is liquor inappropriate at a work event that offers beer and wine, visitors want to use our employees-only bathroom, and more

by Alison Green on August 7, 2024

It’s five answers to five questions. Here we go…

1. Is liquor inappropriate at a work event that offers beer and wine?

This is a silly, low-stakes question, but I’m curious. I work very closely with another coworker and we frequently plan events for a specific network of professionals. My coworker absolutely refuses to offer mixed drinks at any of our social events. These are reception-style events where we provide two drink tickets. She insists that the bar only provide beer and wine, no liquor-based drinks. At first I assumed this was related to price, but it’s not — even if mixed drinks are the same price, or included in an open bar type setting, she specifically insists that mixed drinks not be offered. (She even calls this out in planning documents — it’s something she is very deliberate about). She seems to think that beer and wine are appropriate for a work event, but that a gin and tonic is absolutely degenerate. This is particularly funny because the network we support is quite tame — I’ve never seen anyone have more than one drink at one of our receptions, and when we give out drink tickets, people frequently return them unused. So it’s not like she’s trying to stop our events from turning into ragers.

Again, this is low-stakes; I’m definitely not going to change my coworker’s mind, and I don’t think our group overly cares that we’re not providing mixed drinks. But I am curious to hear your opinion on whether her perception that beer and wine are work-appropriate and a mixed drink is inherently inappropriate has any legitimacy. (I will add for context that I am in my mid-30s and my coworker is in her mid-70s. I almost never think that work disagreements are based on generational differences, but maybe in this case it is, a bit?)

Mixed drinks aren’t inherently inappropriate. If your coworker believes they are, that’s … odd.

But are we sure that’s her reasoning? Only offering beer and wine is very common, but it’s not typically because mixed drinks are more debauched. It’s generally for the cost savings or other practical considerations (like that you need a bartender to mix drinks, caterers who offer liquor sometimes need a separate license for it, etc.). It’s also true that limiting guests to beer and wine can lower the potential for alcohol-related problems (although someone who’s determined to overindulge can easily do that with beer and wine too), but that doesn’t sound like a huge concern with this crowd. I wonder if your coworker is just so used to seeing only beer and wine offered at these types of events that her brain has translated that into anything else feeling inappropriate.

2. Random visitors ask to use our employees-only bathroom

I work for a small established manufacturer. The product is 100% sold to other businesses; there is no direct-to-consumer market, so there is no reason our workplace would be open to the public. We have a company policy of only seeing vendors and potential vendors by appointment.

Recently we’ve had an increase in unscheduled visitors, primarily people hawking stuff … like oddball shipping services, or wanting to put products in our break rooms so employees can browse and order sports memorabilia or footwear or wall art (today’s was laminated posters of Bob Ross-y/ painted-van style nature and religious art). It’s easy enough to say “no thanks.” But each of them then asked to use the restroom.

That leaves me conflicted, because “human being with basic human need, of course they can use the bathroom” comes flat up against:

  • We have no idea who this person is, their reason for being here is already shaky at best, and given where we are, on their way here they voluntarily passed up a relatively new Dunkin Donuts, a couple other fast food places, and two highly visible, normal stores with public bathrooms less than five minutes ago.
  • We don’t have a lobby/visitors’ restroom … there’s just the one out back in the middle of our workspace.
  • Some remaining “but Covid!”
  • General security guidelines, i.e., no random people wandering around the workplace (for employees’ safety, property security, industrial espionage security, etc.).

I’ve been going with, “We don’t have a public restroom, but XYZ public place is not far” with brief directions. But I wonder if I’m being mean, heartless, etc. turning away someone with a basic human need?

When you don’t serve the public and visitors show up uninvited, it’s reasonable to say that your bathrooms aren’t open to the public, for all the reasons you mentioned. I would make an exception for some who truly seemed in dire straits (although even then you’d need to assess that against security considerations), but as a general policy for non-emergencies, “We don’t have a public restroom” is a reasonable response.

3. Are candidates trying to undercut each other on salary?

Something happened to my sister today and I need to know if I’m completely out of touch or if this is the new normal.

She applied for a job which listed a salary range, and she used that range to determine the expected salary she listed on her application, a requirement to apply. She heard from the company today that two people applied and were willing to take the job for $15,000 less than the listed range so they were moving forward with them. That’s crazy, right?

Did the company tell her that to try to get her to say she’ll take less? Are people really lowballing salary expectations? Kind of the reverse of offering over list price on a house? I haven’t been in the job market for a while so I just don’t know what to make of this.

It’s not a new normal, just a thing that some crappy companies have always done. But yes, some people lowball themselves when naming salary expectations, because they didn’t remember there was a higher range listed in the ad or they think it will give them a leg up or they don’t have a good sense of the market and aren’t comfortable advocating for themselves. (If you’ve ever heard someone say they can’t believe the salary a new job offered them and that they would have asked for much less if they’d had to name a number first, some of these people are also lowballing themselves in initial applications.)

Did the company tell her that to try to get her to say she’d take less? Eh, maybe, but they also could have just been factually relaying their reason for going with other candidates. Either way, your sister shouldn’t take this as pressure to lower her own salary expectations in the future; companies that hire based on the cheapest possible candidate (cheaper even than what they’d budgeted for the role) aren’t usually companies you should feel sad about missing out on.

4. Asking, “Do you have any concerns about my candidacy?”

Many years ago, I read your interview guide and one of the suggested questions for the candidate to ask was, “Do you have any concerns about my candidacy that I can address now?” I loved this wording and have used this question a number of times.

However, a few weeks ago, when you were responding to the letter-writer who said that he didn’t get a job, but he didn’t think the new hire had started, you said this: “And yes, they told you their only concern was that someone else might hire you, but that can be a kind of throwaway remark in response to a question that put them on the spot (‘do you have any concerns about me?’) and to which they weren’t prepared to provide a thoughtful answer off the cuff.”

I’m just curious — have you changed your mind about the usefulness of this question? Thinking about it, I agree the question does put them on the spot. So do you think it’s not worth asking?

Those are two different questions! It might seem like a subtle difference, but asking “Do you have any concerns about my candidacy?” does put them on the spot if they have concerns they’re not prepared to share off the cuff and without preparation. “Do you have any concerns about my candidacy that I can address now?” is really saying, “Do you have any concerns that it would be useful to discuss or that you would be comfortable discussing right now?” An interviewer can respond, “No, we have everything we need right now” without implying something that might not be true.

Some people might say that’s splitting hairs, but it changes how it comes across.

To be clear, asking just “do you have any concerns about me?” isn’t a terrible interview-killer or anything like that. But it does put interviewers more on the spot in a way that will make some uncomfortable (and in the case of the letter you mentioned, the person got too invested in believing the interviewer’s “no”).

5. Does being fired show up in a background check?

Can you settle a debate I’m having with a friend who just got fired? Does this show up in your background check? Should you lie and say you were let go or tell the truth?

It depends on the background check. But it’s pretty common to ask former employers about the terms on which you left and whether you’d be eligible for rehire. If it comes out that you lied, that will generally torpedo your candidacy, whereas a firing on its own isn’t inherently prohibitive (depending on the reason for the firing, of course). I’ve got advice here about how you can talk about being fired in an interview:

how to explain you were fired, when interviewing

You may also like:
{ 409 comments }

{ 409 comments… read them below }

  1. My oh my*

    For #2, wow does that sound like a targeted corporate espionage campaign. I’ve never heard of anything like random strangers hawking sports memorabilia ordering schemes? And they all have to use the bathroom? If you have a security company and patent lawyer, I’d get them involved. Maybe I’m paranoid, but this just seems odd.

    1. ChattyDelle*

      Not paranoid, that strikes me as really odd too. No, random stranger. you don’t get to go to our break room to put our random sales material. No, you don’t get to go into our warehouse space unless we accompany you to the washrooms. Especially in this day and age, that’s just bizarre

      1. MassMatt*

        When I worked retail people would ask to put up flyers etc and we would direct them to a community bulletin board. Quite a few people would scoff at that as not prominent enough and try to put their flyers, standup up signs, etc on the prime space in front of the cash registers. No, that is for OUR business.

        And a local sandwich place (which somehow had no bathroom!?) would send people over to use ours! It stopped only after I told them the next time it happened I would start sending people over with coupons for free sandwiches.

        Our bathrooms were for little kids and pregnant women only, the disgusting things others would do made sure no manager ever bent that rule more than once.

        1. Artemesia*

          This. Unfortunately allowing the public to use employee bathrooms means that you will get the creeps with fetishes you don’t want to clean up after.

          1. Nica*

            Yep. Alison’s answer of “We do not have a public restroom” is enough and then send these folks on their way.

        2. Irish Teacher.*

          That’s very close to the rule the retail company I worked for had. We had staff bathrooms only, but we allowed little kids, pregnant women and I think the elderly to use them if necessary.

          We got the most bananapants complaints about these. It would never even occur to me to ask to use staff bathrooms (asking for it for a small child or elderly person or something is different, but in normal circumstances), but we had somebody respond aggressively to our “sorry, we don’t have any public bathrooms” with “I didn’t ask if you had public bathrooms. I asked to use your bathroom” and a really creepy comment from a guy that he would “just have to improvise, so.”

          But yeah, the LW’s situation does sound like there is something more going on than people just not being able to accept that instructions apply to them or just people having an unexpected emergency. The scenarios they describe are situations where you would expect the people to be going around to numerous businesses, yet every one of them needed the bathroom just in that particular business. I’m not sure what the reason could be, but it sounds like a bit of a coincidence if there’s a sudden increase in people coming to their office with unusual requests and then all asking to use the bathroom.

          1. Ellis Bell*

            I always blamed “them” when I got this request. I’d just say “Hey, if they don’t let me use the toilet, they’re not going let someone off the street.” This would always get the requisite shocked expression and a “they don’t let you use the toilet?” This is where I’d look at my watch, and say “I have to stay out on the floor for another two hours, and even if you can wait that long, they’d see you bringing me back on camera and stop you. It’s probably easier to go to McDonald’s across the street.” This was a little bit exaggerated, as I could totally have gotten away with letting people use staff toilets occasionally, but not by much. No manager is going to be very impressed at someone constantly letting a member of the public backstage, especially after the first clean up job is needed. Funnily enough we use the same “not my personal rules” approach at my school. Lots of children use the toilet to get out of lesson, use their phone and even to arrange fights. The graffiti and damage we were seeing was just what you’d see in retail. When students ask to use the toilet now, (they are only unlocked at breaks when they are staffed), what they’ll commonly hear is “I don’t even have a key (true). If you can’t wait for them to be unlocked, you need to show your medical pass to the office, or I can ask on call to accompany you”.

            1. MigraineMonth*

              Kids need a medical pass to use the bathroom at your school other than on breaks? I guess maybe that’s the best solution, but I would have bled through so many pairs of shorts in middle/high school if that were the rule.

              2. Adds*

                I’ve subbed in public schools (in the US) and one of the high schools would lock the bathrooms for the last 90 minutes of the day if there had been a large enough percentage of students showing up to the first hour but then oddly go missing for the 2nd hour and maybe showing up to 3 or 4th hour. I believe it was also based on overall school attendance or tardiness for the hour post-lunch (since many of the kids left campus). Teachers were not let students leave the classroom to use the bathrooms during this time and the students knew not to ask unless it was emergent (in which case they went up to the office).

                I initially thought it was just an announced prohibition on letting students leave class that everyone just followed, but the bathrooms were actually shut and locked, even during passing time, as I discovered when I tried to use one.

          2. Clisby*

            It’s especially odd to me, given that there are fast food places with bathrooms in the near vicinity. If I suddenly needed a bathroom while I was out and about, McDonalds and such would be my first thought.

            1. Hudson*

              Maybe this is New York specific, but most of the McDonald’s bathrooms are locked now, you have to buy something to get a code to use the bathroom. OP also said people are passing up a Dunkin, which wouldn’t be persuasive to me because most of the Dunkins I go into in the city don’t even HAVE public restrooms.

              1. Jack Russell Terrier*

                It’s the same in DC, but generally I find if I just walk up and politely ask if they can give me the code, they just give it to me. Starbucks are great great for that.

              3. Danielle*

                Yep, can confirm this as a lifelong New York City resident — you can’t use the bathrooms in McDonalds or Dunkin here (if they even have bathrooms) without a code that’s on the receipt, and whether you can get in as a non-customer totally depends on whims of the employee you ask.

                I know that this can vary by region, but in this city it’s very very difficult to find a public restroom and you’re kind of out of luck if you have to go and are far from home.

        3. doreen*

          “And a local sandwich place (which somehow had no bathroom!?)” I’m not surprised at all – restroom rules can be really weird. In NYC a restaurant is only required to have customer restrooms if they have more than 20 seats and opened after a certain year. Which means that lots of Subways and Dunkin Donuts and Chinese restaurants and takeout places don’t have public restrooms.

          1. Polly*

            oh THAT’S why! The entire 20 years I lived in NYC, I wondered why places that had a sit-down area could NOT have a bathroom for customers. It was the SIZE of the sit down area. I really could not figure that out.

        4. LL*

          I get that, but there are people who aren’t children or pregnant who might have illnesses or disabilities which make them need to use the bathroom urgently.

          We really need more public bathrooms in this country.

        1. Sloanicota*

          Yes, the fact that all the sales people ask to use the toilet suggests to me they might be hoping to run into some people on the way and make some chat – might also be a sales tactic. If there were no other bathrooms available I would probably let them as a human right (and I know there are whole fields that don’t have bathroom access and might really be desperate) but in OP’s case there are other toilets easily accessible so I’d direct them there.

          1. MsM*

            Yeah, my guess is they’re either hoping they can stop by the break room and drop off their materials anyway or find someone who’s easier to convince/claim “LW2 said it was fine.”

            1. LunaLena*

              My first thought was they might be trying to put sales materials in the bathroom. I work at a university so almost all of the bathrooms are publicly available, and sometimes anonymous folks sneak in and put up flyers in the stalls. Usually they’re for some kind of political cause or other stuff that’s not allowed on the public bulletin boards. I remember one was specifically trying to recruit the cleaning staff for a union.

          2. MigraineMonth*

            Yeah, if they had a more legitimate reason for being there (e.g. delivery people) I would advocate strongly for letting them use the bathroom. This situation is a bit too weird, though.

            1. OP #2*

              OP #2 here
              Yeah, we’re fine with people who have actual business here using the rest room.
              It’s just the random people who pop up that we say no to.

              Except for the one guy hawking sports memorabilia (who was the most grumpy about being told “no”) they’ve all seemed to be early 20’s, so I’m thinking they are new to the workforce in bad entry level sales jobs (like, is anyone actually going to buy 8 x1 4 laminated bad art from door to door salespeople?) and don’t realize that not every company has public restrooms, or maybe we just look welcoming?

