regardless of the law, it's fair for an employer to expect this of the employee ONLY IF the employee KNEW about this expectation before joining.
I make a case for this by saying how this type of stuff does in fact benefit the team overall.
Yeah, and I am explicitly liking it to other unacceptable things, as it itself is.
Nobody should be forced to drunk, or party, as part of "extra curricular activities with employees", or seen as a spoil-sport for not doing so, much less even considering firing him.
To see how disturbing this can go, consider employee that was once an alcoholic and wants to fully abstain fun or not, or someone having traumatic experience by having an alcoholic in their family...
To be frank, your position is beyond the pale. It's only considered because of old-school disturbing manner of thining about what a company (or team within one) should be able to expect from someone working for them.
No, I think you're misinterpreting. Let me elucidate my position in more detail.
It is fair game for the employer to be upfront about all of this stuff BEFORE the employee is hired. It needs to be in the job description. The employer wants someone who can bond and party with the team, and it is within his right to look for such a person.
It is not right for the employer to find a person who is not this person then force him to conform.
That is my stance. Looking for employees who like to drink, party and socialize with the entire team is fair game.
Obviously the man in the article was hired because the employers THOUGHT he was that person. The fact that he wasn't was miscommunication likely from both parties. Regardless of the law he doesn't fit in with the team at all. Getting fired is bound to happen.
But making it an expectation for a job that has nothing to do with alcohol? Yeah no.
Alternatively: you should find a friend group that isn’t your coworkers if you want to have more selective control over who is “in” with your group.
Why not? I want my employee to fit in with the team. If they drink then I want someone who drinks. This is reasonable. There are subtle performance effects on the ENTIRE team when hiring someone too divergent.
As an employer I want my employees to all be friends. If I make this request in the job description I think that's perfectly fair. If I spring this request unknowingly onto someone who just got hired then it's unfair.
In what universe? Sorry, but only a sociopathic boss would consider this "reasonable".
In fact, if what you wrote as "reasonable" was explicitly stated as an expectation in company communications, the company could be sued out of existence, and would surely could Twitter-red out of business too, and any team manager in a larger company would be fired with the compamny trying to disassociate with it as much as possible...
My point is it is reasonable for an employer to LOOK for an employee with these characteristic qualities.
It is unreasonable for an employee to demand this behavior out of you when they didn't inform you up front that's what they hired you for.
So in other words, this kind of stuff needs to be put in the job description. It needs to be explicit. In that case it is fair.
Like someone shouldn't be obligated to stay after work to do "fun" stuff. But they shouldn't be constantly avoiding it and obviously not fit in at all with the company.
It's a fuzzy line that's hard to define, so I think the law is correct here in terms of drawing a line rather then keeping something ambiguous and fuzzy. But if we go beyond the law and look at it from a practical standpoint, this guy likely didn't fit in and likely wasn't a good team member in terms of getting along with people.
The laws say that work is just a job and if you do the work then you're good and that is the definition of the job, but it's often more then that. Your joining a team, a tribe a culture and sometimes many companies are looking for such a person.
Maybe they should list having fun in the job description. That we expect someone to have fun with us, be part of the culture and come to our parties and stuff like that. That would be a fair deal. I've been on teams where this stuff is important and on those teams they definitely didn't want a person who just came to work for a paycheck and left asap.
There are however tons of jobs where all they care about is your work and absolutely nothing else and I feel this guy should just look for that sort of job rather then trying to forcefully embed himself into a culture where he doesn't fit.