Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:46 PM
emacknight emacknight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: [censored]
Posts: 5,338
If I can't trust a 20 year old to buy alcohol...

If I can't trust a 20 year old to buy alcohol, what can I trust him/her to do?

I realize debating a legal drinking age is old and tired, but I've run into what I think is a strange new twist. Last December my non-profit was ramping up for the Christmas season with everyone working at 110%. The place was a mad house with every available body busy at work. We needed a handful of things picked up so I put together a list, looked around for someone I could send, and handed it off to one of the interns. He then informs me that he's 20 and can't buy the few alcoholic items we need.

Through no fault of his own he had made himself untrustworthy. I couldn't rely on him to perform a simple task--go to a store, buy something, then bring it back.

Think about that last statement from any other perspective. What if he was a terrible driver and you couldn't trust him to drive your car? What if he was a thief and you worried he'd pocket the money? What if he was an idiot and you worried he'd fail to return, return empty handed, or bring back the wrong stuff?

All of those traits would make him incompetent, this kid isn't, yet he falls under that category simply because he's not allowed to purchase alcohol. As a result, a person on staff that is under 21 becomes a liability, essentially dead weight.

How do I justify hiring someone under 21 if I can't trust them to do something as simple as buy alcohol?
  #2  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:11 PM
Fool in the Rain Fool in the Rain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Rhode Iceland
Posts: 630
I think trust is the wrong word here. I think he is trustworthy, because he told you the truth of his age and the liability there to him, and you.

I would probably say he's 'unqualified' to do the job you require, not untrustworthy. And not being qualified to do a job or task could be justified for termination, or not hiring him, whatever the case may be.
  #3  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:15 PM
Odesio Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
Through no fault of his own he had made himself untrustworthy. I couldn't rely on him to perform a simple task--go to a store, buy something, then bring it back.
This sentence makes no sense. If it isn't his fault, how can it be possible that he made himself untrustworthy?

Quote:
All of those traits would make him incompetent, this kid isn't, yet he falls under that category simply because he's not allowed to purchase alcohol. As a result, a person on staff that is under 21 becomes a liability, essentially dead weight.
If you've decided to put him into the "incompetent" category then that says more about you than it does about the intern. He can't buy alcohol so he's a liability? He's dead weight? You sound like a joy to intern for.

Quote:
How do I justify hiring someone under 21 if I can't trust them to do something as simple as buy alcohol?
You didn't "hire" him he's an intern. If your organization uses interns then you just need to get used to having people who aren't of age to purchase alcohol.
  #4  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:21 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,318
This 20yr old employee is most certainly trustworthy; as he has demonstrated clear reason to have faith in his words and actions. If part of his job duties include purchasing alcohol, then the fact that he is 20yrs old simply means that he is unqualified for his position. This is quite simple.
  #5  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:30 PM
Fuzzy Dunlop Fuzzy Dunlop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
You didn't "hire" him he's an intern. If your organization uses interns then you just need to get used to having people who aren't of age to purchase alcohol.
I hire interns all the time and I'm not seeing why you would put the verb in quotes. I consider them hired, they consider themselves hired, the IRS considers them hired, etc..

If I needed people to buy alcohol regularly it might make me less likely to hire under 21 year old interns. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal though. Hire people who meet your needs.
  #6  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:30 PM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 14,664
He's not a drunkard, he's a minor. In what way has he betrayed your trust? Did he mislead you as to his age in order to procure the position? Did you specify that part of the duties of his job would be purchasing alcohol?

I'm also really curious in a horrified sort of way, what sort of nonprofit considers buying alcohol the main duty of its employees.
  #7  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:32 PM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 14,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop View Post
I hire interns all the time and I'm not seeing why you would put the verb in quotes. I consider them hired, they consider themselves hired, the IRS considers them hired, etc..
I think most people assume, unless directed otherwise that interns are unpaid and so in a sense are mere volunteers, rather than actual employees. Volunteers who are attempting to build a network and references but volunteers nonetheless.
  #8  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:41 PM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,006
Unless your non-profit requires liquor to operate and your hired him based on him presenting himself as being able to procure said liquor, he isn't untrustworthy, he's just young. If anything, you have poor judgment in picking a grocery-getter or your hiring manager needs to be told to only hire people over the age of 21.
But in reality, he can't by liquor because he's 20 and to read any more into that is just silly.
IOW, he didn't misrepresent anything, you just guessed wrong. He didn't imply, you inferred.

Last edited by Joey P; 02-03-2012 at 07:43 PM.
  #9  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:43 PM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 14,664
The OP can't trust anyone under 25 either if he needs someone who can rent a car. Young people these days, aging chronologically. I'm sick of it, I can tell you!
  #10  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:56 PM
Fuzzy Dunlop Fuzzy Dunlop is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner Stickler View Post
I think most people assume, unless directed otherwise that interns are unpaid and so in a sense are mere volunteers, rather than actual employees. Volunteers who are attempting to build a network and references but volunteers nonetheless.
I don't think most people would assume that, but if they did they would be incorrect.
  #11  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:58 PM
Odesio Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,393
If you hire them, what makes them an intern instead of an employee?
  #12  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:58 PM
thelabdude thelabdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northern USA
Posts: 1,943
I see several factors. First you are selective about which interns you hire. A good manager knows the abilities of his workers and assigns tasks accordingly. While his lack of experience makes him attractive to use as a gofor in many cases, I am sure there are many other tasks he wasn't qualified for. If young, inexperienced interns weren't capable of doing many tasks you required, I am sure you wouldn't hire any.