              I’m very glad to see Alison and the commentariat confirming we’re making the right decision directing them elsewhere. I would probably make an exception for a pregnant person. (small child is less likely since we’re in an industrial park, not someplace people are usually bringing small children)

              1. Eucerin*

                “they’ve all seemed to be early 20’s, so I’m thinking they are new to the workforce in bad entry level sales jobs”

                Oh man, these all sound like MLM sales “jobs” actually: Cutco, Kirby, that weird books one, stupid Primerica, etc. I know you didn’t mention vacuum cleaners or knives but between the age group of the people you’re encountering, the weird products overall, the dumb sales “tactics” including the bathroom requests etc…this specifically screams MLM.
                (If you ever feel like killing time while learning a ton of useful info about sleazy MLM tactics, look up Hannah Alonzo on Youtube. She shares stories from people who were in MLMs or had run-ins with them and the Kirby ones in particular are *wild*. She also does deep dive videos on specific companies like Amare, Rodan + Fields, etc and goes into detail about how these companies prey on users, why it’s impossible to actually make money in them, how they stay ahead of the law, etc).

        2. Joielle*

          Yeah, or the idea that if you want someone to like you, you should ask them for a favor (AKA the Ben Franklin effect). Bit weird that it’s happening all of a sudden, but maybe they all read the same post on some shady sales blog or something.

    2. nnn*

      That was my first thought, it’s some kind of social engineering thing trying to get into spaces that are outside the public eye.

      (Although off the top of my head I can think of a few better ways to do that)

        1. Allonge*

          From what our security / infosec colleagues say, it’s a soft infiltration method to get access to information they normally cannot see as it’s for internals only.

          If you see a random person in an otherwise closed office, you notice and pay attention to the stranger.

          If you start seeing them semi-regularly, it’s becoming part of the landscape, and you don’t think about e.g. shielding your screen or them looking at what is on your desk, conversations continue as if normal and so on. Generally we don’t need to keep information from coworkers to the level that we do from externals.

        2. MassMatt*

          It’s a very old school phishing technique. People used to do this sort of thing in order to get stuff like codes for long distance calling back when long distance calls were expensive. Pre internet hacking!

          1. MigraineMonth*

            “Social hacking” is still commonly used!

            The guy with the broken keycard who’s running late to an important meeting and asks you to swipe him in, or the woman who is carrying something so you hold the (secure) door open for her.

            The call from a different department where they’ve been locked out of their computers but they really need X piece of information for the presentation they’re giving to investors right now.

            The call from your bank that someone has hacked your accounts and is draining them as they speak, but they can help you transfer your remaining money to a safe account if you just give them your password and confirmation code.

            In fact, most phishing is just social hacking using email.

      2. Not One of the Bronte Sisters*

        I’m a lawyer and I have to say this twanged my antennae. It smacks of industrial espionage to me. Frankly, I don’t understand why these people deserve to have access to your premises AT ALL.

    3. Been there, seen that*

      Years ago, my office was on a stretch of road that had people like this coming in all the time trying to sell stuff to our business/staff. Even though we had a “No Soliciting” sign on our front door. Wall art/memorabilia as described in the OP’s post was one of the main things they were selling. It isn’t a targeted corporate espionage campaign. Just people trying to make a buck. And yes, they always asked to use our bathroom.

      1. Lexi Vipond*

        Yes, it seems more likely that they want to dump fliers in the bathroom or anywhere that they might get to pass on the way than that they’re an organised espionage campaign.

        1. quercus*

          It might be interesting if the OP starts telling the vendors that “Due to our security policy, i’d have to find an employee to accompany you. Should I try?” And see what the response is (OP could always still then say “sorry nobody is free right now”)

      2. Sloanicota*

        To be fair, I think people living rather close to the street are always hard up for good bathrooms. It’s a real issue culturally (which does not mean OP has to be the solution, of course – just acknowledging that anybody who’s going door to door all day probably wants a private bathroom whenever they can get it, for multiple reasons).

        1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

          For some reason they may believe the OP’s business bathroom is better/cleaner/something than the ones at the fast food places.

          OP directing them to the fast food places is fine.

          1. Sloanicota*

            More cynically, they may also hope for more privacy there to do something, whereas the public ones a) the staff is more used to the public and may be quicker to intercede and b) more people may be walking in and out. Some employee bathrooms are singletons with a lock, there’s a lot of reasons – both harmless and not! – that may be desirable to someone who is out in public all day.

          2. megaboo*

            Well, sometimes you have to buy something to use a bathroom in a fast food place (not sure about McDonald’s). They probably want to avoid that.

            1. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain*

              This. Especially in industrial or lower income areas of town. Shops and restaurants in the “nice” neighborhoods won’t usually do that IME, but close to the freeways/highways, and areas with a lot of homeless people absolutely have “bathrooms for paying customers only” signs everywhere.

        2. doreen*

          It’s not just people living close to the street – it’s really anyone whose job involves traveling around all day. It’s just easier for some jobs rather than others – salespeople with steady customers can use their customers’ restrooms, bus driver will try to find a business near their last stop , etc . But for the most part, those people are regularly going to the same places – people delivering fliers or trying to sell kitchen equipment to office workers are going to have a harder time.

        3. Hudson*

          This is my guess too. I used to be a door-to-door canvasser, and I’d occasionally ask people who were particularly nice if I could use their bathroom. It was cleaner than any public bathroom I may stumble upon, and there were a lot of areas where there weren’t any public bathrooms to be found. Or, if there were, they were bathrooms for customers only, so I would’ve had to buy something, which wasn’t an ideal prospect, since I was only making $8.25 an hour.

          A friend of mine used to canvass in Arizona, where there’s a widely held belief that it’s illegal to deny water to someone if they ask (not actually true, but there are a lot of public health campaigns encouraging people not to refuse to give people water). If he ever got a really rude person when he was canvassing, he’d ask them to refill his water bottle. Maybe that’s what happening here, not corporate espionage, but pettiness.

      3. Syfy Geek*

        Did you get the people hawking the pictures done on foil, with foil? some kind of foil was involved to make the picture? They had assorted images, but I did buy one that had a dragon on it for my kid. And found it a few weeks ago in going through a box that had been moved at least 4 times in 15 years and there was the dragon picture on/with foil, and it was still bright and shiny.

        But I still didn’t let them use the bathroom.

    5. Magpie*

      I think this is a sales tactic. They’re hoping to extend the conversation a few more minutes because maybe by the time they’ve come out of the bathroom you’ll have softened to them and will be more open to whatever they’re selling.

      2. Harper the Other One*

        Yes, there’s also some sales techniques that say if you can get a small “yes” you can work your way to a big one – extend the conversation and start moving it into some form of exchange. I got told about this technique in a retail sales job where they advised to ask a customer who wasn’t buying to add them to our database “for the future.”

        1. Nerfmobile*

          It’s called the “foot in the door” technique. Well known by social psychologists, sales people, and con men.

      3. m*

        Yupp! They actually probably go call a sales manager and fill them in on the exchange. The sales manager may then give them another strategy to use. I briefly did some cold calling sales in college. It was just about as horrible as you would imagine. I only lasted about 3 weeks.

      4. Sloanicota*

        They could also potentially wander a bit on the way to/from the bathroom, which might give them either the chance to post more fliers in other places or at least scope out the situation better for a future visit. There’s really no downside to them in asking. I think OP is right to redirect them to a nearby public option.

    6. Artemesia*

      If it is happening often enough to write about yeah — sounds like enemy action. In any case, why are you letting randos hawking sports paraphenalia have access to your break room? I’d just be turning away people who show up that you have not invited.

      1. Chief Bottle Washer*

        Exactly! I don’t understand why you are even entertaining conversation from random that don’t have an appointment. At my old work, the doors were locked with keycard access. If you didn’t have an appointment, nobody was going to let you in.

    7. Be Gneiss*

      The manufacturing plant I used to work at definitely had a series of “random people who wanted to sell their wares in our breakroom” for a while. We made a product that has basically used the same manufacturing process and equipment all over the world since WWII, so I doubt it was an attempt to steal our secrets. Not to say that it couldn’t be espionage, but just to say that I have seen this thing and it exists, and when they came to our site they also visited several other businesses in our area.

    8. WellRed*

      You’re paranoid. This is absolutely a thing but I’m surprised it’s happening so much. But corporate espionage campaign? Are those zebra hoof beats I hear?

    9. Spero*

      I have a different take on it – I will say I’m a social worker who works with a lot of unhoused and formerly incarcerated folks. A lot of the ‘selling random stuff’ people are unhoused or couchsurfing and those are day pickup jobs that don’t require a background check- for someone who can’t guarantee where they will be tonight or if they can get to a regular job consistently and may not have a cellphone, those types of jobs may be the only thing they can get to bring in a few dollars if they’re not strong enough to pick up construction/landscaping jobs. Also, all these places people list for restrooms – you have to BUY SOMETHING there. A person with no money doesn’t want to go in and be harassed for not buying something just because they have to pee. The public library and government buildings are usually the only other spaces you can use a restroom without paying for something, so a company that isn’t selling to the public is a perfect place to ask to use a restroom if you can’t afford a donut.

      1. WellRed*

        Thank
        You for this comment. A lot of privledgd and comments shining through. “ oh just send them to McDonald’s “ not fair to people doing shit sales jobs or McDonald’s. I once did a ride a long with city sanitation workers. they had to bop into fast food places between picking up your gross trash. Human kindness is never wrong but be paranoid if it smiles upon you.

    10. Deborah Vance, Vance Refrigeration*

      I wouldn’t think corporate espionage but, coming from a violent country, my first thought was that these people were using excuses to take a good look into the place so they could come back later and break in. But this is not unusual where I’m from, so YMMV.

    11. Slovenly Braid Cultist*

      Back when I was a receptionist I had something similar, though the person’s reason for showing up was less outlandish- essentially they were trying to walk-in for something we don’t take as walk-ins. I felt too cruel saying they couldn’t use the restroom, so they did, and they took FOREVER. I don’t think they did anything inappropriate or suspicious (there’s nothing but bathroom stuff in the bathroom, and I could see to make sure they weren’t going anywhere else, which is why I relented.)

      Essentially I think they just dawdled and lingered hoping someone else would be in there and they could chat them up and get an “in” for the thing they wanted in the first place.

      Definitely a learning experience, though fortunately that situation never popped up again. I more or less chalked it up to an excess of gumption, and made a note of the name they gave so any future attempts to get in touch with us would have the context of their weird behavior.

    12. Commenter 505*

      “Can I use your bathroom” is an old sales technique. The seller asks the mark for a simple favor, and if they agree, the seller knows the mark is amenable to a Yes, so they should continue the play. Also it’s a way to get a mark comfortable saying Yes to the sellers reasonable requests.

      Have you ever had to fend off those like 19-20 year olds selling magazines door-to-door? OP’s situation sounds very similar to that model. The “sales crew” trains, lives and works together while traveling to different cities. They’re trained on a specific script and sales technique. They might spend weeks in an area before moving on to the next, which would explain the recent uptick in sales calls using the same technique, each one selling some random, low-quality item or service.

      1. tricked by Quill*

        Oh my goodness, that describes the exact same “sales” job for Quill I interviewed for fresh out of college 10 years ago. They lied and said it was a marketing position, said they had “field interviews” and I was too passive/naïve to say no. They put me in a car, drove me to another city, and had me go door-to-door with my interviewer.

        It turned out everyone working their lived together like a cult add moved around together to different cities too! They only get paid on commission, not even hourly. I trued to explain to my interviewer that she could just get an entry level office account management job that paid a base salary AND commissions AND had benefits without having to do this, but she was in too deep. I always wondered how much she was actually making…

    13. Sarah M*

      Maybe I’m paranoid, too. But this seemed strange to me as well. I could see one or two needing to use the bathroom, but *all* of them??? And after bypassing several nearby bathrooms open to the public? It is odd, and I would definitely be flagging this to the appropriate peeps/higher ups. It could be any number of (not good) things, not just corp. espionage.

    14. Princess Sparklepony*

      I’m not sure about that, what I would think is that they are trying to get another bite of the apple by either stopping at the break room and putting out flyers for their products or approaching other people in the office trying to get someone to say yes to their setting up their merch for employees to buy.

      Or get to another decision maker to get a sale business to business. The idea being the person you first meet isn’t really the decision maker, so look for the “real” decision maker.

  2. Audrey*

    Only slightly off topic — I worked in a private office for a long time that was not open to the public in a similar way. One time a lady dropped by begging to use the restroom because she was desperate. I let her but warned her it wasn’t a public restroom and that a crew of [construction adjacent] workers used it so it was NOT clean, but she went anyway.

    She came out and had the audacity to complain to me about the cleanliness of the bathroom. [facepalm]

    1. Nica*

      LOL – I worked in a store that was three floors. We did NOT have a restroom on the main floor and I think that was by design so that anyone needing the restrooms would need to go through the entire store to do so. One bathroom was on the third floor in the opposite corner from the escalator. The other was on the bottom floor and kind of hidden through a maze of women’s clothing departments.

      Customers complained constantly about it about how they had to walk SO far to the bathrooms (mind you, each was 100% ADA compliant, so that was not an issue). I’d just hear them out, but think in my mind “Sure, we’ll get right on that and move the bathrooms to the main floor just for you so you don’t have to walk an extra couple of minutes…”

      1. Random Bystander*

        Yeah, when I worked retail–in a maternity store, ironically enough I found out I was pregnant with #2 right after starting–we had a staff restroom … but it was not ADA compliant. The whole back room wasn’t ADA compliant. The area was tiny with a rack for clothes, a space for the manager’s desk, some boxes of freight and fixtures not currently in use, and the bathroom (door was not opposite the door into the back room, thankfully). We happened to be two doors away from one of the anchors (all the anchors in the mall had restrooms in addition to the mall’s restrooms in the middle where the food court is), and always re-directed people asking for the restroom to Macy’s (the anchor) … yes, their bathroom was clear the other side of the store from the entrance where we were, but we couldn’t let people back there, it was far too risky that someone would get hurt snooping around back there.

      2. Anon Commenter #19384*

        Just because they are ADA compliant does not mean it doesn’t present accessibility challenges. Not everyone with mobility issues uses a wheelchair. I say this as someone with a chronic genetic disorder that has trashed my joints. Because so many of my joints (in particular my neck/back) are so bad, a lot of mobility devices just make things worse, and I can’t afford a fancy mobility scooter plus the car requried to transport it, which would probably have to be custom made blah blah blah – and I’m usually out alone so no one to push me.

