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.
In Texas it may be nothing but a myth; but in Michigan it is most definitely a law (in NY too, I believe).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
Why thank you.
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.
//
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
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.
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.
And yet that’s what this whole thread is about. Nothing new here.