A note to our employees • Hacker News Board

Re: A note to our employees

#221

Post by rkuykendall-com » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 10:15 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #207

zaroth wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I personally want to work somewhere who values me as a responsible human being, and expects me to behave like one. Responsible human beings don't drink alcohol in the workplace. If a person is drawing a salary, they should be presenting to work fit & as prepared as possible to do it. There is no good reason for employees to be drinking at or prior to work. Unless, I suppose, there is some well-replicated study show…

> alcohol in low doses increases cognitive function

https://xkcd.com/323/

Re: A note to our employees

#222

Post by meowface » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 10:17 PM UTC

aaaaaaaaaab wrote: post #202

CamTin wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From context I'd guess he means 45% male, 45% female, 10% non-binary.

Oh, I see! I wasn’t familiar with this term. So, this system is used in the United States, right?

The poster was suggesting a hypothetical situation where that is a policy. Very few places in the US have 50/50 gender quotas, and I doubt any have quotas which include non-binary people. I believe they were mocking the idea.

Re: A note to our employees

#223

Post by snowwrestler » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 10:17 PM UTC

Aqua wrote: post #112

thoughtexplorer wrote: post #4

Serious question: Does the Chief Diversity Officer include diversity of ideas and experience? Or is it just skin deep like it sounds? Edit: Lots of up and down votes. Why is this question so controversial? I'd like to see an argument as to why it's an invalid or flawed question.

To me the notion of a need for diversity in a workplace is absurd. Seriously, whats the point? There are and always have been professions dominated by men and those dominated by women. From the perspective of an employer, gender, skin colour or political views should be completely irrelevant when it comes to making a hire/no hire decision. By introducing rules that aim to achieve a 50/50 distribution of e.g. each gen…

> since you had to reject a number of candidates that likely were more qualified for the position in order to reach your equal distribution goals

Your assumption here is that the status quo of hiring is an optimum that must be sacrificed for diversity.

The reality is that every hiring program already uses diversity as a criterion, but unless a measurable objective is set, it will invisibly optimize for the comfort of current employees, rather than job performance.

The purpose of measuring diversity in hiring practices is to remove or control a confounding factor, not to add one.

Re: A note to our employees

#224

Post by Aeolun » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 10:19 PM UTC

thoughtexplorer wrote: post #4

Serious question: Does the Chief Diversity Officer include diversity of ideas and experience? Or is it just skin deep like it sounds? Edit: Lots of up and down votes. Why is this question so controversial? I'd like to see an argument as to why it's an invalid or flawed question.

It’s not an invalid question. It just tramples on a lot of peoples toes.

Re: A note to our employees

#225

Post by meowface » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 10:19 PM UTC

krapp wrote: post #203

Aqua wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me the notion of a need for diversity in a workplace is absurd. Seriously, whats the point? There are and always have been professions dominated by men and those dominated by women. From the perspective of an employer, gender, skin colour or political views should be completely irrelevant when it comes to making a hire/no hire decision. By introducing rules that aim to achieve a 50/50 distribution of e.g. each gen…

>There are and always have been professions dominated by men and those dominated by women. From the perspective of an employer, gender, skin colour or political views should be completely irrelevant when it comes to making a hire/no hire decision. What you're missing is that many employers don't have the perspective whereby gender, skin color or political views are irrelevant. Biases against gender, race and religion…

>What you're missing is that many employers don't have the perspective whereby gender, skin color or political views are irrelevant. Biases against gender, race and religion are part of the reason that many professions have been dominated by certain races, genders and religions (although laws have attempted to counteract this effect.)

Yes, but you can mitigate those biases with gender/race-blind hiring practices. This seems like a much fairer and more reasonable option than enforcing quotas.

Re: A note to our employees

#226

Post by gweinberg » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 10:20 PM UTC

walshemj wrote: post #204

706f6f70 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Plus, surface diversity is much easier to measure; and you optimize for your metrics. I think this is key. Until "diversity" becomes so absolutely fragmented that you get back down to the level of the individual (e.g.you need a non-Hispanic Latino coder, who is Christian but not Catholic, was born poor but still got into an Ivy League, must be over 6 feet tall, and her name must begin with "A"), we will continue to…

Non Hispanic Latino ? isn't that a moot point at his point in history un less you ant to go back to the Spanish/French system of race classification

I think Non Hispanic Latino means Brazilian.

Re: A note to our employees

#227

Post by wvenable » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 10:20 PM UTC

grandmczeb wrote: post #61

snowwrestler wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sexual harassment prevention training is an area where HR and employee incentives are well-aligned today, because the risk of a sexual harassment incident has a large reputational component. Gone are the days when a company just needed a box to tell a court that they checked. The public doesn't care about those boxes. The only way to manage the reputational risk of sexual harassment is to really try to prevent incide…

Is there any research on the effect of training on sexual assault in the workplace?

I think it probably removes plausible deniability by the perpetrator. If someone did X and X is explicitly in the sexual harassment training then they don't much of a leg to stand on that way.

Re: A note to our employees

#228

Post by craftyguy » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 10:21 PM UTC

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.

I didn't have any suggestions, I merely asked for the counter argument to the idea.

Re: A note to our employees

#229

Post by afandian » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 10:23 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #207

zaroth wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I personally want to work somewhere who values me as a responsible human being, and expects me to behave like one. Responsible human beings don't drink alcohol in the workplace. If a person is drawing a salary, they should be presenting to work fit & as prepared as possible to do it. There is no good reason for employees to be drinking at or prior to work. Unless, I suppose, there is some well-replicated study show…

You have a very narrow view of "the workplace".

I used to work for a large well respected software company. On Fridays, after work, there was a subsidized bar where we could have a beer or two and discuss work or non-work things in a more relaxed atmosphere. Would you ban that?

If I go to a conference and we have an official conference social meet-up should I be prohibited from consuming alcohol?

I have my own straw man. You say:

> they should be presenting to work fit & as prepared as possible to do it

I propose that we ban coffee in the workplace because we should all be at 100% all the time and coffee obviously shows you aren't turning up ready to work.

Re: A note to our employees

#230

Post by xkcd-sucks » Thu, Nov 08, 2018, 10:23 PM UTC

docker_up wrote: post #157

jklinger410 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of a step backwards in terms of accountability, no? Scapegoating alcohol seems like an excuse and really is like babysitting your adult employees. My view - Drink as much alcohol as you like! And if you imbibe too much, and do stupid things, that shows deficient decision making abilities, and you aren't fit to work here.

Unless you are an alcoholic, and you literally can't control yourself. Then parading out alcohol and then punishing her by firing her for not being able to control herself seems a bit unfair.

That would sound like a case where the employee could disclose her alcoholism as a disability, and request the "reasonable accommodation" that no work events she is required to attend have alcohol. Then, if it can be demonstrated that she's actually required to go to a drinking event, gets trashed and acts an ass, she's got a wrongful termination claim. IANAL of course