This reminds me of a time when a kid was told to take the truck and go to town and pick something up. He did as he was told although too young to have a driver's license.
  #13  
Old 02-03-2012, 08:01 PM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 14,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzy Dunlop View Post
I don't think most people would assume that, but if they did they would be incorrect.
Ok.

As exciting as the whirlwind world of HR is, I find myself less interested in the IRS opinion of interns and more interested in what led the OP to his out-of-the-box ideas about what trust is.
  #14  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:08 PM
drewtwo99 drewtwo99 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 8,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner Stickler View Post
The OP can't trust anyone under 25 either if he needs someone who can rent a car. Young people these days, aging chronologically. I'm sick of it, I can tell you!
You know, I have heard this myth touted regularly and I want to nip it in the bud right now. I rented SEVERAL cars in my life before I turned 25 (in fact, I'm only 25 right now). There is no prohibition against 24 or younger years of aged people renting cars, at least in the Great State of Texas
  #15  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:10 PM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,476
The drinking age should without question be 16. The driving age, on the other hand...
  #16  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:46 PM
even sven even sven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 19,401
The law isn't set up because he can't be trusted to buy liquor for a non-profit.

It's because he can't be trusted to buy liquor with a group of his dumbass college friends without ending up in some situation that makes problems for society in general.

We don't have the energy to determine who is buying liquor for charity and who is buying liquor to go hold a blow-out teenage kegger that ends with everyone getting STDs or traffic accidents.
  #17  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:49 PM
drewtwo99 drewtwo99 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 8,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
buying liquor for charity
You know I've always thought it would be a good idea to open a foundation called Booze for Bums, or something of the sort. And you would have these booze gardens for homeless people. I'd support that charity.
  #18  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:50 PM
KneeSid KneeSid is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Sydney
Posts: 140
I think what the OP is getting at, in a round-a-bout way is this: the GOVERNMENT, says this guy is under 21. And people under 21 aren't trustworthy enough to buy alcohol. If we could trust that they'd drink responsibly and not get into accidents we'd let them buy it an an earlier age.

So if the government considers someone under 21 not trustworthy enough to be responsible with drinking, why should we as a private company entrust him.

That is how I am reading the post. It's really a way of getting about why shouldn't the drinking age be lowered.
  #19  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:55 PM
Qin Shi Huangdi Qin Shi Huangdi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Posts: 9,058
Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
The law isn't set up because he can't be trusted to buy liquor for a non-profit.

It's because he can't be trusted to buy liquor with a group of his dumbass college friends without ending up in some situation that makes problems for society in general.

We don't have the energy to determine who is buying liquor for charity and who is buying liquor to go hold a blow-out teenage kegger that ends with everyone getting STDs or traffic accidents.
How about lowering the drinking age to 18 but punishing those who are irresponsible with drinking? Such as for example making drunk driving and killing someone equivalent to murder and harsh punishments for disorderly conduct, vandalism, and drunk driving in general. After all there are many people over 21 who are utterly irresponsible with their drinking.
  #20  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:05 PM
sinjin sinjin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,263
Heh, we went thru this in the 70's; old enough to be drafted and die for your country but not old enough to buy a beer or vote. So the law was changed. Then the draft was ended and the draught age was raised. Didn't make sense then, doesn't make sense now.

Old enough to enlist, old enough to marry, old enough to sign contracts, not old enough to legally drink a beer.
  #21  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:08 PM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by KneeSid View Post
I think what the OP is getting at, in a round-a-bout way is this: the GOVERNMENT, says this guy is under 21. And people under 21 aren't trustworthy enough to buy alcohol. If we could trust that they'd drink responsibly and not get into accidents we'd let them buy it an an earlier age.

So if the government considers someone under 21 not trustworthy enough to be responsible with drinking, why should we as a private company entrust him.
If that's what the OP was about, I missed it. But I'll discuss this and say without reservation that if you are old enough to die for your country, you are old enough to drink, and that's that.
  #22  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:44 PM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewtwo99 View Post
You know, I have heard this myth touted regularly and I want to nip it in the bud right now. I rented SEVERAL cars in my life before I turned 25 (in fact, I'm only 25 right now). There is no prohibition against 24 or younger years of aged people renting cars, at least in the Great State of Texas
In Texas it may be nothing but a myth; but in Michigan it is most definitely a law (in NY too, I believe).
  #23  
Old 02-03-2012, 10:59 PM
The Second Stone The Second Stone is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Antioch
Posts: 11,459
He refuses to commit a misdemeanor and the conclusion you draw is that he is untrustworthy.

You solicit him to commit a crime and because of his refusal, he is the one that is untrustworthy?

You sound like the head of a crime family.
  #24  
Old 02-04-2012, 10:32 AM
coffeecat's Avatar
coffeecat coffeecat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by even sven View Post
The law isn't set up because he can't be trusted to buy liquor for a non-profit.

