
Walmart banned alcohol and swearing from Jet's offices and it was a big mistake - kgwgk
http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-banned-alcohol-and-swearing-from-jets-offices-2017-6
======
TravelTechGuy
I have no problem with banning alcohol at work. Even though it was present in
almost every office I worked at, I failed to see the benefits, and I did
witness some of the drawbacks. I have nothing against consuming it, just do it
somewhere else, and not near people you'd be embarrassed to work with the next
day.

As for swearing, I never really understood the PC approach in offices. English
is my second language, so English swear words were used daily when I grew up.
When I just started working in the US, I had to train myself to avoid uttering
'shit' when something hit the fan. But the I found out some people are
offended by 'damn', and 'hell' (will never get that. Do they think they won't
go there if they avoid saying it?).

So everyone has words that offend them - big whoop. I'm offended by words like
'synergy', 'disrupt' and 'scrum' but I never told people to avoid them near
me.

However, in certain contexts, swear words can create a negative work
environment. Uttering 'fuck' when something hits your foot is completely
different than using it as a verb in a story, in front of other employees. As
with alcohol - do use, but in moderation, and at the right time and place.

~~~
thephyber
Your points are valid, but they ignore the fact that there was a more
permissive company culture, then it was changed to be more restrictive.

Behavioral economists have studied this type of change and it can seriously
affect relationships (there was a famous study of an Israeli day care that
started charging parents a fee if they picked up their child late, then tried
to change back to the previous policy). Having a benefit then losing it makes
people feel like something is being taken from them (even if Jet can still
have off-campus happy hours).

That said, I don't know how much I care. WalMart has a reputation and if you
are part of a company that chooses to be bough out by WalMart, you have to
expect that some big things will change. Hopefully the Jet execs set
expectations correctly.

~~~
AceJohnny2
> _(there was a famous study of an Israeli day care that started charging
> parents a fee if they picked up their child late, then tried to change back
> to the previous policy)_

I see that you too have read Dan Ariely's _Predicably Irrational_ :)

Recommended reading for everyone else, by the way. It was an enlightening on
the topic of socio-economics, or the application of psychology to economics.

------
SmellTheGlove
I'm not going to even address whether drinking and swearing in the office
should or shouldn't be allowed - it's irrelevant. Walmart basically decided
that they wanted to buy Jet because Jet had capabilities and talent that they
wanted in order to compete with companies like Amazon. It's a major failure on
Walmart's part to either not discover, or not understand, that those
capabilities and talent exist within a specific corporate culture. The fact
that they think they can change it without impacting what they sought to
acquire indicates a real lack of understanding of corporate culture.

You don't need to drink and swear in the office to do what Jet does, but Jet
was built with that as part of its culture, and changing it is going to impact
its workforce. Don't acquire a startup for the value of the startup-y things
that it's done unless you're in it for the whole package. Otherwise, license
what Jet does or become its customer/client in some other way.

------
mabbo
"Welcome to the family, please change who are you".

It's not that they're necessarily wrong- alcohol at the office has a lot of
consequences, liability, etc, and discouraging swearing can foster a less
aggressive environment. It's just that they should know who and what they were
buying. Jet had a culture of its own, and that culture included alcohol and
swearing. I read the other day that the founder owns a vineyard, and is a big
wine lover, sharing his love with his company.

Culture is hard, and critical to any company. Coming in and saying "change
your culture" is dangerous, especially with things as visible, noticeable and
enjoyable as alcohol. It leaves the question of "what will they change next?".

~~~
gm-conspiracy
Counterpoint:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Walton#Automobile_incide...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Walton#Automobile_incidents)

~~~
jobu
That's just insane, especially for someone that can afford to have a personal
driver on staff.

~~~
btian
She probably can shoot someone on 5th Ave and nothing will happen to her.

------
accountyaccount
Sure, if you want to ban drinking in the workplace I can understand (but don't
agree) — it can be a liability. There will be always be a slight risk there,
and it's hard to trust everyone in a larger sized company.

If my employer tried to enforce a rule as puritanical as "no swearing" my
response would be "fuck you."