        Most of the time, I get around okay. But a few years ago, things were a lot worse, every step counted, so yes, while I’m sure I could have made it to the ADA compliant restroom, it doesn’t mean it didn’t take away a lot of spoons for one day.

        (I’m probably unecessarily bitter b/c I worked for a long time in a place like that – where you had to take elevator to basement or up to a different floor and walk a long ways just to use a restroom.)

        tl;dr: ADA compliant doesn’t mean it’s accessible – or at least, accessible in a way that doesn’t make someone’s life worse.

      3. Gretta*

        FYI, even if it’s ADA compliant, some people have a hard time walking long distances. So it could be a real hardship. There’s a whole universe between perfectly abled people and people in nice motorized wheelchairs. That in-between part is actually really difficult, and often times unaccommodated. I’m in that spot right now – I can’t walk long distances or be on my feet a long time. Lots and lots and lots of places I want to go to are wheelchair-friendly, but are completely inaccessible to me because there are no options besides walking long distances and being on my feet the whole time. Sometimes they’ll offer a non-motorized tiny wheelchair, but 1 – I’m by myself so who is going to push it and 2- I don’t think my fat ass is going to fit.

      4. MigraineMonth*

        That actually does seem like a significant problem to me? Probably not one that the information desk could easily fix, but I’d avoid shopping anywhere that had such inconvenient bathrooms. I certainly wouldn’t take a child, elderly person with bladder issues, or someone who had trouble walking a long distance there.

      5. Orv*

        This is common in retail. It makes those stores hard to repurpose because most other uses a building like that could be put to require more bathrooms.

    2. OP #2*

      Some people just have more than the average stores of audacity and entitlement, I guess.

      A while back a woman came in, not to ask to use the bathroom, but because she was lost and trying to find a particular plumbing supply company. I have no idea why she stopped at our company, and also had no idea where that company was.

      She got irritated that I couldn’t help her, complaining snootily “It’s a WELL KNOWN company, everybody knows it! How can you not know?!? Like I was there just to assist her. My internal voice was all “Well, you don’t know either lady, so don’t look at me.”

      And the kicker was, I asked her what street it was on, figuring I could at least point her to the general vicinity … and she didn’t know!

  3. Not A Manager*

    I also get a different feel from beer and wine than from mixed drinks, fwiw. I don’t think badly of one vs. the other, but they feel different to me.

    1. TheBunny*

      This.

      I can’t explain it but the beer and wine feel 100% fine and the alcohol feels questionable, but for no logical reason.

      1. Peanut Hamper*

        Beer and wine also contain alcohol. There is a difference in perception between these two and you’ve just said it. Some people just associate liquor of any type as something seedy, and debauched. I guess it goes back to Prohibition maybe?

      2. Tio*

        I think my difference in perception is that spirits tend to have higher proofs. My current company will do beer and wine but not spirits, and I heard its because it gives you more buffer to keep people from going too far too fast, but that could just be what I heard.

        1. allathian*

          Mixed drinks are one thing, shots are something else. It’s very easy to drink a lot of shots in a short time. Even mixed drinks stay in the glass longer. But if you have bottles of liquor around, some people are going to want shots and it’s easier to ban liquor altogether than to permit mixed drinks and ban shots.

          That said, the drinks that stays in my glass the longest are beer and wine because they are served at room temperature or chilled but without ice. Mixed drinks (and even hard cider) go down faster because I don’t want my drinks diluted by the melting ice. Some types of cider are great even without ice, but not the kind that’s sweet like hard soda.

      3. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

        Perception is weird and not logical

        My mom who is French and drinks wine with dinner every day, but for years was very concerned about my husband because he would have a beer with dinner. To her beer with dinner was a red flag. And when she found out I occasionally drank a bourbon, she thought I was an alcoholic.

        1. Princess Sparklepony*

          My mom was sort of the same but different. In her mind wine and beer were things normal people drank, mixed drinks or hard liquor were what alcoholics drank.

          It took her a long time to get used to the idea that I liked a nice cocktail but was not an alcoholic. And to this day, I think she still wonders if I am an alcoholic…

      4. New laptop who dis*

        I work in higher ed, at a very well-known university. We get sued constantly, for all kinds of things.

        It’s policy that we are ONLY allowed to offer beer/wine at events, no liquor.

        My guess is the university decided that, while they couldn’t really get away with eliminating alcohol, they wanted to decrease some of the legal risk of someone driving home drunk or acting inappropriately.

    2. Richard*

      I feel the same way, and I think that it’s the amount of preparation. You can have basically anybody serve beer and wine or even put out a bucket of ice with bottles and cans in it, but mixed drinks require a dedicated person you trust to mix them well and responsibly.

      1. Despachito*

        This.

        To me, it sounds rather as a purely logistic question, because the amount of alcohol in a mixed drink would be roughly the same, if not less as in a glass of wine/beer, but they would need an extra person and equipment to make a mixed drink.

        1. doreen*

          There are all sorts of reasons why I might serve beer and wine but not mixed drinks at an event – the cost of an open bar including liquor is higher than open bar with beer/wine/soda , you don’t need an actual bartender ( or possibly anyone) to serve been and wine – but I wouldn’t say it’s inappropriate at a work function or specify no mixed drinks even if the price is the same either way.

          1. sparkle emoji*

            Yeah, the resistance to mixed drinks even when the price is the same is what takes this into odd territory for me. Opting for wine and beer for price reasons is expected. I’d be curious if this coworker is from a religious or cultural background that practices abstinence from alcohol? Maybe lower ABV is something she finds tolerable but higher ABV feels like its pushing the limits?

        2. MigraineMonth*

          I don’t know if other people have experienced this, but I have the worst time tracking the amount of alcohol I’ve consumed when it’s in mixed drinks, because the amount of alcohol varies so much from drink to drink.

          A US “standard” drink is 12 oz beer, 5 oz wine, a 1.5 oz shot, and ?? of a Long Island iced tea.

      2. Not One of the Bronte Sisters*

        Exactly. I think that’s what it is. You don’t have to hire a bartender. Any adult can assist with serving beer and wine and it takes almost no time per drink.

    3. JSPA*

      When there’s high-proof liquor on site, (and if you’re not in a country where the proportion of alcohol in the drink is mandated) there’s the risk of bartenders being generous; people tipping bartenders to be generous; people ordering an “extra dry martini, just wave the vermouth bottle over it,” and more generally, people not having a good sense of exactly how much they’ve consumed.

      On the other hand you can say the same thing for wine spritzers, beer shandies, mimosas (etc).

      If the goal is to make sure that nobody drives with more than two standard units of alcohol in them…yeah, some mixed drinks will put the customer well over that limit. (But so will a near-the-brim full, “generous sized” wine glass.)

    4. Emmy Noether*

      There are entire countries that have a different drinking age for beer/wine than other alcohol, so you are not alone in feeling they’re different.

      1. Been There*

        Yes, that’s the case in my country. I always thought it was because of the different alcohol content. Aren’t liquors stronger than beer/wine? I think that’s why the second is seen as fine to serve at work events, but the first one gets a raised eyebrow.

        1. Sloanicota*

          One shot of liquor in a cocktail wouldn’t be much stronger than 16oz of beer or 5 oz of wine at the end of the drink (I don’t think), but the potential is obviously there to make a stronger drink from liquor.

          1. Flor*

            It’s actually lower! In the UK, where this distinction is in place in the law, a single measure of spirits has 1 unit of alcohol, but a half-pint of 4% ABV (a pretty common percentage) beer has 1.1 units and a 125ml glass of 12% wine has 1.5 units.

            However, in the UK the law specifically is that beer, wine and cider may be consumed from 16 (rather than 18) *with a meal*. And I think that might be the social/cultural distinction for someone like the LW’s colleague. Beer and wine are drinks that you have with dinner, not drinks that are primarily consumed alone without food.

        2. Emmy Noether*

          I thought so too, but here it’s not linked to percentage. Alcopops (essentially sugary pre-mixed cocktails) are explicitly in the more restricted category.

          Best I can come up with is tradition/perception. Beer and wine are seen as a thing you sip with a meal or a conversation, they’re less strong than pure liquor and they don’t hide the alcohol taste as much as sugary mixed drinks. So they don’t “encourage” binge drinking as much (even though it’s very possible to get very drunk on them). But mostly I think it’s tradition.

          Interestingly, I didn’t see how cider is classified. Maybe wine (as in “apple wine”)?

          1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

            Apple wine (apfelwein) is its own thing. Someday I’ll learn to pronounce that word correctly.

            Cidre is usually classified with beers from my experience, with apfelweins included with other fruit wines (cranberry, blackberry, raspberry, etc) under the “white wine” umbrella. The cutoff is somewhere around 8-9% ABV. It’s rare to see more than one or two token varieties on a menu/drink list. Angry Orchard even hopps some of their cidres.

            As an amateur vintner, I’ve recipes for both (I have *zero* taste for beer and drink cidre instead). The process is closer to winemaking, a mere fraction of the work creating beer requires and similar patience to making white wine.

            1. Good Lord Ratty*

              Closest you can get to the pronunciation without IPA:

              ahp (rhymes with “stop”) fel (rhymes with “bull”) vine (rhymes with “wine”). Emphasis on the first syllable.

            2. JSPA*

              in the US, for decades, domestic hard cider was rare, and imported was hard to come by and highly taxed because it was classified with wine (and other fruit-based ferments) rather than beer, despite being culturally and (in terms of alcohol percent) closer to beer than wine.

              1. Sola Lingua Bona Lingua Mortua Est*

                Another legacy of Prohibition… Cidre orchards were torn up in fervor the same way vineyards were, but grape vines grow back in a mere fraction of the time that apple trees do.

          2. sparkle emoji*

            What you mention about alcopops is interesting. In my part of the US(PA), some are grouped with beer and sold in grocery stores, but only if their base spirit is malt liquor. If they use other liquors like vodka or tequila, they are in a different category and are only sold in liquor stores.

        3. sparkle emoji*

          The ABV is higher in most liquors if you’re drinking them straight, like in a shot. However, in a mixed drink the alcohol content should be roughly equivalent if it’s mixed properly because it gets diluted by the mixers(with exceptions like Long Island Iced Teas and other drinks with multiple servings of liquor).

          1. MigraineMonth*

            I wish Long Island Iced Teas, Mudslides and similar were clearly labeled with how many servings of alcohol they contained. My younger self loved sweet drinks but didn’t know which ones would get me buzzed and which would get me falling-down-drunk.

    5. Jam*

      Beer and wine are drinks you might traditionally have with dinner/food, that would be the distinction in my mind aside from price.

      1. ecnaseener*

        That distinction doesn’t exist in my mind – it’s completely normal in my experience to have a cocktail with your meal at a restaurant.

        1. doreen*

          I was going to ask “with your meal or before it” because I rarely see people ordering cocktails with their meals. And then I realized that’s not really true- it’s just that I don’t really think of “fruit juice and vodka and possibly seltzer in a normal glass” as a cocktail although that really isn’t logical.

          1. ecnaseener*

            I mean, you order drinks before the meal usually but then you sip the cocktail throughout the meal just like you would with wine or beer!

            And yes this does apply to actual cocktails, not just simple mixed drinks.

            1. Bossy*

              You can certainly drink cocktails with dinner! I’ve also done cocktail(s) and apps before and then wine with dinner. I feel that is kind of the old school classic way to do it but I could be wrong.

        2. MsSolo (UK)*

          That’s interesting; I’ve never really seen people have cocktails with a meal, outside of something like a boozy brunch. Traditionally cocktails are an aperitif or digestif – to have with canapés or after dessert – because most don’t have flavours that complement food the way wine and beer can. Either too sweet or too strong (which way it goes usually hints at which end of the meal that particular cocktail would be served at). Of course, this is also with the UK hat on of spirit-and-mixer =/= cocktail (though it would still stand out if you were having a G&T with a roast dinner, though maybe not with a salad).

          1. ecnaseener*

            Must be a cultural thing then, I’m east coast US and it’s perfectly normal for someone to have an actual cocktail (like a cosmopolitan or whatever) with their meal at a normal restaurant dinner.

            1. Emmy Noether*

              Definitely cultural. Mixed drinks with a real meal would be unusual in my experience.

              It does depend a bit on the cuisine. French, for example, is definitely wine and water only, and so is Italian (you can have beer with pizza). On the other hand, you can have any drink with a burger.

              1. ecnaseener*

                Lol it’s not that, my 60something mother always has a cosmo with dinner at restaurants!

          2. RussianInTexas*

            It’s really is cultural, because margaritas are absolutely cocktails and are a very common accompaniment to any Mexican or Tex-Mex dinner.

            1. RussianInTexas*

              And many not even Mexican restaurants now have margaritas on the menu and they are perfectly acceptable to drink while eating dinner.

            1. Emmy Noether*

              I think a cocktail is more complicated? Like a rum-and-coke is not a cocktail, it’s a longdrink. I don’t know how many different ingredients and garnishes are required to make it a true cocktail though.

              1. Modesty Poncho*

                Interesting. Good to know. I’ve always considered anything from rum and coke to fancy punch a “cocktail”. And it’s a “mocktail” if it’s a mixed drink with no alcohol in it, like a combination of juices and seltzer.

              3. Good Lord Ratty*

                Never heard of a “longdrink”. Rum and coke is a cocktail. It might be a simple one, but that doesn’t make it not a cocktail.

    6. Coffee*

      I have understood that when cocktails become fashionable about 100 years ago, they were scandalous and something flappers drink! Not sure if it’s true

      1. Princess Sparklepony*

        Coffee – supposedly they were invented to make rotgut whisky go down easy. Some of the hootch that people made to get around Prohibition was not good in any way, shape, or form. And that’s assuming it didn’t kill you.

    7. Resident Catholicville, U.S.A.*

      In my neck of the woods, beer and wine are one type of alcohol license and hard liquor is another, so they’re segregated in a lot of people’s minds, even if unofficially- you’ll see beer and wine sold at a lot of stores, but not hard liquor; same with some restaurants. Even if she knows a venue has a license for both, she might equate beer and wine with a wider availability and acceptability than hard liquor and just extend that out to work propriety.

      1. Person from the Resume*

        I my very Catholic neck of the woods, we can purchase beer, wine, and liquor at grocery stores, big box stores whenever they’re open, 7-days a week.

        But there are places where they’re treated differently so I can see how someone could categorize them differently in her mind.