It's because he can't be trusted to buy liquor with a group of his dumbass college friends without ending up in some situation that makes problems for society in general.

We don't have the energy to determine who is buying liquor for charity and who is buying liquor to go hold a blow-out teenage kegger that ends with everyone getting STDs or traffic accidents.
Before the law was passed, the argument wasn't that we need to stop dumbass college students and their crazy parties. It was we need to stop 18-year-old high school seniors from buying booze for fifteen- and sixteen-year-olds.

My eighteen-year-old is more responsible than a lot of adults I know.
  #25  
Old 02-04-2012, 12:42 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewtwo99 View Post
You know, I have heard this myth touted regularly and I want to nip it in the bud right now. I rented SEVERAL cars in my life before I turned 25 (in fact, I'm only 25 right now). There is no prohibition against 24 or younger years of aged people renting cars, at least in the Great State of Texas
I can't verify this, but I understood at some point that the 25 year old restriction was more widespread, and simply due to insurance costs for the rental companies. I recall being told in Pennsylvania in the 70s that I couldn't rent a car when I was 21, but could rent a Ryder truck, which I did. I was also able to rent a truck in NY before I turned 25, but never attempted to rent a car in either state.
  #26  
Old 02-04-2012, 12:48 PM
emacknight emacknight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: [censored]
Posts: 5,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffeecat View Post
My eighteen-year-old is more responsible than a lot of adults I know.
This is part of what I was getting at.

The intern I mentioned (who is paid through a grant) is extremely bright, capable, and competent. I hire my direct staff, but we have a girl that recruits volunteers, and another that deals with interns. For this case in particular, I didn't know nor did I care how hold the intern was, since I never once considered him too young to be capable, the way I might with a 15 year old. And as coffeecat said this intern was extremely responsible, and a valuable asset to our organization. And did I mention he's 20? Not exactly a child.

Also keep in mind that I grew up in Canada where the drinking age is either 18 or 19. By the time someone is 20 I assume they're an adult and capable of going to the store to pick something up. I would never consider someone who is 20 to need any sort of special treatment.

But the government (and society by extension) says that a 20 year old is incompetent and untrustworthy. Which is the reason for the last line in my OP: if the government says he's too incompetent to buy alcohol what else is he too incompetent to buy?

If I ask him to go get some eggs, are the going to come back broken? Is he going to stop on the way back and throw them at his teacher's house? Is he going to take out a few to have with his friends on the weekend? I think any of that would make him untrustworthy, but perhaps people would rather play semantics with what they think the word trust means or try for ad hominem attacks.

The question still stands though: How do I justify hiring someone under 21 if society says I can't trust them to do something as simple as buy alcohol?
  #27  
Old 02-04-2012, 12:56 PM
emacknight emacknight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: [censored]
Posts: 5,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Second Stone View Post
He refuses to commit a misdemeanor and the conclusion you draw is that he is untrustworthy.
I have a lot of people on staff, and he was the only one for who this request became "committing a misdemeanor." What makes him so different from everyone else?

What if the request was to watch a 5 year old for a few minutes. Then he says, "I'm a convicted sex offender and I'm not allowed to be alone with people under 16." Would that change your view of a person? Would that make you wonder what else you could or couldn't trust them to do?

What if this intern was over 21, but his response was, "I've had 3 DUI's so I'm not allowed to drive." Would you consider that person more or less trustworthy? That request was also asking him to commit a crime (driving without a licence).

Lastly, what if this intern said, "I was caught shoplifting and I'm not allowed back into that store."

All three of those resulted in the same refusal, but they were all based on actions committed by the individual. Only by virtue of being under 21 did my intern get lumped into that group. And for each of those cases I'm pretty sure most of us would be a little more suspicious of the individual.
  #28  
Old 02-04-2012, 01:02 PM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
The question still stands though: How do I justify hiring someone under 21 if society says I can't trust them to do something as simple as buy alcohol?
I hire 15 year olds, but don't send them on deliveries. I hire 17 year olds, but don't let them deliver to strip clubs. My employees without a bartender's license cannot legally sell alcohol etc etc etc. It doesn't mean they are untrustworthy, just not capable of doing certain duties. Not everyone can do everything.

What you are doing...taking a restriction put in place by the government about one very specific thing and deciding that since the government has disallowed your employee from doing that one thing that it therefore means they are untrustworthy in not only that but other aspects of life is...I don't know...silly. As I said before, I think it says more about you then him. I think you just have really poor judgment or at the very least you need a lesson in extrapolating.

If you were back in Canada would you say these same things about someone under the age of 18 or 19?

Last edited by Joey P; 02-04-2012 at 01:04 PM.
  #29  
Old 02-04-2012, 01:05 PM
even sven even sven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: DC
Posts: 19,401
I think states ban minors from purchasing alcohol and public possession, but few states ban minors from privately consuming alcohol.