~~~
WillPostForFood
The value of some self control at work isn't puritanical. Replace "fuck you"
with "nice ass" or "Have you met Jesus." You don't need to say it, people
don't need to hear it, and it can make work more pleasant.

~~~
accountyaccount
Alright, let's consider that I'd generally not recommend saying "fuck you" to
a colleague. What if I say "that's fucking weird" or "that's bullshit" — not
really comparable to sexual harassment or pushing religion.

~~~
kafkaesq
I agree: "Sorry, this is bullshit" is vastly, vastly preferable.

Has the advantage of depersonalizing the issue and avoiding the (completely
unnecessary) sexual/aggressive overtones -- while still sending an
unequivocally clear message (that you also wouldn't necessarily mind being
quoted for in the press or in a book, some day).

------
taude
Our company was acquired by old-school finance firm. They banned alcohol and
happy hour beer-Friday's we used to have. It doesn't sound like a big deal,
but all the millenials work elsewhere now (especially given the competitive
nature of the Boston market for technology talent). I'm not going to put all
the blame on the banning of alcohol Fridays, but there was definitely a
culture shift, of which this was one thing. Which sucks, because we had some
really good coding talent.

~~~
openmosix
It happened to us too - acquired by a Finance company, no more alcohol in the
office when we had weekly "beer-o-clock" on Friday. I honestly fail to
understand why that would be a big deal for people. We still re-group on
Friday at 5pm and we all go down to a local bar. I believe company culture is
bigger than alcohol and ping pong in the office. As a group, we have
maintained our "identity" (and culture) even though our toolchain has changed
and we can't have a beer at the desk.

~~~
triangleman
The pervasive drinking culture in this country is a problem. More than 5% of
the population suffers from alcoholism, and the more drinking is encouraged in
the culture, the more likely someone will have a small problem turn into a
full blown problem.

Young people especially are unlikely to judge their own propensity for
alcoholism, so "encouraging a fun workplace culture" is not a good enough
reason to use alcohol to attract a younger generation of workers.

~~~
walshemj
Americans drink less then the UK and virtually every eu country - let alone
places like Russia.

Don't try and project your biases onto 320 Million Americans many of whom come
from different cultures

~~~
triangleman
Fine. Can we at least agree that Americans are bad at drinking? Possibly
because of the drinking age of 21?

It just seems like a foolish idea to put drinks in the hands of 20-somethings
who just got out of college and are starting their first or second jobs. I
remember investment banks recruiting my business school friends by promoting
their heavy drinking culture.

I know I'm sounding like a nanny-stater here. But there is a dark underside to
this relaxed attitude towards drinking that you ignore at your peril.

~~~
ck425
I'd argue the dark underside comes from your puritanical attitude towards
drinking.

I went to Uni here in the UK with a lot of Americans. What always stood out
was how stupidly drunk they got and how proud they were of it, as if they were
14/15\. Most of them matured out of it after a year or two.

The reason for this as far as I can see is that the US doesn't have a culture
of sociable drinking. Drinking is something you do to party or on a date. The
concept of social drinking doesn't exist in the US like it does in the EU. No
one goes to the pub (you don't even really have pubs or cafes - bars are not
the same thing) for a drink or two with friends or colleagues. So young people
have no examples of what moderate drinking looks like. People either don't
drink or get proper wasted, thus re-enforcing the BS slippery slope argument,
thus people drink moderately even less, and a vicious cycle continues.

~~~
triangleman
I totally agree with your description of U.S. drinking culture, and much of
your reasoning about it. I still think at this point that workplace drinking
is a bit over the line, though.

>Most of them matured out of it after a year or two.