        Her opinion is oddball for sure and not a business norm, but not worth fighting about. There are logistical reasons (and sometimes legal ones) that make beer and wine easier to provide than mixed drinks

    8. Sloanicota*

      I don’t think it’s inappropriate to have a full bar or anything, but I guess I do think a beer and wine reception implies a milder and more corporate facing event as opposed to a full bar which suggests more of a party/wedding. It sets the tone. I’ve also seen one (weak-ish) house cocktail offered for those who prefer. I would guess her objection stems from people going to the bar and being able to order shots, doubles, stiff mixes, etc in a full bar setting, and some people do get silly when they see it’s all! free! If you’ve used your two free drink tickets for that (and it’s generally not hard to get other people’s unused tickets) you can have lowered inhibitions as you contemplate your next drink.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        That’s where I land, oh a glass of wine, sure. But in general people don’t drink multiple glasses of wine at an event. But have shots available, mimosas? Somehow people get silly. The lack of ragers might be due to the fact that only beer and wine are served, but might change if liquor were served.

        1. Bella Ridley*

          Mimosas aren’t shots, they’re made with sparkling wine, and are not usually served at non-morning events.

          1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

            Hence the comma to denote a separate drink. And people will drink mimosas whenever if they are available. I had one at the Romney Peach Festival at 3 p.m.

    9. SheLooksFamiliar*

      I think the OP is drawing an unkind or faulty inference about the organizer’s stand on liquor. OP wrote, ‘She SEEMS TO THINK that beer and wine are appropriate for a work event, but that a gin and tonic is ABSOLUTELY DEGENERATE.’ Caps are mine to make my point. Nowhere did the OP write that the organizer actually said those things.

      OP also wrote the organizer is in her 70s, which could mean she’s seen drunken behavior at previous events due to overserving hard liquor, hence the drink tickets and dialed-down alcohol content. Or she’s been asked by TPTB to stick with beer and wine for whatever reason, valid or not, and it’s become their standard…as it has with countless association events.

      Whatever the reason, I’ll draw an inference of my own: I think the OP simply wants a mixed drink at these events and considers any barrier to getting one unreasonable.

      1. Bella Ridley*

        What? Why? What makes it sound like the OP think it’s unreasonable to not be able to get a cocktail? It doesn’t even sound like she cares either way, just that she also plans events and is wondering where this colleague’s stance originates from.

        1. SheLooksFamiliar*

          What makes it sound like that? First, the overall tone of the letter. Second, the ‘thinking’ she attributes to the organizer who, by the way, apparently never said those things. The OP is assuming those are her reasons, and that’s hardly a neutral or benign stance. Finally, OP said this: ‘I almost never think that work disagreements are based on generational differences, but maybe in this case it is, a bit?)’ So there you have it: OP disagreed with the organizer’s stance.

          Low stakes or not, OP might well be ‘wondering’, but I think she has An Opinion. Which is fine, if disingenuous.

          1. Cmdrshprd*

            Eh I don’t think OP ever said they didn’t have an opinion, just that they didn’t care enough to make a big deal about it.
            That is a reasonable and common stance.

            There are plenty of restaurants that I have an opinion on in the like or don’t like. But several I don’t care enough to make a big deal about.
            Restaurant A might be in the don’t like pile for me, but if someone suggested it for dinner I would go and wouldn’t care enough to say anything about it to the person. Or the reverse restaurant B might be one I like, but I wouldn’t care enough to make my opinion known about it enough to stay we should go there.

            Then there are other restaurants that I really really like or don’t like, that if someone mentioned I would say, I refuse to go to restaurant C, or we must go to restaurant D.

            That is where I think OP sits. they disagree with the other organizer, and would prefer to serve cocktails (especially if it’s no added cost) but they don’t care enough to raise it as an issue they are just curious why someone might have that stance.

            Other restaurants

              1. Statler von Waldorf*

                It doesn’t necessarily mean pejorative, but they way you used it sure had a pejorative tone to my ears, as did both of the comments you made.

                It also feels really hypocritical to me for you to bash her because you “think she has An Opinion” when you clearly have some Opinions of your own. That’s far more disingenuous to me than anything the LW said.

                1. SheLooksFamiliar*

                  Here’s the difference:

                  I neer said I did not have an opinion. In fact, I clearly do.

                  The OP is posing her question as low-stakes, I-don’t-really-care, just curious about what AAM thinks. But the tone – the overall mood of her letter – says otherwise to me.

                  If that’s a problem for some folks here, then it’s just going to have to be a problem since nothing I can post will change opinions.

      2. nofiredrills*

        “Again, this is low-stakes; I’m definitely not going to change my coworker’s mind, and I don’t think our group overly cares that we’re not providing mixed drinks. But I am curious to hear your opinion” -from the letter. I believe a commenting rule is to take OP at face value. I only ever get beer or wine at work events, but I would find this policy curious too. I think your last sentence is a quite a leap.

    10. Admin Lackey*

      William Hogarth has entered the chat

      (I don’t disagree with you, but I think it’s interesting how far back this idea goes – check out Beer Street and Gin Lane)

    11. Jeanine*

      That’s how they operate in my state. Taverns and restaurants, and stores, generally have beer and wine, no hard alcohol. Bars have hard alcohol and state liquor stores. So I don’t see a problem with separating them. Or we could leave it all out and go with sparkling water or coffee.

    12. Not a drinker*

      As someone who no longer drinks I struggle when events only serve wine and beer. Serving mixed drinks helps those of us who don’t drink blend into a social much better since I can drink sparking water with lime without opening my (not) drinking for discussion.

      1. Statler von Waldorf*

        I want to second this. I don’t drink for medical reasons, and being able to nurse an OJ and call it a screwdriver is so much easier than explaining for the fifteenth time that I don’t drink. There are also many people who for some dumb reason take the fact that I don’t drink as a judgment of the fact that they do. I can’t even carry around a glass of water without someone wanting to get me a “real drink.”

        Thankfully, working in the oilpatch in Northern Canada, I’ve never seen a business social event that served beer and wine that didn’t also serve mixed drinks. I suspect there is a strong cultural component to this.

    13. Gretta*

      My parents, also in the 70s, love to drink beer and wine. But hard liquor is very racy and debauched to them. I think maybe because that was what THEIR parents drank? My grandparents were making Manhattans and martinis all the time.

    14. Orv*

      There used to be an old-fashioned rule that you only drank hard liquor after sunset. Maybe LW’s coworker has internalized that.

    15. Echo*

      It’s definitely A Thing, and I wasn’t surprised by the age demographics because I’ve had the same conversation with my parents (me: Millennial, them: Baby Boomers). Think: “A whiskey cocktail?! Whoa, Echo, when did you become such a hard drinker?” Mother, that whiskey cocktail has the same ABV as the two glasses of wine you have with dinner every night…

  4. nnn*

    I don’t think there’s anything inappropriate about not having liquor at a work event, and I also don’t think there’s anything weird about only having a couple of alcoholic options, none of which end up being liquor. If they said “We have beer, red wine, and white wine, along with the usual non-alcoholic beverages,” I wouldn’t give it a second thought.

    1. The Prettiest Curse*

      Beer and wine (plus maybe prosecco) are very standard alcoholic drink options for networking receptions, speaking as someone who has organised a quite a few of them. It is pretty rare to have an open bar for the reasons mentioned.

    2. nnn*

      Just realized I typoed my way to an antonym – that first bit should be “I don’t think there’s anything inappropriate about having liquor at a work event, and also I don’t think there’s anything weird about only having a couple of alcoholic options”

    3. Where’s the Orchestra?*

      Agreed. I will also say that in all my years of working and attending work-adjacent events the only thing I’ve seen explicitly banned were shots.

      But given that shots seems to frequently be associated with getting drunk, it made perfect sense to me.

      1. Cmdrshprd*

        Even at weddings/parties shots are often “banned” by the catering company/bar itself as a way to prevent over serving and liability reasons.

    4. Caroline*

      I think it’s completely fine, but do explain that’s what’s on offer when inviting people.

      I dislike beer and wine sometimes triggers migraines for me, so I rarely drink it at events. I do like mixed drinks, and my VP encourages people to drink at company fun functions (partly hospitality, partly frat boy bro-ness), so I’ll usually order just one. At a recent event, the organizer only arranged for beer and wine and didn’t tell anyone. I ordered a mixed drink, the bartender made me the drink and then informed me it wasn’t part of our event package and I’d need to pay for it myself, my purse was on the other side of the space and I needed to go get it, the VP overheard and intervened, asking them to run a tab on his card separately for anyone who wanted mixed drinks, but it was more of a hullabaloo than a quiet word. The event space was new and the staff was all new snd the organizer on our side had never organized an event like this before and it was all just far more awkward than it needed to be and drew the attention of a lot of attendees. If I knew all that would happen, I would have just ordered a water!

    5. Lady Danbury*

      Completely agree. It’s completely normal to have liquor at professional events where I live. In my experience, professional events that I’ve attended that just have wine/beer tend to do it for logistical reasons (ease and cost) more than some feeling of inappropriateness or to prevent overindulgence. I wouldn’t feel differently about either option, except maybe to think that the wine/beer event throwers are trying to cut costs. At my current company, we tend to either have no alcohol or full bar.

    6. Ashley*

      I am always amazed at events like this how weak the non-alcoholic beverages are.
      One thing I know from experience are offering mixed drinks allow people (especially newly pregnant women) to fake it with a n alcohol free mixed drink so you don’t get 20 questions about why you aren’t drinking. This seems like less of an issue at a place where drink tickets aren’t overly used, but in some industries / circumstances it is incredibly helpful.

      1. Humble Schoolmarm*

        Pre-pandemic, my drink of choice was a rye and coke in a tall class (so 1 shot of alcohol, but more mixer). It had my preferred ratio of booze to non-booze and I could switch to plain pop at any time without the pushy drunk contingent noticing.

      2. sparkle emoji*

        I’m not sober or pregnant but usually don’t drink at work events, and I love the ol’ reliable seltzer with lime because it looks like a mixed drink. Great for avoiding questions.

    7. Spreadsheet Queen*

      Agree. Not inappropriate at all. But I also agree with Alison that other factors may apply. I don’t know how many events I’ve been to that did have liquor/mixed drinks in addition to beer, wine, & sodas, but did NOT have enough bartenders and the lines were insanely long to get a drink. It’s just faster to pour wine & beer. There was also the event I went to that had untrained bartenders who didn’t know what a screwdriver was who we had to walk through preparing the drink. Also not efficient. The most important things, IMO, is that whatever you have, you have sufficient staff to keep the lines moving AND that you have water at separate stations as self-serve. (And a big enough room for the event. It’s already introvert hell. Don’t pack ’em in like sardines.)

    8. Coyote River*

      I can’t imagine not allowing spirits at my company’s work events, but that may just be because I have a fondness for whiskey.

  5. Brain the Brian*

    My company definitely does ban liquor and mixed drinks from company events where beer and wine are served — and not for cost reasons. (We also, for example, have a ban on private side chats during video calls, though, so take that for what it’s worth — we’re unusually strict about a lot of things.)

    1. Wolf*

      Mine does, too. Their reason: most beers are 5-8% alcohol, no extra rules needed. If mixed drinks were included, they’d have to consider whether there’s an allowed range – a gin tonic is much lighter than, say, a long island iced tea. So they just skip the entire question by only offering soft drinks and beer.

      1. Magenta*

        Would you classify a spirit and mixer as the same kind of drink as a long island iced tea? In the UK they would not be the same at all.

        For me a spirit and mixer is a totally different class of drink to a cocktail with multiple ingredients, all pubs and bars offer the former, but not all offer the latter.

        The alcohol in spirits is totally comparable to beer and wine as well, a single spirit has pretty much the same alcohol as a half a (Imperial) pint of beer or a small (125ml) glass of wine, they all have 1 unit.

        It might be the law on measures though, spirits are sold as singles (25ml) and doubles (50ml) and most bars have the regular spirits mounted on the walls in optics that pre-measure a shot so it is literally a case of holding a glass under the bottle to get the spirit then adding a dash of whatever from a soda gun or opening a little mixer bottle so really no more effort or time than pouring a Guinness. When I was in the US I saw a lot more free pouring so I guess it is different.

        1. Humble Schoolmarm*

          Canada here and yes I think we do make a distinction between cocktails (multiple alcoholic and non-alcoholic ingredients, usually listed on a menu) and mixed drinks (alcohol and a mixer, also in singles and doubles, not seen on menus). That being said, the distinction is obvious to sober and reasonable me, but it might not be to tipsy guests. A Long Island iced tea vs a g+t is pretty obvious, but martinis, old-fashioneds and dark and stormys all read upscale sophisticated sipping beverage (like wine) even if they do have multiple shots of liquor. Likewise, why would a shot of tequila probably be a problem, but a tequila sunrise (tequilla, orange juice and grenadine) wouldn’t be? I can see preferring to keep things simple.

    2. Bast*

      I worked for a company that threw annual Christmas parties and banned liquor after there were too many Incidences and they didn’t want to deal with them anymore. Unfortunately, unlimited free booze was too much for some people to handle, and there got to be more and more Incidences as people took advantage of shots, in particular. It’s true that once they banned liquor and only served beer and wine there really weren’t anymore Incidences. If you were too drunk to drive home (which not many people were having enough beer and wine to get drunk) they’d call you a cab or you could rent a room in the hotel where the party was held. In general though, people getting blackout drunk, start a fight with a random colleague drunk, did not happen anymore. The drama was over.

    3. Annony*

      I always assumed it was a combination of cost and time. Beer and wine are faster since you are either cracking open a bottle or simply pouring a glass from a single bottle. Receptions with mixed drinks result in very long lines.

  6. MassMatt*

    #5 Dealing with being fired at interviews, make absolutely sure you understand the difference between being fired and being laid off and do not mix them up. I see and hear this constantly, there are big differences between the two.

    1. Seeking Second Childhood*

      Be honest if you have a situation like I did – I was once fired *because they could not make payroll* , and I had been the most recently hired.

      1. Parenthesis Guy*

        If you were let go because your company couldn’t meet payroll, then you weren’t fired. You were laid off. Being fired means that you were dismissed for reasons related to your performance or conduct, while being laid off means that you were let go for reasons related to the company’s situation.

      2. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        It seems like they’re doing you a disservice by calling that firing. It sounds like a layoff of one to me!

        1. MassMatt*

          It’s a real disservice, and one in the employer’s interest because in most states people that are fired are ineligible to collect unemployment. But it just shows how pervasive the creep of “getting fired” is vs: laid off.

          1. Observer*

            and one in the employer’s interest because in most states people that are fired are ineligible to collect unemployment.

            Except that if you were “fired” because the company had financial trouble, you are still eligible to collect unemployment.

            1. New Jack Karyn*

              Right–but the company might not disclose the real reason for firing if they’re asked. They just say, “Fired.” Some agencies are gonna be better than others about sniffing out the truth.