In other words, if you drink alcohol responsibly and don't get in trouble, you will be fine. A kid having a glass of wine with dinner at home is never going to get in trouble for that. The only people who face these penalties are people who have already brought themselves to police attention, by for example, hosting a rowdy public-disturbance party. Why the additional penalties? Well, 55 year olds don't usually host out-of-control booze soaked house parties that disturb the whole neighborhood. Kids do that. And kids don't listen too well, sometimes you need some extra teeth when dealing with them.
  #30  
Old 02-04-2012, 01:27 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
The question still stands though: How do I justify hiring someone under 21 if society says I can't trust them to do something as simple as buy alcohol?
If you're honestly this perplexed by such a minor issue, maybe you can't be trusted with the responsibility of hiring employees at all.

(Yes, I realize this "conundrum" is just the latest example of your semi-coherent campaign against government overreach, but let's pretend your question is a serious one just for fun.)
  #31  
Old 02-04-2012, 01:35 PM
emacknight emacknight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: [censored]
Posts: 5,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
I hire 15 year olds, but don't send them on deliveries. I hire 17 year olds, but don't let them deliver to strip clubs. My employees without a bartender's license cannot legally sell alcohol etc etc etc. It doesn't mean they are untrustworthy, just not capable of doing certain duties. Not everyone can do everything.
Look again at what you wrote. Without a bartender's licence an individual can serve all kinds of stuff. If 99% of the time the job requirement was to make espresso drinks at a coffee shop you wouldn't care much about the age of your staff. You'd hire lots of people and establish a level of trust with each of them based on their competence.

Then once in a while a customer says he'd like a shot of Bailey's in his coffee. Suddenly you are forced to rethink who is capable of pouring a liquid from a slightly different bottle. If business is slow no big deal, the 20 year says, "Need someone to add Bailey's to this guy's drink." But if it's busy that becomes a problem, and you simply can't afford to hire people under 21.

You could have a staff of 20 and very rarely have deliveries to a strip club, and thus never really consider their age. If suddenly it's a busy day, everyone is on the road except the 17 year old, but you need to make a delivery to the strip club, you'll be forced to reconsider your hiring policy. That 17 year old could be your best and most reliable driver. But on that day he was a liability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
What you are doing...taking a restriction put in place by the government about one very specific thing
Go back to the government's justification for putting that restriction in place. If the government has reason to believe a 20 year is too incompetent to buy alcohol, is that it? Is that really the only think this kid isn't capable of buying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
As I said before, I think it says more about you then him. I think you just have really poor judgment or at the very least you need a lesson in extrapolating.
Ignoring your ad hominem, I think I have pretty good judgement. I know this 20 year old is perfectly capable of going to a store, buying alcohol and bringing it back. I have less trustworthy guys on staff that I'd expect to get lost part way, and return with the wrong thing. Our society, on the other hand, says otherwise. I'm perfectly fine letting him take my money, and my car, and having him go buy a bunch of stuff. It never occurred to me that there was something wrong with this guy that meant he can't buy a few things on the list--the government says there is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
If you were back in Canada would you say these same things about someone under the age of 18 or 19?
This is the traditional problem with this debate, eventually it comes down to the continuum fallacy. The answer no, I think a person that at 18 a person is also capable of going to the store to buy something. But as they get younger, I won't be so quick to hand over my keys. Notice though that it speaks towards an overall level of trust on more things that just buying a bottle of wine.
  #32  
Old 02-04-2012, 01:44 PM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
Look again at what you wrote. Without a bartender's licence an individual can serve all kinds of stuff. If 99% of the time the job requirement was to make espresso drinks at a coffee shop you wouldn't care much about the age of your staff. You'd hire lots of people and establish a level of trust with each of them based on their competence.

Then once in a while a customer says he'd like a shot of Bailey's in his coffee. Suddenly you are forced to rethink who is capable of pouring a liquid from a slightly different bottle. If business is slow no big deal, the 20 year says, "Need someone to add Bailey's to this guy's drink." But if it's busy that becomes a problem, and you simply can't afford to hire people under 21.
We've been running deliveries to strip clubs and managing a grocery store that sells wine for 31 years. Haven't had a problem yet. Got a delivery, get someone over 16 with a DL. Going to a strip club, get one of the drivers over 18. Need wine rung up, make sure there's someone with a bartender's license to oversee the sale. But then, I can manage my employees better then you I guess since I don't seem to have a problem delegating responsibilities. Hell, I'm in my office right now while my little mom and pop is running like a finely tuned machine...well a pretty well tuned 31 year old lawn mower, but we do okay.

Quote:
Ignoring your ad hominem, I think I have pretty good judgement. I know this 20 year old is perfectly capable of going to a store, buying alcohol and bringing it back. I have less trustworthy guys on staff that I'd expect to get lost part way, and return with the wrong thing. Our society, on the other hand, says otherwise. I'm perfectly fine letting him take my money, and my car, and having him go buy a bunch of stuff. It never occurred to me that there was something wrong with this guy that meant he can't buy a few things on the list--the government says there is.
See, this is where you're being, I believe, deliberately dense. The government has said that in the USA you must be 21 to by alcohol. Why does that mean that if you are under 21 there is something wrong with you? When you were growing up in Canada was there something wrong with you before you were 18 or 19 years old?

Or wait, is this just over the age thing? Is this whole mess just because you think the age to by alcohol should be 18? Is that it?

