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

Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 177 posts

Re: Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work

#161

Post by jqm »

ams6110 wrote: post #106
notNow wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask what's your objection to drinking beer? The reason I ask because some people abstain for religious reasons and I seriously don't relish the company of fundie folks around me because from experience over time they won't settle for exercising just their own rights but till they impose or restrict other people's rights or make them at least feel very uncomfortable in the workplace.

I worked at a company once that had a subset of employees that were very devout Christians. They would get together before lunch for prayer and that sort of thing, were friendly and welcoming but they never pushed it on anyone else and really didn't talk about it unless someone else raised the subject. They were all smart and got things done and it wasn't a problem. Honestly your comment sounds very similar to what p…

On the other hand I have experienced obnoxious religious people at work (certainly not most religious people of course). They wanted to make a big production and drama about their beliefs and still others wanted to evangelize on the sly. I don't know if it's coincidence, but the "excessively public" religious people to whom I'm referring (more than one workplace and incident) were one and all very poor workers.

Re: Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work

#162

Post by throwaway118376 »

notNow wrote: post #153
johngalt wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You define someone who doesn't drink beer as a religious fanatic? How about someone who doesn't eat pork? How do you not see this as wrong? It is the attitude you claim to despise, that you are currently exhibiting.

Again I have no prob with teetotalers whether for medical, social or religious reasons. The only prob I have is how to screen candidates to root out the fanatics and fundamentals from the moderate and regular conservative folks. Unfortunately, these two subgroups share common traits or values and abstaining from drinking is one of them. What I said was simply that I'd need to extract more info from the candidate to m…

OK, so it all makes sense now. You had a bad experience with one person so you use that as an excuse to generalize and become discriminatory toward humanity at large.

How is that fundamentally different from, say, seeing a person of a certain race do something bad and drawing racist conclusions, or being dumped by a woman and concluding all women suck, or seeing one person of religion X do something shitty and concluding all billion or so people of that religion suck?

In other words, you're falling into the same trap that racists and misogynists and homophobes and nationalists and others fall into across the entire world.

To which I have just one thing to say: put yourself in the other's shoes. Alright, so you'd clearly never be a religious fanatic, so you can't relate to that. But what if it were race or gender or something else? Let's say you're a member of some nationality, in a new country, trying to make the best of life. Some other person in your community who's from the same country does something really really shitty. All of a sudden, everyone hates you too, your boss fires you, and no one will hire you because they just assume they know how you'll act. You never even get a chance to make your case. How would that feel?

In other words, give people a fucking chance. If someone causes problems, deal with that individual. In your situation, I suppose the org should've gotten rid of the toxic person faster. But don't you fucking dare start saying that everyone with characteristic X, Y or Z should never be hired at any job ever just because some particular person you used to know caused problems. That reflects on you and you only.

Re: Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work

#163

Post by mc32 »

notNow wrote: post #93
mc32 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people have alcohol allergies, wheat allergies, some people don't enjoy the taste and some don't drink for health reasons. There are probably other reasons too, including some religious. But don't underestimate people's odd personality showing thru after drinking. Never the less, I can't fathom drinking being the necessary glue to keep a team cohesive.

Drinking beer should not be the glue to any team. It is not about drinking alcohol either. It's about smoking out unfit candidates when it is inexpensive to do so and religious fanatics/fundies come at the very top of the list. The skills and expertise of a candidate have to be pretty convincing for me to overlook the fundamentalism part and the troubles that they might bring onboard.

Smoking out, isn't that the vernacular used when trying to get vermin to come out of their hiding places? I'd say that's an interesting choice of words to use in this context, where we're talking about making hiring decisions.

Re: Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work

#164

Post by woodman »

ak39 wrote: post #49
zo1 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this company that didn't hire the most-competent candidate: Would you say that they are now some how measurably worse-off within the market? At the very least, in relation to a potential competitor that did snag up that candidate?

If you're asking whether they "learnt" their lesson ... I very much doubt that cultures that entrench such biases are ever shaken up to reconsider the harmful effects (financial or otherwise) of their adopted attitudes. Don't underestimate the power of the "backfire effect" on the minds of middle-managers who don't want to be revealed as having made mistakes. It takes a bold and courageous leader to admit mistakes in…

> If you're asking whether they "learnt" their lesson ...