Some of them, however, probably became alcoholic. It's a terrible disease I
wouldn't wish on anyone.

~~~
ck425
By workplace drinking do you mean drinking in the office during work or
drinking with colleagues (potentially also in the office but out of working
hours)? I'd agree with the later and no one's suggesting that but I think the
latter is part of a healthy moderate drinking culture.

Alcoholism is a funny one. Our understanding of addiction is still developing
and I'm not personally familiar with the issues around alcohol addiction
specifically so I won't get deep into to debate, but there's strong evidence
to suggest that addiction is a symptom of other issues as much as it is an
issue in it's own right and there have been many many functioning societies
that by modern US standards most people would have been alcoholics.

------
mattkevan
Ha, I'm not surprised. Walmart seem to have a tin ear for any culture not
their own.

As a student I worked for ASDA, a UK supermarket chain, while it was bought by
Walmart.

Management decreed we had to do a team power huddle at the start of each
shift, like we were American Football players or something instead of bored
teenagers on minimum wage.

It was excruciating. Everyone hated it, from management down. I think the
policy lasted a week before everyone gave up in sheer embarrassment.

------
Someone1234
I legitimately don't understand the odd obsession in the US with swearing.

Do you arbitrarily categorise words as "bad," then you ban such words in a lot
of everyday circumstances, and therefore such words are made pointless.

Why even have swearing if it cannot be used? Elsewhere in the English speaking
world, these are commonly used words with specific emotional attachments, in
the US you "offend" people or get gasped at if you utter the forbidden
phrases.

At least with certain racist phases I can understand the rational. Because you
want to "discontinue" those words from existing. Not so with regular swearing.

~~~
jxramos
I didn't think it was a big deal until I spent significant time around
swearers and non-swearers. There is just an ugliness in swearing both in the
harsh consonants that intrinsically reflect the ugliness of the words and the
general attitudes surrounding the spewing of the words. I remember a non-
swearer who shared with me the misperception she often felt was falsely
accused on her. This surrounded her use of other words to express frustration
or pain or anger or what have you that the underlying emotions of those softer
words were curse oriented, just sugar coated or something to that extent. She
told me that was a perennial confusion with her, that it just was not the
case, her emotions did not reflect the harsh swearing attitudes/content.
Pretty interesting thought, I used to think that internally they had all the
rage/etc but just repressed it or whatever. I learned apparently cursing does
reflect an internal state of one's heart that could very much be lacking
entirely in others.

~~~
lbebber
> There is just an ugliness in [...] the harsh consonants that intrinsically
> reflect the ugliness of the words

I won't comment on the rest of the post, but come on.

What is the ugliness in, say, "shit", that is not present in "shot" or
"sheet"?

~~~
jxramos
the logic here is "if curse then harsh", not "if harsh then curse", which
raises an interesting question is there a soft curse word?

Come to think of it, it's like an emotional mapping to auditory expression,
similar to this concept I heard about many years ago
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouba/kiki_effect)

~~~
mr_spothawk
> is there a soft curse word?

i believe the common parlance is "alternative curse words"

~~~
jxramos
I was speaking of phonetically soft, but I see what you're getting at with the
interpretation that dwesr2648 shares with the "clean variants". Come to think
of it this actually brings to memory all those safe for TV dubs they'd
substitute for curse words. Those must surely be a direct application of
"alternative curse words". After work I'mma try to see if anyone made a
YouTube mashup for dubbed curse substitutions. I always got a kick out of
those as a teenager.

------
draw_down
As the "Elves Leave Middle-Earth - Sodas Are No Longer Free" post mentions,
it's not enough to just undo the change. Because the change itself is enough
to get people thinking about whether they should stick around.

For now, you can drink and swear in the office (I guess). But who knows what
other weird changes are looming...

------
Animats
I'm amazed that companies allow alcohol at work. It has to affect product
quality and safety. Nobody in manufacturing allows that.

~~~
lazerpants
We had alcohol at a manufacturing company I worked at (I was responsible for
that policy). At 4pm on Fridays we closed the warehouse and everyone had a
beer then took off early. It definitely improved relations between office and
warehouse staff, and I think it made the warehouse folks feel like they were
part of the team.