But as others have said, if liquor runs are that integral to your operations then it's your responsibility to make sure your employees capable of procuring them legally and you sure as hell don't get to say there's something wrong with them for being 20 years old.

Last edited by Joey P; 02-04-2012 at 01:47 PM.
  #33  
Old 02-04-2012, 01:55 PM
emacknight emacknight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: [censored]
Posts: 5,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by thelabdude View Post
I see several factors. First you are selective about which interns you hire. A good manager knows the abilities of his workers and assigns tasks accordingly.
I know for a fact this 20 year old adult is perfectly capable of going to the store and buying all kinds of stuff. Like I said, he's better at it than several of my older staff. Unless of course the stuff he has to buy contains alcohol. I can quite confidently say that in a few months, when he turns 21, he will be extremely good at going to the a liquor store, buying a bottle of wine, and bringing it back.

On a somewhat related to note: my wife's job, as an engineer, very rarely requires travel and doesn't require a valid driver's licence. She works with an engineer that had a couple DUI's, and as a result is not allowed in to Canada.

How many of us consider a person with multiple DUI's slightly less trustworthy? Does it say anything about their character?

As a general rule the DUI's had no impact on his job. He might be the most brilliant engineer, and a good manager would make uses of his abilities, until he was asked to fly to Toronto for business.

But in this case, his refusal is based on something the guy did. So if the government of Canada says they're not to keen on letting him in to their country, does that say something about him as an employee?
  #34  
Old 02-04-2012, 02:08 PM
The Second Stone The Second Stone is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Antioch
Posts: 11,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
I have a lot of people on staff, and he was the only one for who this request became "committing a misdemeanor." What makes him so different from everyone else?

What if the request was to watch a 5 year old for a few minutes. Then he says, "I'm a convicted sex offender and I'm not allowed to be alone with people under 16." Would that change your view of a person? Would that make you wonder what else you could or couldn't trust them to do?

What if this intern was over 21, but his response was, "I've had 3 DUI's so I'm not allowed to drive." Would you consider that person more or less trustworthy? That request was also asking him to commit a crime (driving without a licence).

Lastly, what if this intern said, "I was caught shoplifting and I'm not allowed back into that store."

All three of those resulted in the same refusal, but they were all based on actions committed by the individual. Only by virtue of being under 21 did my intern get lumped into that group. And for each of those cases I'm pretty sure most of us would be a little more suspicious of the individual.
And each of those false analogies you've brought up reflect on the character of someone who has committed criminal acts, not someone who refuses to commit a criminal act. You've solicited a crime, and the solicitee refused, for which you blame the victim of your crime. A closer to apt analogy is that you meet a 25 year old and proposition said 25 year old for sex. Entirely legal to proposition and engage in said act. Do the same with a minor in your jurisdiction and both are crimes.

The thing is that you are using trustworthy in a manner that seems to require people breaking the law at your behest. That might be your definition of trustworthy, but for people who aren't sociopaths it means that the untrustworthy person is you because you because of your views on lawbreaking.

The being of age to buy booze isn't even a controversial law unless you are a young person bemoaning the difficulties of enjoying the risks of alcohol. There are very good reasons to keep 20 year olds and younger from buying alcohol. They do damn stupid things with the judgment of a teenager.
  #35  
Old 02-04-2012, 02:10 PM
emacknight emacknight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: [censored]
Posts: 5,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
We've been running deliveries to strip clubs and managing a grocery store that sells wine for 31 years. Haven't had a problem yet. Got a delivery, get someone over 16 with a DL. Going to a strip club, get one of the drivers over 18.
So then is it fair to say when you're hiring new drivers you have to factor in their age right? If you have two applicants, one 17 and one 19, the 19 year is more valuable. You have to actively justify hiring someone under 18, which is the very question I'm asking.

And what is it about the strip club that makes it so hard to deliver to? Are the roads more complicated to drive on? Is it hard to back up to the delivery door? Or is it the chance that a minor might see a booby and our society frowns on that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
Need wine rung up, make sure there's someone with a bartender's license to oversee the sale. But then, I can manage my employees better then you I guess since I don't seem to have a problem delegating responsibilities.
Yes, you seem very good at it and we're all very impressed. But same question as above applies, how do you justify hiring someone that can't have a bartender's licence? Your business obviously requires a few people on staff to have one, and you're obviously okay having a few without.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
See, this is where you're being, I believe, deliberately dense. The government has said that in the USA you must be 21 to by alcohol. Why does that mean that if you are under 21 there is something wrong with you? When you were growing up in Canada was there something wrong with you before you were 18 or 19 years old?
My point exactly, so who is being deliberately dense? What is it about a 20 year old Canadian that can go around buying all the alcohol he wants, but can't when in the US? I think a 20 year old is perfectly capable of buying alcohol, the government says otherwise. Why does the government think there is something wrong with a 20 year old? And if there is something wrong with them, what other aspects of their life will it impact?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey P View Post
But as others have said, if liquor runs are that integral to your operations then it's your responsibility to make sure your employees capable of procuring them legally and you sure as hell don't get to say there's something wrong with them for being 20 years old.
But like you've said, if the runs were for anything other than liquor I could hire anyone I want, assuming they could drive. In which case age wouldn't be much of factor in the hiring process. I personally see nothing wrong with a 20 year old. The government on the other hand thinks they're incompetent.
  #36  
Old 02-04-2012, 02:26 PM
emacknight emacknight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: [censored]
Posts: 5,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Second Stone View Post
And each of those false analogies you've brought up reflect on the character of someone who has committed criminal acts,
Good, we agree on that fact. Each of those committed acts would cause you to reflect on the person's character.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Second Stone View Post
not someone who refuses to commit a criminal act.
Why is this a criminal act?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Second Stone View Post
You've solicited a crime,
What crime? I needed someone to pick up a few things, one of which contained alcohol. I didn't need anyone to rob a liquor store? The act of buying alcohol is perfectly legal for almost everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Second Stone View Post
and the solicitee refused, for which you blame the victim of your crime. A closer to apt analogy is that you meet a 25 year old and proposition said 25 year old for sex. Entirely legal to proposition and engage in said act. Do the same with a minor in your jurisdiction and both are crimes.
Sure, if you like this analogy, it also works, but you're going to have to follow through with it. So look at the age of consent. Twenty years old is considered old enough to have sex, so is 19 and 18. Below that we recognize that judgement is an issue. Not just for sex, but for driving, marriage, and a variety of other contractual obligations.

