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

Inside the Mirrortocracy

carlos.bueno.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 214 posts

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#141

Post by jiggy2011 »

rayiner wrote: post #137
jiggy2011 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#142

Post by dragonwriter »

facepalm wrote: post #130
dragonwriter wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 di…

> 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.

A differentially-hostile work environment created by legal requirements of the job, e.g., working alongside people who you disapprove of because the employer is prohibited against discriminating against them to suit you, is not illegal discrimination.

> In fact if you think requiring drinking is discriminating, your are discriminating against the people who drink.

No, you wouldn't be, because not requiring drinking isn't discriminating against people who drink. (Not permitting drinking might be, but given alcohol's demonstrable effect on cognitive function, and the fact that a preference for drinking isn't a presumptively-illegal basis for discrimination in the first place, there are all kinds of reasons it almost certainly wouldn't be illegal discrimination in most cases.)

> What if the company owner is religious and doesn't want to hire people who drink for religious reasons - would that be better/OK?

Unless the "company" is a bona fide religious institution hiring people for a religious function, discrimination against employees (or potential employees) because they don't fit the company's (or owner's) religious preferences is textbook illegal discrimination, so, no, it wouldn't be "better".

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#143

Post by dragonwriter »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #127
rayiner wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#144

Post by jonnathanson »

facepalm wrote: post #130
dragonwriter wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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 di…

The point is that religion, sexual orientation, etc., aren't supposed to be criteria in your hiring process, one way or the other. It doesn't matter if you prefer atheists or devout Christians. You are welcome to hold personal beliefs about religion -- but the topic itself shouldn't come up in the interview. And unless you're a religious organization, I can think of few reasons why it should ever come up in the workplace at all.

Same thing with sexual orientation, or any other protected status. In a professional work environment, these things aren't factors.

Surely there's a way to test for "cultural fit" that doesn't involve directly, or indirectly, testing for protected status. And if your company's culture can't find a way to test for fit without testing for protected status, then your culture needs serious work.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#145

Post by pessimizer »

facepalm wrote: post #71
VexXtreme wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what is a good/correct hiring criterion? I was under the impression that nobody really knows. Actually I can't believe you can say this with a straight face. It is well known what a good hiring criterion is (e.g. productive, smart, not an asshole, can work with different people etc). All these things can be sussed out during the interview process quite professionally without resorting to questioning people's mus…

"productive, smart, not an asshole, can work with different people etc" People seem to struggle to determine those things during an interview, though. If you don't understand me, I can only diagnose a lack of curiosity on your part. Otherwise you would have read some of the countless articles on hiring issues by now. " people who can't get along with anyone who is not exactly like them" I never said anything like tha…

>I just think it is a good idea to judge people by what you know.

Do you know how to do your job, how to stick to a deadline, and how to work with other people?

>It's nice that you don't care about your coworkers as people (having dinner with them or becoming friends). I am sure there are loads of companies that are perfect for you, because they only require blue collar programming drones.

So if I don't drink with you, I must be a terrible, low-end uncreative programmer?

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#146

Post by jdbernard »

invalidOrTaken wrote: post #132

I agreed with the sentiment of this article, until I thought about it. No one owes you a job. If you think companies are missing out on your amazing talent, start your own and prove them wrong. This is a million times easier to do with software than with a white-shoe Wall Street firm.

I don't think the author is looking at it from the point of view of a disgruntled interviewee, rather from the point of view of the company.

    This implies that there is a large untapped talent pool to be developed. Since the tech war boils down to a talent war, the company that figures out how to get over itself and tap that pool wins.
He's not the guy looking for a job, he's the guy hiring, looking at all of his peers and scratching his head over their insular hiring practices.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#147

Post by dragonwriter »

jiggy2011 wrote: post #141
rayiner wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

> 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.

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#148

Post by pessimizer »

facepalm wrote: post #81
wavefunction wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's the point of the poster you're replying to. You examine the merits of someone's argument, not the fact they're one of the paypal founders. That is specifically the cult of personality referred to. Some people on this site seem to be desperate to fulfill the rituals they think will lead to success. Most of success is pure luck, combined with some preparation and ability to deliver.

"That is specifically the cult of personality referred to." But you are merely doing the same thing, except that you revere the author of the article more than the PayPal founder. Why should the article writer be more right than the PayPal founder?

This is the 'atheism is just another religion' argument, or the 'not being racist is just another racial preference' argument. You can't see the difference?

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#149

Post by dragonwriter »

jonnathanson wrote: post #144
facepalm wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 di…

The point is that religion, sexual orientation, etc., aren't supposed to be criteria in your hiring process, one way or the other. It doesn't matter if you prefer atheists or devout Christians. You are welcome to hold personal beliefs about religion -- but the topic itself shouldn't come up in the interview. And unless you're a religious organization, I can think of few reasons why it should ever come up in the workp…

> Surely there's a way to test for "cultural fit" that doesn't involve directly, or indirectly, testing for protected status.

I'm not sure that's the case -- a major part of "cultural fit" in many cases seems to be selecting along protected axis of discrimination by other names. (Heck, phrases very similar to that have been used to cover covert discrimination on protected axis since legal protections against discrimination were first adopted.)

Re: Inside the Mirrortocracy

#150

Post by jiggy2011 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #147
jiggy2011 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

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.
Post reply on HN