~~~
lutorm
I think there's a big, gaping difference between "alcohol at work" being
"every friday we hang out and have a beer before taking off" and "people
sipping on scotch while they work".

The difference is basically "at work (the place)" or "during work (the job)".

~~~
lazerpants
Ah, the linked article is specifically about Jet's weekly happy hours, so I
figured my story was analogous.

------
rm_-rf_slash
Relevant blog post from 2009 shared on HN from time to time:

"The Elves Leave Middle-Earth - Sodas Are No Longer Free"

[https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-
ear...](https://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle-
earth-–-soda’s-are-no-longer-free/)

~~~
jdmichal
I see this same pattern over and over with talking to people who are leaving a
company. There's almost always that "wake up" moment: one singular item which
pierces the veil. But it's rarely ever _just_ that one item that causes people
to leave, and that one item would probably be tolerated if there weren't other
reasons. And the set of those reasons for any two people leaving are not
likely to be the same.

So, given that:

* Leaving is actually an accumulation of these items,

* Individuals will have their own distinct list of such items,

* Individuals will have differing tolerance levels for waking up...

Is there actually any _actionable_ information here other than: "Don't make
unpopular decisions?" I mean, sure, in hindsight, on this particular and
possibly unusual scenario, a bunch of people woke up with a singular item
which had minor impact to the bottom line. Easy to look back and say, "Maybe
that was a silly decision."

But an employer will _always_ have to make decisions, and some individual will
probably find that decision distasteful and add it to their list, and _maybe_
that's finally the item that wakes them up... At what point do you just factor
that into cost of making decisions and move on?

~~~
careersuicide
> Is there actually any _actionable_ information here other than: "Don't make
> unpopular decisions?"

Make sure you actually do a cost-benefit analysis, even if it's just quickly
in your head. Decisions like this are the result of seeing a metric and
thinking about optimizing just that one metric. It's not easy to sum up costs
and benefits of connected policies. And it can be very hard to a priori
determine what the costs and benefits are. But when people come to you and
complain about a new policy you should probably listen.

------
justin_vanw
Sad, grey, big company people can't imagine that anyone could ever be any
other way.

~~~
WillPostForFood
sad, grey big company vs drunk cursing bro culture. Maybe there is a middle
ground.

~~~
doWhatNow
...sad, grey, drinking, cursing bro culture?

~~~
munificent
Well, it _is_ in New Jersey...

------
Lord_Zero
Surprised to see all the comments about how alcohol should be banned at work.
To be fair most of the commentors that said this said "I've witness its
drawbacks."

I have a beer at my desk during lunch every now and then, especially if I am
working through my lunch as I eat. And every now and then if I know I have to
work late ill crack one at 5pm while I work.

The other company in my building also has frequent at-work happy hours (after
office close at 5pm, sometimes at 4pm) and everyone seems to be responsible
and have fun.

In the end I think its all about showing you can be an adult, and not holding
up the intern for a keg stand or slamming tequila shots.

------
bauer
Cached version of the page to get around BI's anti adblock bullshit
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-
banned-alcohol-and-swearing-from-jets-offices-2017-6)

------
Nelkins
This is basically a non-story. And also a horrible click bait headline. There
was extremely minimal chafing during the brief ban on alcohol in the office.
Prior to the Walmart purchase I very rarely saw anyone drinking in the office
when it wasn't a company sponsored happy hour, and NEVER saw anyone drinking
before 5PM (still haven't). People were a little miffed because no one likes
having privileges taken away, even if they aren't using them.

I also think that people were barely aware of the no-swearing rule...I didn't
even know it existed until I read this article! Seriously, how is it even
enforceable?

Edit: Last thing. Even if either of these things had been strictly enforced,
it wouldn't have changed things much around here. We don't have a culture of
heavy drinking/swearing. We DO have a culture of trusting people though, which
is what bothered some employees.

Source: I am a Jet employee.