So if you want to use that as an example, the intern in question would be 15 and I'd have plenty of reasons not to hire 15 year olds. By the time the intern is 20, alcohol (and sometimes car rentals) is the only issue left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Second Stone View Post
The thing is that you are using trustworthy in a manner that seems to require people breaking the law at your behest.
No, that was just your desperate attempt at a straw man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Second Stone View Post
The being of age to buy booze isn't even a controversial law unless you are a young person bemoaning the difficulties of enjoying the risks of alcohol. There are very good reasons to keep 20 year olds and younger from buying alcohol.They do damn stupid things with the judgment of a teenager.
What are those reasons? Can you name some?

And while you might not think it controversial, what it means is that 20 year olds will have fewer job opportunities as a result.
  #37  
Old 02-04-2012, 02:27 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,166
I think the simple answer is that the government, by setting a legal purchase age of 21, is not making the affirmative statement that every single person under the age of 21 is too irresponsible to buy alcohol.

What they are saying is that enough people under the age of 21 are irresponsible enough to buy alcohol to justify making the legal purchase age 21 because we are too damned lazy to come up with any other system than a hard, bright-line age.

So, your belief that your one particular intern has been adjudged by the government to be irresponsible is not correct.
  #38  
Old 02-04-2012, 02:29 PM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
So then is it fair to say when you're hiring new drivers you have to factor in their age right? If you have two applicants, one 17 and one 19, the 19 year is more valuable. You have to actively justify hiring someone under 18, which is the very question I'm asking.
In theory sure, but in reality no. Currently all my employees that regularly drive are over 21 (just a fluke, not on purpose). Even if we only had one driver over 18 or 21 or whatever, I'm 31, the owner is over 50, it's just not an issue for me and I'm not going to start getting into what-ifs here.

Quote:
And what is it about the strip club that makes it so hard to deliver to? Are the roads more complicated to drive on? Is it hard to back up to the delivery door? Or is it the chance that a minor might see a booby and our society frowns on that?
Well, the one strip club we deliver to right now, we go in through the front door while dancers are, well, dancing, and I'd really rather not have a call from my employee's parent's asking why we sent them to a strip club (not that it's really an issue with any of my current employees).


Quote:
Yes, you seem very good at it and we're all very impressed.
Why thank you.
Quote:
But same question as above applies, how do you justify hiring someone that can't have a bartender's licence? Your business obviously requires a few people on staff to have one, and you're obviously okay having a few without.
In the state of Wisconsin there needs to be only one person with a bartender's license on the property at all times and when there's an alcohol sale being made that person (or someone with a bartender's license) needs to oversee the sale. Not everyone has to have a license as long as we have enough people on hand to make sure someone can always oversee liquor/wine/beer sales. My people without licenses aren't incompetent as long as they can yell "I have a wine sale" loud enough for someone with a license to walk over and oversee the sale.

Quote:
And if there is something wrong with them...
\/\/

Quote:
The government on the other hand thinks they're incompetent.
Then write a letter to the government telling them how the age restriction is impacting your non-profits ability to operate.


I want to come back to this quote for a second
Quote:
But same question as above applies, how do you justify hiring someone that can't have a bartender's licence? Your business obviously requires a few people on staff to have one, and you're obviously okay having a few without.
Yes, my company requires a few people to have bartenders licenses, not all of them which means I don't have to justify some people not having them. The one's that don't have one I simply don't put in a position of needing one. That's called delegating.

You, by attempting to send a 20 year old for liquor didn't delegate properly, but instead of putting him on a different job and sending someone over 21 to the store (which is what most managers would do) you decided that there was something wrong with him and wrote what is apparently a turning into an anti-government thread.
  #39  
Old 02-04-2012, 02:33 PM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
Good, we agree on that fact. Each of those committed acts would cause you to reflect on the person's character.



Why is this a criminal act?