    2. urguncle*

      I was so anxious after having been fired from a company several years ago and then the recruiter I spoke with saw my resume and asked straight out if I’d had a “good experience” with the company I was fired from. I was honest but casual: “it just wasn’t a good fit all around” which was completely true; I hadn’t spoken to anyone that I was going to actually work with closely and we just did not get along personality-wise. The recruiter kind of laughed and was like “you’d probably not be shocked, but I see that all the time from [company].

    3. English Teacher*

      I was interested in OP’s wording; they say “should you lie and say you were let go”…to me “let go” means the same thing as fired, and is different than “laid off.” Am I the weird one here or is that the usual way the phrase is used?

      1. ecnaseener*

        You’re not the weird one, “let go” usually means fired. (I think it could be used in a generic sense to mean laid off, but without further explanation I’d interpret it as fired.) It’s even in the scripts linked in the answer – “Actually, I was let go, insert explanation here.”

        1. MigraineMonth*

          Interesting!

          What do you call it when a company tells you to resign or else they’ll fire you? Is that “resigned”, “resigned for cause” or (as the unemployment office seems to have decided) “shenanigans”?

      4. Nocturna*

        To me, “let go” = “laid off”, so it seems “let go” is an ambiguous phrasing.

      5. Frank Doyle*

        You’re correct, but it’s something people get wrong a lot. “Let go” = “fired,” and they do not mean the same thing as “laid off.”

    4. BRR*

      And to tie this into LW 5, generally speaking being let go is the same thing as being fired.

      1. WellRed*

        “We have to let you go because we lost the big contract” is not the same as “you’re fired.”

    5. Jeanine*

      YES thank you! People are always mixing up being fired with being laid off. Drives me crazy.

    6. learnedthehardway*

      Agreed – as a recruiter, I will ask to make sure I understand the reasons someone is no longer with a company. I can read between the lines, too. I care more about people being honest with me than I care about the reason they were let go, just to be clear.

      OP#5 – consider that a company doing a background check likely has to request your written approval (depending on where you live) to contact your prior employer to get an employment verification done, but failing to provide that permission may disqualify you from further consideration. An employment verification check will typically tell the authorized requester the dates you were employed, what your role title was, and whether you are rehireable. It likely will not state the exact reasons why your employment ended, but if it says “not rehireable”, then it’s pretty clear you were fired. So, plan accordingly.

      1. Stormy weather*

        “if it says “not rehireable”, then it’s pretty clear you were fired. So, plan accordingly.”

        At one of my previous jobs, if someone gave two weeks notice, they were told to get out immediately, and TPTB were furious that their employee had the nerve to want to leave. I wouldn’t be the least surprised if, when called for a reference and were asked if that employee was rehireable, they said, “We wouldn’t hire him/her if you gave us a million dollars!” Not because the employee was so bad at his/her job, but because he/she had the nerve to find another job. So it’s not necessarily “pretty clear that [someone was] fired.”

      2. Judy*

        I’ve never agreed with Alison on this one. The only reason to ever admit that you’ve been fired is if you want to stay unemployed. Recruiters don’t want to take the chance that you’re not telling the truth about your firing so you’re crossed off the list, esp if there are other viable candidates. Not worth taking the chance. All this said, it doesn’t comes up on standard background checks, which was the question.

  7. D*

    For #2, maybe it’s just me, but they would be kicked out pronto.

    “Do you have an appointment?”

    “No, but–”

    “Then I’m afraid I have to ask you to leave.”

    “Can I–”

    “I’m sorry, you’ll have to make an appointment in advance.”

    Etc. I don’t care why you’re there or what you want, or what you’re selling or what you want to use. Get Out.

    1. Brain the Brian*

      I think this is really industry- and location-specific. Where I live and work now (a major city), this would probably be fine. Where I grew up (a tiny town where everyone knew each other and gossip spread like wildfire), it might get me and my company painted as rude, and we might have a fear of losing our corporate customers because of the small-town grapevine.

      1. Gretta*

        You can do this with a smile though. Say, I’m sorry, but no visitors allowed or any promotional material. That’s just our policy! Wish we could help.

    2. DJ Abbott*

      That sounds more like my experience with with workplaces that aren’t open to the public. I’m a little surprised that LW‘s company lets people past the front desk for any reason.

      1. Clisby*

        I am, too. Actually, I’m surprised they don’t have the entrance set up where you have to be buzzed in. If the policy is that vendors and potential vendors need appointments, why let in anyone who doesn’t have an appointment?

      2. OP #2*

        “I’m a little surprised that LW‘s company lets people past the front desk for any reason.”

        Actually we don’t … Maybe I didn’t word it clearly.

        We have an outer door that’s unlocked that leads into a vestibule with a locked door. People have to buzz to have someone come to the door and see what they want. They can’t just wander into the workplace.

        Visitors don’t get past the front entry vestibule unless they’ve got an appointment. We say “no thanks” right at the door to random people trying to sell something or canvas and send them on their way. And people who do have an appointment wait at the front desk until whoever they are meeting with comes to get them.

        2. Buggalugs*

          Part of what they’re trying to achieve by asking to use the bathroom is to gain access to put their materials themselves and circumvent you. It’s a ploy often used by shady places. Don’t let them in, don’t feel bad about it.

    3. RussianInTexas*

      That’s how it works with my office. We are not open to the pubic at all, don’t even have a front desk because there is no walk-ins. There is a tiny unmanned lobby (it’s an office suite inside a large office building), and the locked doors. You need to buzz in, at which point you will be greeted by an admin who will turn you away.

    4. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      Yep, that’s how it’s always been for all my B2B experience.

      It’s either an appointment or an established business relationship if you want in the door. Like the regular account reps won’t be treated the same as the cold call solicitor.

      We also have it posted “no soliciting” so we point to the sign and tell them to pound sand.

      I used to be like the OP and had more open door policy. Until they got on my nerves and never took “no” for an answer. So now I went full “We can’t have anything nice, get off my lawn.”

  8. Purchasing Not My Job*

    I would be interested in hearing from someone with cold-calling sales experience whether this is in fact a trick of the trade. In my particular type of workplace a “no” to a bathroom request really isn’t an option, but it does interrupt the process of showing them to the door and getting back to my work, and often I get another pitch afterwards. I can’t imagine how knowing would change anything but I have wondered.

    1. Snow Globe*

      The fact that you get another pitch afterwards indicates that this is a tactic. They are hoping that after you’ve done them a favor, you’ll be more inclined to listen to their pitch again. It may not work all the time, but it probably works occasionally.

      1. Cmdrshprd*

        My understanding is in cold call sales is that it is partially (mostly?) a numbers game. so that even if something only works 5/10% of the time that may actually be a really good success rate when they do it so much.

    2. MsM*

      As long as they haven’t kicked you off-site or totally shut down the conversation, you’ve still got an opportunity to make your case. (Also, if you are persistent enough, there’s a chance they’ll go “well, you can’t do the thing you’re suggesting, but here’s an alternative.”)

    3. The Man, Becky Lynch*

      Often they’re looking for someone else to talk to in my experience.

      They get caught up at the front desk for the “Door guard” situation. They think if they get deeper into the place, they’ll find the “Decision maker” that they’re looking for.

      My guys cut them off at the door usually. One guy asked for the restroom and then saw my office. My guy was watching them like a hawk and saw them actually try to go towards my office and he was like “Hey yeah, the doors over here, bud.” running full interference like a champ.

  9. Jamie Starr*

    Beer and wine is easier to serve because you don’t need mixers, stirrers, or ice for the drinks. If you have liquor you might also need additional bartenders because mixed drinks/liquor take longer to serve than pouring a beer or glass of wine.

    1. The Prettiest Curse*

      Beer and wine are just faster to serve than cocktails, so there is less potential for long lines at the bar if you’re not serving mixed drinks. It seems like serving a G and T or pouring out neat spirits would be faster than making cocktails, though it would be interesting to hear from any bar staff on the board about relative drink prep/serving times.

      1. Where’s the Orchestra?*

        Not a bartender, but was told by one once that he didn’t like doing event with small mixed drinks/shots/meats because it’s easier to accidentally overindulge on the ones you consume in a swallow or three. He’d seen far too many people “become the event memory” without intending to be – and sadly rarely a good memory. He always advised beer and wine only because they are more of a sipping with conversation beverage. It’s possible at some point in the past OP1’s coworker was present for one of those “memorable” gatherings and decided to definitely make all future events they plan beer and wine only.

    2. Molehills*

      Yep – it’s not morality, it’s logistics. Unless you’re renting a space that already has a full bar & staff who know where everything is, stocking the bar gets a lot more complicated with spirits – unless you’re only doing G&Ts, you’re going to need several types of spirits and mixers. And what will happen with the waste and leftovers, and do you know what the demand will be for different spirits, and….

      (That said, I’ve done a couple of events that had whiskey or gin bars – single-focus things like that work well, but they’re a centerpiece rather than an add-on)

      The time thing isn’t necessarily a concern unless you’re doing an actual cocktail menu or using hand-poured measures – adding a shot of gin from an optic to a mixer doesn’t take that much longer than pouring a soft drink or glass of wine in the first place. When I was bar staff, I could pour mixed drinks like vodka & cola far faster than I could pull pints.

      1. allathian*

        Yeah, serving beer is easy if you just exchange a bottle or a can for a ticket. The only time I’ve ever tended bar was at the student union (people generally go to college when they’re 18 or 19 if they don’t take a gap year, drinking age is 18). The customer gives you a ticket, you give them an unopened drink, and that’s it. There were no glasses so drinks were served straight out of the bottle or can, and no ice. The students were also not allowed to take the drinks outside, even if they went for a smoke, so it was also easy to collect the bottles and cans afterwards. The deposit on those increased the profits nicely, although normally we’d return the cans and bottles when we went to buy more for the next party. Our license prohibited selling drinks for cash, we got around that by including 4 or 5 drink tickets with the entrance fee. You could also buy more tickets at the door because it was technically not on the premises. Most students lived within walking distance or somewhere easily accessible by public transit, drunk driving was never an issue. For one thing, there was no parking available for students at my college, only for staff, and street parking was expensive for students on a budget even then.

        Students drinking until they’re drunk (so more like 4 or 5+ drinks than 1 or 2) was and is considered normal here, although the currently young generation has a larger percentage of abstainers, and they’re also much more likely to accept a non-drinking lifestyle without pushback than mine did and was. Students drinking on campus in places that outsiders can’t easily access isn’t policed particularly strictly, the main reason for that is that selling to minors just doesn’t happen here because the drinking age is lower and the students are older than in the US.

    3. Rex Libris*

      A caterer can also have pretty much anyone on staff over 21 hand out beer or pour wine. Mixed drinks generally require a bartender of some sort.

    4. Looper*

      Also, some states require you have a licensed mixologist serving spirits and/or get a special permit to serve spirits instead of just beer/wine. It’s all around a much bigger hassle to offer mixed cocktails than beer/wine.

      1. Somehow I Manage*

        Indeed. It seems like this workplace is being inundated with solicitors, and I think I’d get annoyed as an employee. Why are there always new sales pitches in the break room? This is my workplace, and if I wanted to buy the latest and greatest _______, I’d go out and do it on my own time.

        Regarding the restroom, I think it is pretty simple… NO. We don’t have a public restroom. Others have mentioned liabilities, cleanliness, etc. but there’s no need to give reasons. We don’t have a public restroom is saying enough. Direct them to businesses that do have public restrooms. You’re not the only structure in a 30 mile radius. And sure, you may need to make an exception from time to time, but grown adults can certainly plan their bathroom stops better for the most part.

        1. OP #2*

          Just to clarify, there are never any pitches that make it to the break room.
          We say “no thanks” at the front door and they never come in.

          Because I agree, if an employee wants to buy a whatever, they will go do it. In the break room, people just want to relax and eat and chat, not deal with junk that’s available at a local discount store or online.

    2. Juicebox Hero*

      Either that or see if you can’t convince management to get a camera and buzzer lock so you can admit only people who have appointments. And maybe if someone’s doing the gotta-go-dance and doesn’t have an armful of flyers and catalogs.

  11. Ellen N.*

    #1, I don’t believe it’s your coworker being in her seventies that is the reason for her anti-hard liquor at work view.

    In the fifties hard liquor at work was more common than it is now. Have you heard the phrase “three martini lunch”?

    1. WS*

      I agree, my mum is in her 70s and volunteers at her previous workplace. She was recently shocked by a work dinner where they only had beer and wine. “Not even gin!” she complained!

    2. Morning Reader*

      But… 70 year old was born in the ‘50s so she wasn’t involved in the office drinking culture of that time. I think it may be more geographical; she’s from somewhere the liquor licenses are different for hard liquor.

      1. MassMatt*

        True, but that style of drinking culture didn’t die everywhere on 12/31/1959, it went on through the 60’s and in lots of places the 70’s too. Likewise drunk driving was not taken seriously in many areas until the 80’s.

        1. umami*

          Yeah, my dad had a bar in his office at work through the ’70s and ’80s, where smoking also was allowed. Different times, for sure.

    4. Hyaline*

      See I wondered if this was exactly why she viewed hard liquor this way—that it conjures images of off record dealings in smoky steakhouses and Don Draper swilling whiskey in his office. Basically, that her familiarity with the era of the three martini lunch keeps her very cognizant of avoiding those connotations.

    5. Gretta*

      My parents (in their 70s) like to drink beer and wine, but look down on hard spirits as debauched. It’s common in their social circle. So I think it might have something to do with their age. Their PARENTS in the 1960s were the ones drinking the Manhattans and martinis – you often have an aversion to what your parents did. To them, the cool kids were drinking low beer in the parking lot.

  12. RCB*

    I am pretty much the most liberal person you can imagine and I absolutely view wine and beer only as more professional than offering liquor too. It doesn’t offend me by any means, but I do think it changes the tone of the event some (or a lot depending on how much liquor) to offer liquor and I think there are a lot of people who perceive an event based on these factors too.

    For example, if I’m invited to a wine and beer event after work I know it’s Happy Hour, I’ll go, gladhand for a bit with a glass of wine and then skeedaddle.

    If there’s liquor then I know that all of the above still applies people will leave, but there will also people hanging around later and switching to cocktails, breaking off into groups to chat and gossip more privately, probably order some appetizers to share, it becomes an evening, and more laidback.

    1. Allonge*

      What’s unprofessional about ordering apetisers and chatting on in a more relaxed way?

      But it’s interesting that you say so, I never really noticed a major difference in how wine+beer events and liquor events roll out.

      1. Lady Danbury*

        Same, I’ve seen full bar events that are just hh and wine only events that become a whole evening (Let’s order apps and a bottle of wine to share!). There’s no correlation, at least in my location.

      2. Humble Schoolmarm*

        I think once the appetisers and gossip comes out it becomes social, not networking, so unprofessional in the ‘not about professional needs’ sense, not in the negative sense.
        I’ve seen that in more of a time sense, not in a choice of drinks sense, though.