------
nibstwo
Does this affect customers? Alcohol somewhat, swearing in office but not with
customers no. Therefore, no swearing is a stupid policy to change, limited
cultural benefit high cognitive tax. Alcohol in the office has really harmed
one company I worked at, and no one missed the omission when it is not there.
I understand when you are a two person team and your kitchen fridge has beers,
but a giant company pretending to be that instead of people just getting
alcohol when out makes no sense. Just go to a bar and pay for it yourself.

------
ChuckMcM
Funny story, when IBM acquired Blekko one of the things we had to do was show
them we weren't keeping any alcohol on premise[1], even in the machine room.
Apparently they didn't have a problem with copies of 'Modern Drunkard' on the
coffee table in the lounge area though :-).

[1] There was an excellent scotch collection that had to go, and some Corona's
that had been providing thermal mass in the drinks refrigerator for years.

------
pfooti
I have no strong opinion about the alcohol rule. Personally, I don't drink at
work (or work functions) as I have seen the deleterious effects of same. Feels
like a liability issue as well.

I'm also super-supportive of a harassment policy that prohibits language that
is used to harass, be it "profanity" or not. (case in point, many people don't
consider the R word to be an official profanity, but I will object to its
casual use every time, as it is pretty terrible).

All that said, I swear in general, because profanity is really interesting. I
moderate my language around people who object to it, sure. But I also do
things like use words that sound "dirty" but are not in fact official
profanities, or perhaps are marginal. Referring to someone as a "turd hurler",
for example, skirts the line. I find it an interesting challenge to develop
insults that can be applied to a specific person without pulling in old racist
/ imperialistic / patriarchal (&c.) tropes.

Further, actual semiotic disruption is also fun. I've trained myself that the
phrase "man cave", for example, is a profane reference to a portion of a
gentleman's anatomy. "Let me show you my man cave" is a much more hilarious
and interesting phrase these days. The creation and evolution of profanity as
a socially-negotiated construct (especially those profane words that are
titillatingly transgressive but not so inherently evil that they mark one for
immediate ostracizing) is pretty amazing.

This is kind of related to my own walmart experience. As a teenager, I worked
for a warehouse club (pace) which was bought out by sam's, the walmart of
warehouse clubs. Suddenly I had to cover my earrings with a bandaid (as I was
male with earrings, and such couldn't display such a terrible thing to the
clients). I quit instead, but spent a lot of time thinking about dress codes
since - they (and fashion in general) are another fascinating (and frankly
under-appreciated by the tech crowd) channel by which meaning is negotiated. I
may think a dress code is stupid, but the person who puts stock in it is
instead thinking I think that person is stupid. Which isn't my intended
meaning, but communication is a two-way street and only possible when both
sides understand the shared context.

Anyway. It's possible to ban a list of words, but it is not feasible to ban
profanity as such. It is a far better strategy to build a code of conduct that
is predicated on respect and mutual support. Ban harassing and insulting
behaviors, rather than certain words, and you'll show that you care about the
central concept rather than the surface features.

~~~
laurentb
what's the R word you mention? (serious question)

~~~
samatman
I'm gonna guess "retard". Agree with OP that it has no fucking place in a
civilized office.

------
noonespecial
Its like buying a Ferrari because its fast and cool and then filling it with
diesel because that's what all your other delivery vehicles run on.

------
gervase
I didn't find anything in the article that indicated that the decision was a
"big mistake", just that some employees were annoyed. Did this affect their
employee turnover? Productivity? Any objectively measurable effect at all?

I don't necessarily agree with the decision one way or the other, but this
article seems like its pushing a narrative with very little evidence to
support it either way.

------
slavik81
One of the more memorable articles from The Economist was on this topic. "The
boredom of boozeless business: The sad demise of the three-Martini lunch"
[http://www.economist.com/node/21560265](http://www.economist.com/node/21560265)

------
CodeWriter23
Last time I was in Hoboken, "Thank You" and "Fuck You" were used
interchangeably.

------
everdayimhustln
Fuck Walmart, booze afterhours on Friday is de rigueur.

------
overcast
'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'