What crime? I needed someone to pick up a few things, one of which contained alcohol. I didn't need anyone to rob a liquor store? The act of buying alcohol is perfectly legal for almost everyone.



Sure, if you like this analogy, it also works, but you're going to have to follow through with it. So look at the age of consent. Twenty years old is considered old enough to have sex, so is 19 and 18. Below that we recognize that judgement is an issue. Not just for sex, but for driving, marriage, and a variety of other contractual obligations.

So if you want to use that as an example, the intern in question would be 15 and I'd have plenty of reasons not to hire 15 year olds. By the time the intern is 20, alcohol (and sometimes car rentals) is the only issue left.



No, that was just your desperate attempt at a straw man.



What are those reasons? Can you name some?

And while you might not think it controversial, what it means is that 20 year olds will have fewer job opportunities as a result.
I'm not even going to break this apart, I'm just going to point out that you missed that Second Stone was pointing out that the person you attempted to send to the liquor store did not break the law so it's not fair to compare him to the others and with that I think I'm going to bow out of this thread so I can watch it crash and burn from a safe distance.

Have fun.
  #40  
Old 02-04-2012, 04:32 PM
suranyi suranyi is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
I realize debating a legal drinking age is old and tired,
And yet that's what this whole thread is about. Nothing new here.
  #41  
Old 02-04-2012, 06:06 PM
The Second Stone The Second Stone is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Antioch
Posts: 11,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
Good, we agree on that fact. Each of those committed acts would cause you to reflect on the person's character.


Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
Why is this a criminal act?
It is not a criminal act to refuse to commit a crime. This strikes me as you misreading what I wrote. If the 20 year old refuses to purchase alcohol, he has not committed a criminal act. A person who solicits a 20 year old to purchase alcohol has solicited the 20 year old to commit a crime. It is a crime because the legislature has duly passed a law making it a crime and has the authority to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
What crime? I needed someone to pick up a few things, one of which contained alcohol. I didn't need anyone to rob a liquor store? The act of buying alcohol is perfectly legal for almost everyone.
The is probably the key to your misunderstanding. The crime is asking the 20 year old to buy alcohol. The fact that you might also require the 20 year old to purchase other items is totally irrelevant. Your claim that you didn't need anyone to rob a liquor store is irrelevant and if more fully developed would amount to a straw man. While the act of buying alcohol is legal for many people, it is not legal for anyone under 21. You seem to have more than just a philosophical disagreement over whether this law is wise, you have attempted to coerce someone to commit a crime in your protest and deem and employee "untrustworthy" for refusing your solicitation of a crime. As almost a side note, your emphasized use of "almost" is also disputable. Over a quarter of the population is 20 and younger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra..._United_States


Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
Sure, if you like this analogy, it also works, but you're going to have to follow through with it. So look at the age of consent. Twenty years old is considered old enough to have sex, so is 19 and 18. Below that we recognize that judgement is an issue. Not just for sex, but for driving, marriage, and a variety of other contractual obligations.
You seem to be arguing here that just because some jurisdictions have the age of consent at 18, it should be the same to purchase alcohol. My jurisdiction has the age of consent at 18. And alcohol 21. You seem to be arguing that these are equivalents. They are not. Alcohol is an intoxicant and not a human right. Sex is not an intoxicant, and a human right for adults. People who engage in sex are not at a higher risk of driving dangerously after having had sex, with or without other people in the car.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
So if you want to use that as an example, the intern in question would be 15 and I'd have plenty of reasons not to hire 15 year olds. By the time the intern is 20, alcohol (and sometimes car rentals) is the only issue left.
If for your purposes the only reasons not to hire a 20 year old are booze and car rentals, well so be it. But it has nothing to do with the general trustworthiness of a person who refuses to break a law. I would trust this 20 year old over you in any matter concerning honesty or integrity because he refused to break the law that you commanded, and you blame him for it and cannot even see that from the point of view of the law abiding public that you have committed a crime and would do so again if it were in any way convenient for you. Soliciting crime in others is not a small matter, but goes to the heart of moral turpitude because it corrupts others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
No, that was just your desperate attempt at a straw man.
I think you need to re-read what you wrote. I understood your OP to cast the aspersion of untrustworthiness on the 20 year old because he refused your criminal solicitation. Perhaps you did not intend to communicate that, but it is a reasonable interpretation of your original OP and your follow up posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
What are those reasons? Can you name some?
Don't be obtuse. The brain of a human being does not fully form its judgment abilities. http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwat...5/science1.htm Alcohol further impairs already impaired judgment. They drink alcohol and drink it to excess and are likely to supply it to other teenagers (and I'm including 20 year olds in the general term teenager here, despite the fact that the word does not end with "teen"). It is an intoxicant that can and does cause brain damage and death at higher rates in the very young because of this worsened and compounded misjudgment. http://www.academic.marist.edu/mwwat...5/science1.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by emacknight View Post
And while you might not think it controversial, what it means is that 20 year olds will have fewer job opportunities as a result.
Yes, they will have fewer job opportunities below the age of 21 due to people sharing your views. Only a very small handful of legislators, out of the thousands in the US have ever offered bills to allow minors to handle liquor. You are the very first to come up with an argument that these liquor laws not only make them less hireable (which they do), but that it reflects on their trustworthiness as employees.