    2. TPS reporter*

      there are a lot of liquor based canned drinks out now that would be easy to serve and contain sometimes less alcohol than beer or wine. that could be a way to add more drink options but not increase risk or bartending burden.

      1. OaDC*

        That’s a good point. The cans of flavored vodka soda I enjoy are 4.7%. They seem quite popular, at least by the amount of space they’ve taken over from beer in the grocery store.

        1. urguncle*

          The networking events I’ve been to that have specified “beer and wine,” usually included hard seltzers. It’s just shorthand for “pre-made beverages” in my experience.

      2. sparkle emoji*

        Or a single batched cocktail. I’ve been to some events that do that, and it’s just an option for people who don’t like/want beer or wine. Having robust NA options would also work if LW’s coworker isn’t interested in that.

  13. RCB*

    #2, if your bathrooms aren’t visible, since you said you’re a manufacturing facility you could also say “sorry, our insurance only allows employees back there, but there are public bathrooms……”

    I am someone who uses the bathroom A LOT and think people are too greedy with their bathrooms and I still agree with you, something seems fishy with these “vendors”, I wonder if this is some new scam to get into your offices and try to steal something? My hackles are raised and you should definitely stick to your guns and turn them away.

    One caveat: my parents had a business and the bathroom was for customers only and my mother was STRICT about that rule, but she had also been pregnant 3 times so if it was a pregnant lady who needed to use the bathroom she always let her, because she understood! So, maybe there is one exception, for the sisterhood.

    1. CommanderBanana*

      people are too greedy with their bathrooms

      Not when you’re the person who has to clean said bathroom.

      1. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

        Yes, even then. People have to poop. If they don’t do it in a bathroom, then they have to poop on the street. We say we don’t want that, but we also don’t want to let them use our bathrooms. It’s like once you leave your house you’re supposed to magically become someone without a digestive tract.

        1. CommanderBanana*

          Nope.

          I agree that we need more public restrooms in the U.S., but I have a side gig in a tiny retail store surrounded by restaurants and coffeeshops. We do not have a cleaning crew (I am the cleaning crew). Customers are more than welcome to walk the 15 feet next door or across the street to the other businesses that have public restrooms and use those.

          Unless you’re volunteering to come clean up after some guy who decided that our tiny, windowless bathroom with the “staff only” sign on the door was the perfect place for his 20 minute post-brunch dump, in which case, thank you for volunteering, let me know how to contact you to give you our address.

          1. MissElizaTudor*

            Nope, you’re wrong. People are too greedy even then. This is a general statement, not about you.

            It sucks to have to clean up poop or whatever (I know from experience), but that doesn’t mean that people overall aren’t too restrictive with bathroom access. That there may be exceptions (maybe like yours), but that doesn’t change the truth of the matter.

            1. New Jack Karyn*

              If you agree that Cmmdr. Banana is a valid exception, then what are they wrong about?

          2. Orv*

            I feel you, but in an era when even gas stations often no longer have public bathrooms, and states are closing highway rest stops to save money, I feel this has gone a bit too far.

              1. basically functional*

                Exactly. A lack of public resources doesn’t mean private businesses and their individual workers are responsible for picking up the slack. The appropriate response is to demand that our government provide for the public good as it’s supposed to.

                1. Orv*

                  Okay, but until I have the wherewithal to move to a country where the government is capable of actually doing things, I still need to pee somewhere. ;)

    2. 1-800-BrownCow*

      Kudo’s to your mom for making an exception for pregnant ladies!! As a mom of 3, I can’t tell you how many times the urge hit suddenly and you NEED a bathroom asap because apparently the baby uses the bladder as a squeeze toy and there’s nothing to stop it when that happens.

  14. LonelyAussie*

    Ugh, as someone who does like to have a drink at work social events but who can’t drink beer or wine for allergy/sensitivity reasons, the no hard liquor thing is both very real and very annoying. There definitely seems to be some weird moral hang up that spirits are an alcoholics drink, or maybe that spirits drinkers are just trying to get wasted.

    1. Electric sheep*

      Yes, I don’t enjoy drinking beer and generally don’t like the kind of wine that’s served, and it’s annoying that people perceive spirits as being ‘stronger’. If they are pored with a measure they can well end up being less alcoholic than a glass of wine, because a standard drink of wine is actually not that much liquid.

      1. Nodramalama*

        I am confusion. Spirits are stronger than beer or wine, it’s not a perception. They have a higher alcohol content. And if they’re poured to measure then they will be the same because they are both measured to a standard drink.

        1. bamcheeks*

          But isn’t that very regional? I was wondering whether she’d grown up in a state where but it’s not spirits, it’s spirits + a mixer. Gin is stronger than wine, but a gin and tonic as a drink isn’t, and I would drink a gin and tonic much more slowly than I would wine.

          (All the times I’ve got horribly unexpectedly drunk I was drinking wine, which is one of the reasons I rarely drink it me!)

          1. bamcheeks*

            Oh that was weird— the comment box already had the first two sentences from another comment that didn’t show up! Apologies for the confusion.

        2. Lexi Vipond*

          10ml of spirits, or whatever, is stronger than 10ml of wine, but you don’t generally drink the same amount of each.

        3. Peanut Hamper*

          The general serving size for these is 10-12 oz of beer, 5-6 oz of wine, or 1 oz. of liquor (served as a shot or in a mixed drink). This is to account for the different alcohol content in each.

          Nobody is drinking a 12-oz glass of vodka at these things.

        4. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

          Spirits are stronger ounce for ounce than wine, of course, and wine is stronger ounce for ounce than beer. That’s why beer is generally served in 12 oz or 16 oz pours (less for some strong styles), wine in 4 or 5 oz glasses, and spirits in 1.5 oz pours. It’s obviously possible to mix a drink with more alcohol than that, or to pour a larger glass of wine, or to serve a high ABV beer like an imperial stout in a pint pour. That’s about serving methods, not about the alcohol content per se. It’s absolutely possible to sip a mixed drink slowly over the course of a couple hours.

        5. doreen*

          They do have a higher percentage , but the serving sizes are different. You are never going to be served 1.5 oz of beer ( that might be the amount of vodka in a mixed drink) or 19 oz of vodka ( there are cans and bottles of beer that size ) and wine will usually be 5-6 oz. The “standard drink” is a different volume for beer, wine and spirits.

        6. sparkle emoji*

          By ABV yes, but you aren’t drinking equivalent volumes of spirit vs wine. A mixed drink with one serving of liquor should be roughly equivalent to a glass of wine or beer in alcohol content, assuming it has been made and measured properly.

    2. Lab Snep*

      Yeah, beet makes me violently ill (like after a sip, so it is some kind of allergy) and I dislike wine.

      There ARE pre-made non malt, non wine coolers and I wish we had the 2% alcohol ones like they do in Japan because I can’t even drink anything with much more than that.

      I stick to non alcoholic beverages now.

      1. sparkle emoji*

        Yep, I’d much rather NA than most beer or wine. If LW’s coworker is providing good options on the NA front, I think this is fine, if a little odd.

    3. mreash*

      At most events I would bet it is actually a cost thing. I have planned a ton of events with booze and the package with liquor is more expensive per person (and with call brands even more). So while specifically not in this case, I would imagine it’s the case for a lot of events.

    4. DawnShadow*

      Your reply (mentioning spirits) is reminding me of the time I went to buy a bottle of wine as a host gift in a grocery store in Kansas City, Kansas (it would not have been an issue on the Missouri side) and I couldn’t find the beer and wine section. I went to ask an employee and she said in a completely shocked and disgusted tone: “oh ma’am, we don’t sell SPIRITS here. You’ll have to go to a *liquor store*.” (“liquor store in a stage whisper).

      I remember thinking that was really funny partly because of her tone and partly because a bottle of wine isn’t SPIRITS. So I guess I have that same perception in the back of my brain that SPIRITS are somehow more decadent than beer and wine.

      I did end up having to go to a liquor store, which was also part gun store and part pawn shop. It was definitely a different feel in there than just heading down the grocery beer/wine aisle on the Missouri side of the border!

      1. Seeking Second Childhood*

        Shades of “Hotel California” there.

        (“So I called out to the captain please bring me some wine. He said we ain’t had that spirit here since 1969.”)

      2. Peanut Hamper*

        Yep, spirits typically refers to something that is distilled, hence the “spirit” coming up out of the mash and then being condensed down. I would never consider beer and wine to be spirits.

      3. Morning Reader*

        Some states don’t sell alcohol in regular stores. Pennsylvania maybe? Also Ontario, Canada, iirc and if it’s still the same.
        In my state, Michigan, some stores have full liquor licenses and some only beer and wine. Same with restaurants. I notice breweries are not allowed to package their high alcohol content brews to go. You have to drink anything over 8 or 10 percent on site.
        In Illinois, stores have liquor right there on the open shelves. I was surprised when I first moved there. Also not price fixed, they could have sales on liquor.
        In Texas, there are whole counties where you can’t buy alcohol in stores at all. My friend in Dallas used to drive to the next county over to stock up occasionally. But I think they allow in restaurants? (I still recall the pitcher of margaritas incident in summer 1981.)
        All these rules vary by location and some have probably changed or I recall inaccurately. In Michigan it used to be that you couldn’t buy alcohol before noon on Sundays. That changed and I was so surprised when I moved back. There might be a similar rule still in Indiana as I’ve seen security gates across the liquor sections on Sundays there.
        This is why I speculate that LW’s coworker’s preference against liquor is likely from her geography, not her age.

        1. Clisby*

          I remember being *so* surprised the first time I visited Chicago; I had to pick up something at a drugstore, and there was the liquor section. In SC, it wouldn’t be surprising for a drugstore or grocery store to have beer and wine, but I’ve never seen one that carries liquor (I’m not sure if that’s absolutely against the law, or if those stores just don’t want to go to the bother and expense of getting the separate liquor license.)

          1. Cmdrshprd*

            NY state does not allow liquor to be sold in the same store and beer wine. What some places do is one technically two stores side by side inside the same building. You enter through a common door/lobby and you go through the right door for the liquor store, or you can go through the left door for the beer/wine store. they each have their own separate checkout.

            Grocery stores can sell beer and wine but not liquor.

            1. doreen*

              What got really confusing for me was when I wanted to buy some High Noon. I couldn’t find it in the supermarket , even though they had hard lemonades and seltzers. Turned out the hard lemonades and seltzers were malt-based , so the supermarket could sell it with their beer license , while High Noon is made with vodka.

          2. JustaTech*

            In all the places I lived/shopped growing up (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire) *all* alcohol had to be purchased at a liquor store (and in NH the liquor store was run by the state). And I think that in MA at least liquor stores couldn’t be open on Sunday.
            So imagine my shock when I moved to California for college and you could buy a giant plastic bottle of vodka at Vons!
            (I learned pretty much immediately that while you *could* buy that giant plastic bottle of vodka, it was not something you *should* do. Shudder.)

        2. 40 Years In the Hole*

          Ontario reader weighing in. Rules have just changed to allow grocery, convenience and other food-selling places to expand on selling wine, beer, canned/pre-mixed cocktails and (hard) ciders. No actual hard spirits; that is, and will likely always be the purview of the LCBO lords.

        3. OaDC*

          And many of those differences are due to corporate lobbying. You can buy beer on Sundays now in Indiana. It took a long time to get there, not because people in Indiana did not want to buy beer on Sundays but because the beer distributors thought they would make more money if they didn’t have to be open on Sundays. (Yes, that sounds dumb. But true (quote from Indy Star after law allowing Sunday sales passed “ Alting’s change of heart came after the small but powerful liquor store industry, which long opposed Sunday sales, struck a deal with the state’s large retail grocery stores. The pact called for both groups to accept Sunday sales but oppose efforts to end the liquor store industry’s virtual monopoly on cold beer. ”))

          I’m from Ohio but went to collecting Indiana. Always found it amusing that you can buy cold beer in a gas station in Ohio, but grain alcohol was illegal, but in Indiana you could buy Everclear at the grocery store but not cold beer.

          1. doreen*

            It’s actually not so dumb. I don’t know if it’s true, but the idea in certain industries (I’ve heard it about car dealers as well) is that if there is no place to buy X on Sunday , people will still buy the same amount , just spread over the other six days. Which results in the same revenue , but the costs of operating the store are lower (six days instead of seven) so more profit.

            1. MassMatt*

              By this logic stores could just be open 1 day per week and get all their sales that day and profits would go through the roof. They stop there, true money is made by opening monthly!

              My state used to have “blue laws” regulating not just alcohol sales but what kind of businesses could be open on Sundays, period. Because, you know, you’re supposed to be in church on Sunday.

              It was a huge PITA for most people to have two days off a week and yet only one day where you could get much shopping or errands done. But once a law is in place it can take decades to get rid of it due to legislative inertia.

        4. I'm just here for the cats!!*

          It may have changed but in Minnesota grocery stores did not sell alcohol. only liquor stores and convenience stores could sell beer and wine coolers but not after 9 pm and closed on Sundays.

          It was a bit of a shock when I moved to Wisconsin and the local Walgreens had bottles of hard liquor in the aisles and tubs of mini bottles sitting in random places in Walmart.

      4. ThatGirl*

        Hahaha, my in-laws live in the KCK metro area and last year I went to the grocery store with my MIL and discovered this – all I could get were 4.5% hard seltzers. (They did have beer there, but it was all low-abv stuff.)

    5. Looper*

      I do think there’s maybe a perception component to it, but if you’re talking work events, there’s a huge logistical component to it. Spirits require way more space, supplies, staff, and clean up to serve and are much more expensive than beer and wine.

      1. LonelyAussie*

        I mean a can of mixed spirits isn’t anymore difficult to serve than a can of beer or soft drink.

  15. Adam*

    Side note for #5, but I’ve always understood “let go” as encompassing all the ways a company can terminate your employment, whether being fired or laid off, in which case saying that wouldn’t be lying (though it would be being ambiguous in your favor). Do others understand it to mean only being laid off for non-performance reasons?

    1. Ask a Manager* Post author

      Most commonly:
      Laid off – job is eliminated, most often for financial reasons, shouldn’t reflect on you; it’s about the job, not the person in it (or at least that’s how it’s commonly understood)
      Fired – because of something about your performance/conduct
      Let go – either of the above (although more commonly used to mean fired in my experience)

      Oddly, people who were laid off often say they were fired, which they definitely should not be saying.

      But for #5, it’s not likely to really help to say they were let go, because the interviewer is likely to ask what happened. It’s not as if they’d think “well, could mean laid off, who’s to say” and not ask anything about it.

