If your purpose is working rather than debauchery, diversity and equality become practically important as moral guidelines.
- If you invite everyone to do X, who's likely to refuse? Are they going to feel excluded or mocked? If you don't care about your second class employees, there are more important issues you don't care about.
For example, excluding the gluten intolerant from a homemade cake is different from excluding some Jews from a deliberately pork-only barbecue.
- If someone happens to do or say X, could someone consider it a problem? If such people are present, X should be forbidden; if such people aren't represented in the company, usually they should. A line between requiring employees to have a somewhat thick skin and requiring everyone else to be nice needs to be drawn, and everyone should be aware of it.
For example, if the "frat house" insults absent customers and competitors with anecdotes of their incompetence, it is likely to be harmless (although a symptom of bad attitude); if jokes are about some ethnic group it's a serious problem because such employees are either successfully avoided, or openly offended by some rotten apples.
- If A has some unpleasant interaction with B, do the consequences depend on who A and B are? Why?
For example, if the owner's dog is forgiven for biting someone while the intern's dog is against company policy it isn't a good workplace.
hmmm....I don't see debauchery and working as mutually exclusive as you do. I think it would be ok to take a day once a month or quarter and everyone drink alcohol until the puke, and the rest of the time work hard on reaching goals.
I'm not sure what diversity and equality have to do with anything. That would mean that I should also hire stupid and unqualified people to make things equal. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being stupid, some of my best times have been with stupid people. But 50% to 75% of the world is stupid, and most unqualifed, so that would me 95% or more of the company's workforce should be stupid and unqualified, as that is a true reflection of diversity and equality. And, if one is going to be actually diverse and committed to equality, probably 98% of men are sexist, although 97.8% would deny it. So should 98% of males be excluded from the workforce? Or is hiring sexist males promoting diversity and equality?
>For example, excluding the gluten intolerant from a homemade cake is different from excluding some Jews from a deliberately pork-only barbecue.
That's just your personal opinion. Some gluten intolerant people might be just as offended.
>For example, if the "frat house" insults absent customers and competitors with anecdotes of their incompetence, it is likely to be harmless (although a symptom of bad attitude)
Yes, I have never worked in a company that has never had insults to customers who don't get it. That's pretty normal and understandable. But it is like a group of good friends, and there's always one person in the group who is an idiot, and everyone talks shit about him even in front of him, but you hang out with him anyways, because he's your idiot.
>if jokes are about some ethnic group it's a serious problem because such employees are either successfully avoided, or openly offended by some rotten apples.
Yes, that's true. But personally, I don't consider that "frat house" behavior.
>For example, if the owner's dog is forgiven for biting someone while the intern's dog is against company policy it isn't a good workplace.
Eh, again, this is just your opinion. Some people are allowed perquisites. I mean, I don't mean a dog biting per se, I take it that you said that as a general concept. But in general, everyone in a company is not absolutely equal. But f-ck biting dogs, I'd kill a dog if it bit me hard and probably beat the sh-t out the owner, too - f-ck the job, that is beyond the pale. But that is because I'm a manly man and would not put up with that shit. I know where my lines are and when someone crosses them. Or, if the dog bit me kind of lightly but with evil intent (growling at me before biting), that's when I would manage up and tell the owner that the dog is not coming back, too bad. I've done that before when my boss is clearly in the wrong, and have never once got any pushback for it. And I'd do that no matter who it bit, anyone at all.
- If you invite everyone to do X, who's likely to refuse? Are they going to feel excluded or mocked? If you don't care about your second class employees, there are more important issues you don't care about.
For example, excluding the gluten intolerant from a homemade cake is different from excluding some Jews from a deliberately pork-only barbecue.
- If someone happens to do or say X, could someone consider it a problem? If such people are present, X should be forbidden; if such people aren't represented in the company, usually they should. A line between requiring employees to have a somewhat thick skin and requiring everyone else to be nice needs to be drawn, and everyone should be aware of it.
For example, if the "frat house" insults absent customers and competitors with anecdotes of their incompetence, it is likely to be harmless (although a symptom of bad attitude); if jokes are about some ethnic group it's a serious problem because such employees are either successfully avoided, or openly offended by some rotten apples.
- If A has some unpleasant interaction with B, do the consequences depend on who A and B are? Why?
For example, if the owner's dog is forgiven for biting someone while the intern's dog is against company policy it isn't a good workplace.