I don't think that is the question. I believe the point being made was that the free market punishes this sort of behavior. You don't rely on the company's officers learning their lesson, or following the spirit of some law - you rely on market forces killing the company that passes over superior candidates.

Re: Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work

#165

Post by simonebrunozzi »

arenaninja wrote: post #24

The article is spot on. In tech, cultural fit means one of several things. Some time ago at a company, we were considering candidates when the most senior software developer left. We went through two weeks of interviews, and I recommended we go with the strongest technical candidate because his experience was very obvious. The employer flat out said that he wouldn't fit because he was too old. When I raised my eyebro…

I would immediately hire you - just based on what I read. Seriously. I hate stereotypes, and not allowing people to differ from the average. I also don't drink alcohol, and I don't watch TV or sports. Every time someone says something cryptic I assume it's baseball-related, and I'm right about 40% of the time.

Re: Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work

#166

Post by Jasper_ »

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #165
arenaninja wrote: post #24

The article is spot on. In tech, cultural fit means one of several things. Some time ago at a company, we were considering candidates when the most senior software developer left. We went through two weeks of interviews, and I recommended we go with the strongest technical candidate because his experience was very obvious. The employer flat out said that he wouldn't fit because he was too old. When I raised my eyebro…

I would immediately hire you - just based on what I read. Seriously. I hate stereotypes, and not allowing people to differ from the average. I also don't drink alcohol, and I don't watch TV or sports. Every time someone says something cryptic I assume it's baseball-related, and I'm right about 40% of the time.

Well, you're just doing the same exact thing. Instead of hiring someone who might watch a bit of baseball or grab a beer every once in a while, you'd prefer to hire someone just like you. That's still not good.

Re: Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work

#167

Post by MarcusVorenus »

wolfgke wrote: post #154
MarcusVorenus wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can be professional all they like but if they only have money as a motivator to work at a place they hate then they'll just be poor performers. They won't have the energy to do more than the bare minimum. Motivation is just not something that you can command at will.

> if they only have money as a motivator to work at a place they hate then they'll just be poor performers. They won't have the energy to do more than the bare minimum. Source?

Common sense.

Re: Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work

#168

Post by joesmo »

MarcusVorenus wrote: post #150
joesmo wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of Muslims who could help an atheist non profit by maintaining their professionalism. Likewise for your other examples. By assuming that they will let their beliefs sabotage their work, you're judging a whole group by the potential actions of zero or more people. That's just discrimination against people with these various beliefs without proof. By this line of reasoning you could sa…

They can be professional all they like but if they only have money as a motivator to work at a place they hate then they'll just be poor performers. They won't have the energy to do more than the bare minimum. Motivation is just not something that you can command at will.

How is that different from the majority of people who are only motivated by money to work? You're right, motivation is not something you can command at will. Nor is it something that you can detect in others or stereotype across a vast group of people as you're doing here.

Re: Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work

#169

Post by joesmo »

WalterSear wrote: post #133
joesmo wrote: post #95

"Cultural fit" is just another form of discrimination, a currently legal alternative to racism, sexism, and other forms of illegal discrimination in the US to keep the "unliked" and "unwanted" out of jobs. The author acknowledges this, yet still sees fit to add advice for using cultural fit; that weakens the article a bit, but not much. The reality is "cultural fit" should never be used to make decisions. It is never…

Funny. It's the main thing I look for when I'm interveiwing companies that I'm looking to work for.

Nothing wrong with that. When you're interviewing, you can use any criteria you like because you're not denying people (except yourself, which is your right) jobs they're qualified for based on random, often discriminatory information.

Re: Guess Who Doesn’t Fit in at Work

#170

Post by gurkendoktor »

rayiner wrote: post #146
mbrameld wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can be both.

> an activity or interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a main occupation: You're basically positing a definition of "hobby" that encompasses everything that isn't working. Caring for children is a basic life function and an obligation. It can be relaxing and pleasurable, but so can showers and eating--that doesn't make it a hobby. Hobbies are things you do optionally.

> Caring for children is a basic life function and an obligation.

Contraceptives exist and work (for the most part), so caring for children is an opt-in activity. And even if it wasn't - it is totally possible to turn cooking or eating into a hobby by going beyond what's necessary to survive, and the same applies to caring for children.

As a late-twenties programmer without children, I'd have a lot of respect for anyone who mentions his/her kids as his/her hobby.

Post reply on HN