      1. English Teacher*

        Interesting! I agree that on paper “let go” could mean laid off, but when I hear it I always think it’s just a euphemism for being fired.

      2. Orv*

        I feel like this has shifted and “laid off” used to mean something more like “furloughed,” where there was a possibility you’d be called back. Maybe it was regional.

      3. AmIReallyHere?*

        What does, “your job has been made redudant” mean? It seems like some phrases could mean different things to different people.

        1. Orv*

          “Made redundant” is a Britishism, and I’m not British, but my sense is it means you were laid off because the position was eliminated.

    2. Irish Teacher.*

      This probably doesn’t apply in the US, but I would take “let go” as…sort of being a middle ground.

      Fired to me means for cause, generally “leave now” and you won’t be getting a good reference from it. And they will probably be replacing you.
      Laid off is when it’s due to company financial issues. In Ireland, there are pretty strict rules about this, length of notice, warnings in advance and so on. Generally a number of people are laid off at one time, there is often an opportunity for people to take voluntary redundancy, you will get a good reference, etc.
      Let go, to me, would be more like you got fired during your probation period. It does imply it was for performance reasons but might include a notice period or might be a case of “well, your probation period comes to an end at the end of next week and I think we might just leave things there. We won’t be requiring you after that.” More a case of “sorry, you’re not what we’re looking for for this position, but you’ll still be eligible for rehire.”

      1. ecnaseener*

        Yeah, in my understanding (US) “fired” does feel more emotionally charged, but it doesn’t inherently mean you’re getting a bad reference or ineligible for rehire. It wouldn’t be weird at all for the employee in your final example to say “I got fired.”

        1. doreen*

          I agree that “fired” seems to be more emotionally charged but I always have to remember that to other people, “laid off” means you lost your job because your position was eliminated or due to financial issues. Because in the environment I grew up in ( and worked in) “laid-off” implied not only that it had nothing to do with your performance but also that if things changed, you would be called back before the employer hired new employees. If it wasn’t for performance and there was no expectation of return if the situation improved , then it was “lost your job” or “let go ” or “separated/terminated”.

          1. Clisby*

            At least in my growing-up years, people being laid off and then being called back to work was not at all uncommon. These were manufacturing facilities (primarily textile mills) and yes, sometimes they’d announce a layoff and then 6 months later call back half of those people, etc.

            1. Orv*

              This is really common in union shops. Sometimes the contract requires them to bring back laid-off workers before hiring fresh ones.

              1. allathian*

                Yes, this. I work for the government in Finland, and the government is fully unionized. The system here is that the collective agreements that the unions negotiate apply to employees and civil servants regardless of their union membership status. There’s very little room for negotiation in our standard contracts. There’s absolutely no chance of getting more PTO (granted, already very generous by US standards) and the room for negotiation on salary is extremely limited. But public sector job postings are required to show the salary.

  16. Expectations*

    FWIW, I’ve never been to a professional event that offers beer and wine but no other alcohol. They either offer no alcohol or a full bar or, every once in a while, a set drink list with 5-6 options. I think I’ve been to one event where beer/wine/soda was free but you had to pay for other drinks. Most have been open bar but a few used drink tickets.

    I do not drink beer or wine but do have an infrequent mixed drink and I would be upset if a work event offering alcohol didn’t offer something I’d drink (it wouldn’t bother me to have no alcohol, just if they only offered beer and wine). As an aside, it also seems strange to use drink tickets if there are no mixed drinks.

      1. Somehow I Manage*

        Agreed. Tickets are both a way of setting a limit on consumption and an easy way to settle the bill. It is much easier to manage.

        1. MassMatt*

          In some localities, it’s not legal to run a cash bar without licensing, and selling/giving away drink tickets is a (somewhat legally dubious?) way around that.

          1. doreen*

            I guess it might be sometimes – but I think tickets are a way to have avoid having an cash bar ( even in a place with a license) but also keep costs down. A full open bar will cost me around $40 a person minimum, beer and wine will be $20 pp minimum. I can run a tab and pay for however many drinks people drink – and who knows how much I that will be. Or I can give out tickets and limit myself to paying for no more than 2 drinks a person.

    2. Charley*

      I don’t like beer or wine either, but beer/wine only is the norm for events in most of the places I’ve lived, so it sounds like you’ve been lucky!

  17. Turning*

    OP 2, one big reason worth noting is that you won’t be insured for non-employees using your bathroom if that’s not part of your business. In a similar situation when “we don’t have a bathroom” was countered with “surely you have an employee bathroom”, “we do, but we aren’t insured for people who don’t work here use it” often worked. Because even if they push back on that (“nothing will happen, I won’t sue” etc etc), you can just keep repeating “we aren’t insured for that” like it’s not your call and you can’t compute the idea that you would ever do anything you aren’t insured for.

    It gets across the general gist of the safety and risk issues in a short statement that sounds final and is difficult to argue with.

      1. Turning*

        Because having actually been in the situation many times, it is what actually works. Your suggestion doesn’t work. That just makes people like that argue more.

        And frankly… why bother being confrontational with people like that when you can make them go away by refusing to engage and just giving a final-sounding answer?

  18. CL*

    Having organized several reception-type events, I would worry that offering hard liquor once will set an expectation of always having it. It then becomes a problem if cost, logistics, or some other reason prevents it. You will definitely hear complaints if it is not offered at a later event.

    1. Lore*

      I think also that people are okay with two or three beer or wine options but once you have gin, they’re annoyed if there’s no vodka or tequila, so while the cost per drink might not be higher, the amount of different things you have to stock multiplies rapidly.

  19. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

    OP3 (other candidates accepted less so we are going with them) – there’s a non-zero chance that this isn’t even true and the company is just trying to get OP to reduce their salary requirement. You see this with house sales as well. If there are other candidates, potentially they have been told the same thing.

    1. Despachito*

      I thought that has to be it with almost 100% certainty, but I am a bit confused why they told her AFTER they assumedly contracted another person and therefore it was no question of lowballing her?

      1. ecnaseener*

        It doesn’t read to me like they said they’d contracted another person — they said they were moving forward with two applicants who had both said they were willing to work for a lower salary. I would interpret “moving forward” as they’re proceeding with interviews with those two candidates, not that they’d already made an offer to one of them.

        1. Becca*

          OP here, that’s correct. She had gone through the initial screening and had been told she would hear from them on a specific date. She waited a few days after that date and followed up. It was during that conversation they told her they were moving forward with the next round of interviews with the people who listed the lower salary expectations. That’s what made me wonder if they were hoping she would say she would lower her expectations because why tell her that’s the reason as opposed to the more standard “their qualifications more closely align with our needs” wording?

          2. Slow Gin Lizz*

            Ugh. I agree with AAM and hope you tell your sister not to lower her salary expectations based on this encounter. I have lowballed myself at a lot of jobs because I felt like I needed to in order to remain competitive. I was pretty overqualified for my last two jobs, tbh, and my salary reflected that. In other words, they were paying me based on their needs, not my qualifications and skills, so I made a lot less than I probably should have been making. Also, I didn’t feel like I was being challenged professionally; I think a higher paying job generally comes with more challenge, which can be a good thing.

            In my most recent job search I didn’t even entertain the possibility of less than $2ok over my salary at the time, not only because I really needed the money but also because I wanted to be at a job that challenged me more and valued my expertise. And when I got a job, the pay was $30k over my previous salary. It took a few months, sure, but it was absolutely worth it. (And yes, I’m being very challenged in this role; it’s been great for my professional development.)

        2. MassMatt*

          …and IMO that says a lot about the employer, that they don’t care about getting the best person for the job but rather the cheapest. This sounds like the kind of place that hires people fresh out of school or new to the workforce and doesn’t give raises. They probably have tons of turnover or a demoralized and mediocre work force. Or both.

    2. sarah*

      Non-zero but not very high. Even my worst employers wouldn’t have done that and they did plenty of other shady stuff. Anywhere that would do it wouldn’t be somewhere you’d want to work for lots of other reasons.

      1. Pastor Petty Labelle*

        Yep. Whether they really went with the two lowest people or were trying to get the sister to lower her number doesn’t matter. Any place that has a determining factor – will work for the lowest amount is not somewhere you want to work.

    3. learnedthehardway*

      Agreeing. OP#3 has no way to know whether the company is being honest or if they are trying to get her to lower her own salary expectations. It’s a crappy thing for a company to do.

      I suspect this is the case, in fact. I might tell a candidate that they’re out of the band in which I can hire them, and will find out what they can live with. But I can’t think of a time I EVER told a candidate the exact salary level that the successful candidate was hired for. That would be a violation of that person’s privacy. Even if I didn’t mention the person’s name, it would be potentially possible for the rejected candidate to find out who they are. There’s a big difference between telling someone that they are over the salary level our hiring manager can afford, and saying the successful candidate was offered $XK – $15K.

  20. Nodramalama*

    I do think its very common to host events where only beer and wine is available. I don’t think it’s usually for “professional purposes” but I do think it can be a bit of circular situation where it’s usual to only serve wine and beer, so because it’s the norm having hard liqour becomes unusual and so can be seen as weird

  21. Alz*

    LW1- Could it also be that she doesn’t want to set a standard that can’t be met every time? You mentioned that she wants this “even if mixed drinks are the same price” – could she be concerned that when they are extra cost people might start asking/expecting them? We used to provide milo (Australian chocolate drink) at some sites and not at others and people used to be cranky as anything when it wasn’t provided- in the end we pulled it from everywhere rather than deal with the fall out

  23. Wolf*

    “No mixed drinks at all” is way easier than “well, you can have a gin tonic, but not a long island iced tea”. Beer is simple and easy, for mixed drinks you might have to set an additional clear rule for alcohol content.

    Plus the optics: if your event offers mixed drinks and nobody gets drunk, it’s still possible that some out-of-context “tee hee, 15 empty vodka bottles after company event” snapshots on social media.

    So, despite all logic, not offering mixed drinks is just the easier route.

    1. Sloanicota*

      Plus our old contracts specified the APV of the beer on offer (as there are some that are stronger than others). We only wanted standard strength beers at our events.

      1. ecnaseener*

        Okay but at that rate, you could easily add it into the contract that the mixed drinks have to match that same APV. The beer-and-wine-only thing makes more sense to me when you don’t have those kind of specifics already worked out so it’s easier to just handwave it as beer and wine are roughly the same.

        1. Sloanicota*

          haha thinking about this, it’s equally possible they didn’t want to get the low-APV ‘near beer,’ since we were in an area where that was more common, and it lead to complaints.

      2. Hastily Blessed Fritos*

        I’ve never been at an event, even those offering mixed drinks, that had stronger beers available! Those tend to be pricier craft beers and beer at events tends to be cheaper large brewery options.

    2. Peanut Hamper*

      it’s still possible that some out-of-context “tee hee, 15 empty vodka bottles after company event” snapshots on social media.

      In my younger days, I worked with an older coworker bartending weddings at the K of C. We started our Saturday mornings by going to the local grocery store (we’re in the midwest, so it was Meijer) and filling two or three shopping carts with wine and liquor. We got a lot of looks! Once a checkout clerk asked if we were stocking up, and my coworker said “Just for today!” The absolute look on that cashier’s face!

      But again, I don’t see a difference between 15 empty vodka bottles and a garbage can full of empty beer cans. There is just a weird perception that distilled spirits are somehow evil or bad.

    3. ThatGirl*

      I also can see that it’s just simpler to not have to try to negotiate *what* mixed drinks. Oh, I can have a g&t but not a margarita? You have Jack but not Jim Beam? Etc.

      1. UKDancer*

        Yes I mean when I was organising work events in a previous company we wanted it as simple as possible with as little room for argument as possible. So the package was almost always red wine, white wine, bottled beer, lemonade apple juice and sparkling water.

        I mean if I were organising something for my friends I’d have more regard to their wishes and preferences. For work social events we liked simple.

      2. Wolf*

        I’m German. You wouldn’t believe the amount of time Germans will spend arguing about which type and brand of free beer they want at an event. In the end, they’ll drink whichever is offered, but if you ask before, they have very strong opinions.

  24. londonedit*

    We don’t really have the ‘ooooh, scandalous’ thing around ‘hard liquor’ in my country/culture (we just call them ‘spirits’ rather than ‘hard liquor’ and it’s not a big deal to have a vodka and tonic or a G&T, in fact a G&T is seen as an easy-drinking way to start the evening, or something to have on a summer afternoon).

    But at work events that are held in the office, we just have wine and non-alcoholic options (sparkling water and/or something like elderflower cordial which you mix with sparkling or plain water). And that’s purely for ease. We don’t want to be faffing around with different types of glasses, various different mixers, ice, lemon/lime slices, etc etc. We don’t really have someone ‘behind the bar’ at our events, it’s mainly just a junior marketing person who will pour glasses of wine/soft drinks and have them set out on a table for people to take as they wish. Sometimes we will also have bottled beer, but again, those are set out on a table with a bottle opener and people help themselves. So it’s about having things that are straightforward and that people can just take a glass of, rather than there being any sort of moral reason why we wouldn’t have spirits. If it’s an event at an actual bar/pub, usually we’ll put a bit of money behind the bar and the author will do the same (the only events we really have are book launches) and people can order what they like in that case (I don’t think anyone would really order a cocktail or something really expensive, usually there’s a bit of free prosecco/wine open and people take their cue from that).

    1. UKDancer*

      Same, I’ve organised a lot of events at various companies in my time and been to a fair few and the usual package is beer, wine and soft drinks. Having something involving mixed drinks is usually more expensive and a lot more work. I don’t think it’s a moral thing, it’s just a practicality and cost thing.

      I go to one event which has a “theme cocktail for the event” and more of an open bar and that’s unusually posh and upmarket for the sort of things I would usually be sent to by my company. I go to one summer conference that has pimms on the terrace which I rather like (not strictly liqueur but quite fun). I tend to stick to elderflower presse when I’m working these events anyway

    2. EventPlannerGal*

      Agreed – it’s just easier if you keep things simple.

      I do think different drinks have different associations, eg. as you say, a gin and tonic feels like an afternoon sipping drink but a vodka Coke feels like a getting-ready-to-go-out drink, so you do bypass all of that by just sticking to beer/wine. But primarily it’s just about logistics.

    3. Looper*

      This is all very much my experience as an office worker who has attended events; an event planner who has set up events; and a bartender who has served at events. Spirits are an expensive pain in the butt for a business event.

  25. I should really pick a name*

    I almost never think that work disagreements are based on generational differences, but maybe in this case it is, a bit?

    Why would you think that in this situation but not others?

    1. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

      Because your parents’ and grandparents’ generation has different ideas about social stuff than you.

