Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A note to our employees

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 421 posts

Re: A note to our employees

#171

Post by barrow-rider »

myle wrote: post #155
stickfigure wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the time you've excluded all the possible activities that someone could find isolating, you've got a pretty boring work environment. Here's the box you will be working in. Don't forget to turn off the light when you leave Friday.

That's OK. We are also supposed to have private life. If work is not fun enough without those events, maybe it is not fun in general.

I'll take it a step further -- why does work need to be fun?

It's my meal ticket, not my hobby; it needs to be tolerable.

The "fun at work" meme is, IMO, a way to keep people in the office longer a la the GOOOOG's Gilded Cage.

Re: A note to our employees

#172

Post by Spooky23 »

zaroth wrote: post #146
philip1209 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just ban alcohol at work? Why can't work be work, and social stuff can happen outside of it? I know it sounds a bit extreme. But, after reading "It doesn't have to be crazy it work," I feel like companies use alcohol to bribe employees to stay at the office after-hours. A midground would be drinking only with sit-down food. Nobody is doing shots while having dinner. Another idea could be making company social…

Feel free to ban anything you want at work. And the people who work there will select for if they want to be a part of it by becoming or remaining employees. (There are, of course, things that are illegal to ban) I personally want to work somewhere who values me as a responsible human being, and expects me to behave like one. The more a workplace feels like they have to micromanage their employees like children, the…

The positive aspect of banning alcohol consumption is that it's an objective measure. If somebody is a drunken lout pawing his employees, save the victim more exposure by drumming him out for the alcohol.

With the possible exception of salespeople entertaining clients, there's no need to drink on duty, and if you do, there is a consequence.

Re: A note to our employees

#173

Post by mynameishere »

adamrezich wrote: post #160
lallysingh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's helpful if you come from a different culture where some of those things would be considered acceptable.

Can you give a concrete example of this? I'm having a hard time imagining it.

Are there a lot of people asking intentionally daft questions in this thread?

"Gee willikers Wally, shouldn't we fire people for missing the highly informative HR-mandated 'be polite' video?"

No?

"Really? Gee, Willikers, why not?"

Anyway. These things have been a complete joke for a long time:

https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/tv-funhouse-se...

Re: A note to our employees

#174

Post by brlewis »

misiti3780 wrote: post #104
philip1209 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just ban alcohol at work? Why can't work be work, and social stuff can happen outside of it? I know it sounds a bit extreme. But, after reading "It doesn't have to be crazy it work," I feel like companies use alcohol to bribe employees to stay at the office after-hours. A midground would be drinking only with sit-down food. Nobody is doing shots while having dinner. Another idea could be making company social…

Why not NOT ban alcohol at work, and when an employee fucks up, just fire him ? Is that really not a solution here ? at the end of the day, people should be accountable for their own actions, and i should not be punished if i want to have a beer after working hours with colleagues because a tiny minority of people at my company cant drinking responsibly

What % of incidents were first offenses? Unless it's a really low number, firing after first offense won't reduce the total number of incidents enough.

Re: A note to our employees

#175

Post by CamTin »

jahlove wrote: post #77
favorited wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consistently failing to take training required by your employer is absolutely grounds for termination.

His suggestion wasn't about consistent failure. He said that employees should be fired if they don't take it, which is absurdly heavy handed.

Why? Your boss tells you to do something. You either do it, or she fires you. If you expect anything different, you are deluded.

Re: A note to our employees

#176

Post by cik2e »

philip1209 wrote: post #99
reaperducer wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it sounds a bit extreme. Not extreme at all. Except for salespeople having business lunches, in the United States, drinking on company time is pretty much verboten outside of the tech bubble.

WeWork banned meat at company events or on company expense accounts [1]. Would it be that hard to do something similar for alcohol? Then, bringing it back to Google, if people misbehave after having alcohol - then they bought the drinks, and came to a company event while intoxicated. When I was at OpenDNS, @davidu used to say something along the lines of, "When you try to host a big company party with over 100 people…

Absurd. I'd never work at such a company, in part due to the type of people that kind of policy would attract. If this rule was enacted and I was already an employee, I'd spend the money to bring large meat spreads to all of the events.

Re: A note to our employees

#177

Post by snowwrestler »

jrowley wrote: post #98
gnulinux wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never drank at work, I don't understand why people do...

When you're spending more time at work than at home, occasionally it's nice to have a beer at work. Don't get me wrong - I'd rather be at home, not working, drinking a beer but it's natural that drinking and work collide when you are working too much and are already stressed.

This is a really good point. A lot of things are going to collide if people are working too much and stressed.

The usual "best practice" advice on avoiding harassment is to not pursue romance at work... but how are folks supposed to do that if they don't have time to pursue it anywhere else? Alcohol might only be a minor contributing factor at that point.

Re: A note to our employees

#178

Post by michaelt »

reaperducer wrote: post #141
michaelt wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you fire a competent, productive employee for noncompliance if you could completely correct the noncompliance with a medium-sized slap on the wrist?

Because not attending the class makes them a million-dollar liability and a hazard to the company.

If you think sending people on a training course eliminates the company's liability, I've got bad news for you.

Re: A note to our employees

#179

Post by lallysingh »

adamrezich wrote: post #160
lallysingh wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's helpful if you come from a different culture where some of those things would be considered acceptable.

Can you give a concrete example of this? I'm having a hard time imagining it.

Repeatedly asking a woman out. I recall a friend upsetting a love interest because he didn't repeatedly ask her out, as was customary where she was from. She didn't think he was serious because he wasn't trying hard enough.

Not ok here, but different in other places.

Re: A note to our employees

#180

Post by Joakal »

This whole PR looks like a CYA for the company because all if not most of these changes occur are mandatory [0] or gestures due to the power that the harassers have over their subordinates (report me and you're fired!). Am I wrong to assume that all the serial sex harassers have been managers to their targets?

How about a subordinate relationship ban? This policy prohibiting relationships already occur for between doctor and patient, teacher and student. Even the recent police and detained people sex ban? [1]

[0] https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2018/10/04/new-california-law...

[1] http://m.amsterdamnews.com/news/2018/apr/05/bill-bans-cops-s...

If I was a protester, I would ask Google execs how these policies will tackle the abuse of power for sexual activity.

Post reply on HN