Had you not developed the idea so adroitly over the thread I would have attributed your opinions to misunderstandings of words like "trustworthy". But it comes off as your contempt for people wanting to comply with the law you think is stupid when it would be more convenient for you that they violated laws.
  #42  
Old 02-04-2012, 06:15 PM
Joey P Joey P is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,006
While I still plan to sit back and watch this thread, something just dawned on me. If the drinking age were 18, then you would have deemed this employee trustworthy, correct? Why is it that his trustworthiness is based on a law? As of right now, you feel he does not deserve your trust, but if the law were changed tonight, then in the morning you would trust him. If how much you trust the people around you is based on the drinking age in the US, that's very strange.
  #43  
Old 02-04-2012, 06:59 PM
Garfield226 Garfield226 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 4,605
Confusing thread is confusing.

Your CEO pokes his head in the door and says, "Hey, Jimmy, we need a new electrical receptacle in my office over near the south wall. I want to plug in my toaster over there!"

"Sorry boss, I'm no licensed electrician, we'd better get someone else for that job."

"Jimmy, I can no longer trust you. You're fired."
  #44  
Old 02-04-2012, 11:28 PM
raindog raindog is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 4,225
I thought it might be a good thing to teach my daughters to change a tire. (in addition to AAA cards) Those skills may save a life one day. Alas, one of them wasn't strong enough to break the lug nuts.

I'll never trust her again.
  #45  
Old 02-05-2012, 01:40 AM
erislover erislover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 13,476
Whether you trust a particular person to buy alcohol is different from the government trusting all such individuals to buy alcohol. I cannot imagine a mentality which fails to admit such a distinction.
  #46  
Old 02-05-2012, 01:57 AM
Ambivalid's Avatar
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 13,318
Ok so how would a fake id affect things here?? Could you trust a 20 yr old with a fake ID, as long as he could buy the booze?
  #47  
Old 02-05-2012, 03:40 AM
The Second Stone The Second Stone is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Antioch
Posts: 11,459
Quote:
Originally Posted by erislover View Post
Whether you trust a particular person to buy alcohol is different from the government trusting all such individuals to buy alcohol. I cannot imagine a mentality which fails to admit such a distinction.
Yes, but that isn't the distinction the OP tried to make. The OP isn't criticizing the government for passing a law that casts a net that is too wide. He is criticizing the 20 year old for refusing to violate the law at his majestic demand. This isn't the case of a government passing a less than perfect, yet pretty good law. The OP had no problem with the law or the 20 year old until he refused to break the law, upon which time he did not conclude that the government was some form of right wing "too much regulating", but rather that the 20 year old is untrustworthy in a sense that he cannot be counted on to get the bosses' will accomplished. His objection was pretty clearly that the 20 year old wouldn't do his bidding.

If you won't break the law for the OP, you are untrustworthy. That's why I opined that it was like an organized crime outfit: where they literally won't let someone join unless they will break a crime while the others watch to verify.
  #48  
Old 02-05-2012, 04:01 PM
thelabdude thelabdude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Northern USA
Posts: 1,943
One more thread I wonder how it can go on and on.
  #49  
Old 02-06-2012, 09:42 AM
kferr kferr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: 51.3180N, 0.7300W
Posts: 2,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Second Stone View Post
You seem to be arguing here that just because some jurisdictions have the age of consent at 18, it should be the same to purchase alcohol. My jurisdiction has the age of consent at 18. And alcohol 21. You seem to be arguing that these are equivalents. They are not. Alcohol is an intoxicant and not a human right. Sex is not an intoxicant, and a human right for adults. People who engage in sex are not at a higher risk of driving dangerously after having had sex, with or without other people in the car.
You're doing it wrong.
  #50  
Old 02-07-2012, 06:20 PM
emacknight emacknight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: [censored]
Posts: 5,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfield226 View Post
Confusing thread is confusing.

Your CEO pokes his head in the door and says, "Hey, Jimmy, we need a new electrical receptacle in my office over near the south wall. I want to plug in my toaster over there!"

"Sorry boss, I'm no licensed electrician, we'd better get someone else for that job."

"Jimmy, I can no longer trust you. You're fired."
Not at all what I'm saying. But consider, if that scenario played out the way you said, with that answer, wouldn't the CEO be justified in wondering what other electrically related jobs Jimmy is qualified for?

Now, what if instead, Jimmy said, "I'm only 20 so I can put a plug on those three walls, but the government says I can't put it on that one." Does that make any sense?

As far as the OP goes, "Jimmy" has put plugs on several walls showing he is more than capable. Except for one certain grouping of walls the government says he can't touch.

Our intern is perfectly capable of going to the store and buying a bottle of red wine vinegar then returning with the receipt and change. But it's the government (and society) that says he and anyone else that's under 21 is too untrustworthy to buy a bottle of red wine.

So I have to wonder, if a 20 year old is consider too untrustworthy for such a simply task, what else should we trust them with? Electrical wiring, like driving a car, is dangerous enough to warrant needing a licence. But notice that a 20 year old can do it. We trust them to wire something correctly, but don't trust them to buy alcohol.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017