      1. I should really pick a name*

        But this is the opinion of a single coworker, not a group of people the same age.
        It seems far more likely that this is just their particular view.

      2. OaDC*

        Not necessarily about alcohol consumption, and stereotypes and generalizations are equally bad whether they are about age, gender, etc.

  26. Also-ADHD*

    For 1, another factor I haven’t seen mentioned yet is consistency. If mixed drinks are sometimes available cost free but not necessarily with every event you are running, you’re opening up a can of worms offering sometimes and not all. Do you need to notify attendees some events are beer and wine only if the last few had mixed drinks? Will they be disappointed? It’s a whole thing. If you run intermittently and frequently host events with different vendors, sticking to beer and wine can allow you more likely consistency.

    1. learnedthehardway*

      There’s also the factor that having an open bar would usually cost more – you have to have a licensed bar tender, a huge selection of ingredients and liquors, and then what do you do with the leftover ingredients? I mean, you can keep the liquors, but any perishable stuff would have to be tossed.

      With beer and wine, as long as a bottle/can hasn’t been open, it can generally be saved for another event (within a certain timeframe for beer, but still – not immediately perishable).

  27. Benihana scene stealer*

    For #4, as an interviewer I wouldn’t really see a difference between the two questions. I’d answer the same either way.

    1. TPS reporter*

      agree and I don’t love either one. I would feel really put on the spot.

      I would rather hear something like- is there anything else you want to ask me that you haven’t addressed yet?

      1. Sloanicota*

        Yeah, I mean, these questions are a bit sales tactic-y to me. “How can I get you to yes today” and that kind of thing. They wouldn’t be tactics if they didn’t work sometimes, but in general I feel the *goal* is to apply a bit of pressure, so clearly you run the risk of the target not liking to be pressured. However, since OP has been using the question this long, I’m surprised they don’t have a better sense of how it’s working for them so far. Does the interviewer more often seem uncomfortable and more reserved afterwards, flustered, etc, or are you coming across as more charming than that?

        1. OP #4*

          I’ve used it just a handful of times over a number of years. No one ever seemed taken aback and I never got the sense it had harmed me or made a bad impression. However, the letter I was referencing got me thinking, and I realized that only once did I get an answer that wasn’t “Nope, nothing right now” — so it’s more that I started to wonder if the question was just not that likely to produce anything useful.

          1. Benihana scene stealer*

            I think your initial thought in the letter was correct – they’re really the same question

        2. The Unspeakable Queen Lisa*

          Your comment reads like the candidate can’t win. If they try to be forthcoming and pro-actively offer to address your concerns, you ding them for being “salesy”. If they don’t, you ding them for whatever concern you have they don’t know about.

          Truly, this *is* what an interview is. Pick me, not someone else. We all know it. It seems punitive for you to cast yourself (the person with the power) as a target under pressure. It’s the candidate who is under pressure.

          1. MsM*

            Yeah, if you’re getting enough of a hard-sell vibe off of me that a good-faith effort to make sure there aren’t any lingering questions you haven’t found a way to work into the conversation yet comes across as insincere and pushy, this probably isn’t a good fit for either of us.

            That said, “What do you think are the most important qualities/skills someone will need to excel in this role?” can also be ways of getting at things that might not have been highlighted yet, or to take another shot at an answer that might not have been as strong as it could have been if it’s clear that thing really matters.

      2. Benihana scene stealer*

        For me at least it wouldn’t really matter how it was asked since it’s a pretty standard question, so I know what they’re getting at. I think the “that I can address now” part is assumed, so it wouldn’t really put me on the spot in that way.

        1. JustaTech*

          See, I was confused because I thought it was a useful question meaning “is there anything else you’d like to ask me about”, but my husband (who does a ton of interviewing) says that it sounds like I’m asking “how did I do?” and sort of even asking for special consideration of “help me fix myself right now”, which isn’t how I would have ever thought about it, but made me very concerned about how I had used it in an interview.

          1. Benihana scene stealer*

            Yes i agree with your interpretation – it’s really just a way of making sure you’ve covered everything.

      3. ampersand*

        Last time I asked this question in an interview, the interviewer was very taken aback—and then I was taken aback by his reaction. I was offered and accepted the job, but I don’t ask the question anymore just on the off chance it’s received poorly. The times before that that I asked went totally fine.

  28. ChurchOfDietCoke*

    I’m in the UK, where alcohol measures are strictly controlled. A single G&T would be 25ml of gin which is ONE unit of alcohol (and, important for some people, if served with a slimline tonic water, very low in sugar and around 50 calories).

    A ‘medium’ (i.e. normal sized) glass of wine would be 175ml, coming to around 2.3 units, 150 calories.

    A normal 330ml bottle of beer would be, again, around 2.3 units of alcohol and around 140 calories.

    So the ‘liquor gets you more hammered’ argument isn’t there in a ‘two drinks tokens’ scenario.

    OTOH, the PRICE of that G&T would likely be significantly more due to the actual cost of the spirits and mixers, the need for different glasses, the need for ice, the need for a barman to make the drinks fresh instead of just pre-pouring wine and popping the caps off beer – lots of corporate bar companies stick to beer and wine for that reason, which means that the ‘low sugar, low calorie’ option at many events is water (or elderflower presse if you’re lucky!)

  29. Doctor Fun*

    Re: letter one, I’d be surprised if morality was the issue rather than legality. I used to have a support role at a large tech company, and part of my job was to plan morale events, like the monthly “happy hour” for everyone to come out of their offices and socialize and have some free snacks (and probably continue face to face the same conversations they were having on Slack tbh). We supplied packaged snacks (candy, chips, cookies etc), some catered treats, non-alc bevs were perennially available in the kitchen coolers, and we could offer beer or wine. If we wanted to serve actual mixed drinks, we would have to make a special requisition to the budget manager to hire an outside service to come do it, because serving mixed drinks required a bartending license and our in-house catering team didn’t employ anyone with a bartending license for liability reasons. There are all kinds of legal strings attached to serving liquor — and in fact, when summer interns were onsite our monthly “happy hour” was completely alcohol-free to avoid any liability should an underage intern pound a couple of beers and then get pulled over driving home.

  30. Nonanon*

    RE LW 1: I’ve seen a few events strike a “happy medium” with canned cocktails. I don’t know if it’s less of a wine/beer stigma or how it plays in to regional liquor laws, but it certainly made it easier for people who don’t like the cheap wine/beer traditionally served to have something they want (I understand IPAs are in vouge now, but they’re bitter and I hate them). It also made it easier on the servers and event staff, since it was just popping open cans all night as opposed to actually mixing cocktails.

    1. TPS reporter*

      I am enjoying a hard seltzer more now as I get older. beer and wine hit me too hard or hurt my stomach.

  31. Four Lights*

    #2. Sounds like a weird sales tactic to me. I used to work in a small city on a street with a lot of businesses, so we would get a lot of walk in sales people. The most bizarre tactic I remember is someone trying to break the ice I guess by starting with “Hi, I’m here for the free hot chocolate!” (we were not a good business)

  32. Trout 'Waver*

    The liquor thing may be cultural as well. Growing up in the upper midwest, there definitely was a distinction between beer and wine vs liquor. I don’t think it was 100% religion related either. They definitely feel different to me. Just my two cents.

    1. Paint N Drip*

      I agree. I grew up in rural New England, and (for better or worse) the vibe with beer is that it’s soda for adults. Drink one mowing the lawn, drink one working on the car, drink one at the ball game, drink one driving home (yikes)… which does add up to a six pack or so, which surely is getting people slightly tipsy if not drunk, but culturally accepted. But if someone is pouring off a bottle of vodka or other liquor? Oh that’s DRINKING drinking.

      1. Trout 'Waver*

        Yeah, it’s not logical and I’m not defending it. But I felt the same, and still do to some extent.

    2. Spreadsheet Queen*

      Definitely some cultural things in the South too (although less so with work events). When I got married (in a Lutheran church), we had the reception in the church hall and asked if we could have a keg. Pastor told us if we were in Wisconsin we probably could, but down here it wouldn’t fly. We were allowed to have wine though (which most denominations here would not allow either.)

      1. allathian*

        Interesting. What do they serve at communion? I do know some minor offshoots of the Lutheran church don’t count non-alcoholic wine as sacrament.

  33. Beth*

    Just for the record — Covid has been spiking this summer, and last year’s boosters are losing their effectiveness. “But Covid!” is a completely legitimate concern. (I still mask.)

  34. Morning Reader*

    On the liquor vs. beer/wine question: there are many cocktail drinks available pre-made these days, so if it’s not a question of liquor license regulations, a work event could easily have cocktails in addition without having a bartender. (A brewery/winery/distillery near me have a great little strawberry margarita in a can I tried last weekend.)

    On the bathroom question: the bookmobilers at my previous library knew all the best public restrooms in town. Would never have gone into a non public facing business establishment to use theirs. The best: the local parks department that had good soap and lotion! The worst: the mechanic’s shop where vehicle went for maintenance. Bring your own TP and don’t touch anything. (To be fair, that’s wasn’t a public bathroom but they let us use it while we were waiting there.)

    1. Somehow I Manage*

      Your point about the pre-made mixed drinks is a good one. If licensing and cost aren’t issues, this is a great way of offering something different without the additional logistics of actually mixing each drink.

  35. Coverage Associate*

    I have basically given up on fermented beverages for myself, as the literal heartburn and headaches rarely seem worth it. It’s probably the sulfites in wine. It’s not just a hangover, as I can get a headache from very little wine and not get one from more alcohol through distilled spirits.
    Besides that a full bar will have distilled spirits that don’t make me sick, it will also have non alcoholic beverages, whereas the number of times the options are beer, wine, and tap water…
    Another consideration is it’s easier to hide that you’re not having alcohol in the full bar context, whereas that’s impossible with transparent glasses and only beer, wine, and tap water. Yes, NA versions exist, but they are not regularly on offer at the beer and wine only events I attend. Should your professional contacts care that you’re not having alcohol? No. Will most not notice or remark on it? Yes. But the exceptions are no fun. (Classic example of hiding you’re not having alcohol is having sparkling water, which is not as easy to get in the US as it sometimes is in Europe. In the USA, an ordinary workplace will not have the equipment to carbonate water, even if it has, eg, an oven or maybe a stove for the convenience of caterers.)
    Besides pointing out that offering only beer, wine, and tap water can make it more likely people will opt for the offering with flavor, as opposed to opting for a nonalcoholic mixer with a full bar, my advice to OP would be to have nonalcoholic options with flavor if only having beer and wine otherwise. Specialty sodas are an easy addition.

    1. Morning Reader*

      Tap water? In the US? Wow. They should at least offer bottled waters or flavored waters or filtered water cooler water.

      1. londonedit*

        What on earth is wrong with tap water? Bottled water is a massive waste of resources.

        1. Somehow I Manage*

          While I agree, I think giving someone a small glass of tap water (thinking about a situation in which the same glasses that are used for wine) seems a bit inhospitable. I’m not saying I’d turn my nose up at a glass of water… just thinking that if my choices are beer, wine or water, something that is slightly “more” might be nice. A can of LaCroix? I’m in. Also, I’m the type who will guzzle a small cup of water very quickly, where I’m more likely to hold onto a bottle or can longer and be able to sip it throughout an event.

          1. londonedit*

            I’ve never associated tap water with particularly small cups or glasses. You’d have wine glasses and then larger tumblers or tall glasses for the non-alcoholic options, and you’d fill jugs with water. You don’t go and fill a tiny glass from the tap, it’s freely available like the other drinks.

            1. bamcheeks*

              I’d be surprised if it was just tap water and not chilled. (But I’m currently in Dublin, where the tap water isn’t very cold! And nowhere has tap water as cold as where I grew up in Nottingham, which hurts your teeth the way water should!)

              1. RussianInTexas*

                Ha! I am in Texas, and right now it takes a full minute of running the cold tap to get it down to cool. It comes up straight up warm.

                1. allathian*

                  I’m in Finland and while it doesn’t take quite that long here, in the summer I keep a pitcher of tap water in the fridge because I prefer my water so cold it hurts my teeth.

                  I’m in Finland, and we have the reputation of having the best tap water in the world. When Trump and Putin held a summit here in 2018, at least the media didn’t get any bottled water. Instead they got refillable water bottles and pipes with cold taps and sinks that were so long that at least 50 people could fill their bottles at the same time. Our water’s so good that the germ count’s lower than in any bottled water.

        2. Cardboard Marmalade*

          I agree with you that plastic bottles suck, but unfortunately there are plenty of places in the US (often for racism-related reasons) where the tap water isn’t actually safe. I’ve lived mostly in Philly and NYC, where I’ve almost never had to worry about the tap water, but was visiting a friend recently in New Orleans who took me to task when she saw me filling a cup from the tap instead of from the water cooler. Flint is probably the most well-known example, but I think there are lots of places that are problems but never get national news coverage about it. All this to say that yes, it bugs me when I’m at an event that has a table top covered with little plastic bottles of water, but I try to remind myself that even if I’m somewhere where I know the tap water is reliable, it’s possible not everyone at the event is local, and some of them may come from somewhere that makes them appreciate having a guaranteed safe source of water.

          1. Orv*

            In California there are a lot of places where the tap water is safe, but tastes absolutely foul.

  36. Somehow I Manage*

    OP1 – I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong or problematic with offering mixed drinks, but perhaps the question for yourself and then for your coworker is whether there are other obstacles to serving mixed drinks beyond their own personal preference.

    Where are these events being held? Is the location set up with a full bar already, or is product being brought in?

    Some jurisdictions have different requirements and costs for different alcohol service licenses. Beer and wine is one tier, and liquor is a higher tier with higher costs and more restrictions. Plus it is pretty straightforward to have a couple of beer selections and a red and white wine option. You don’t need ice, beyond what is in the cooler. You don’t need mixers (soda, tonic, juices). You don’t need a variety of liquors (vodka, gin, whiskey, tequila) to accommodate tastes. You also don’t need additional staff preparing and serving drinks. You can probably get by with one person.

    I’d suggest asking a few questions of your coworker to see if there are other things in play beyond their own feelings about cocktails. I don’t think it is odd at all to have a mixed drink at a work event, but I’m also not turned off by an event that only has beer and wine if I want to have an adult beverage.

  37. Jane Bingley*

    Re OP #4: I’ve had great success with “do you have any hesitations about my candidacy that I might be able to dispel?”

    I have a weird resume (professional degree I don’t directly use, jobs in different fields) and I’ve had interviewers express their concern that I might only stick around for a year or two before going to work in a different field. Being able to assure them I’m not interested in using my professional degree directly has helped me nail the job.

    1. learnedthehardway*

      I think that’s a good way to phrase it. In your case, though, I wouldn’t rely on the interviewer to ask, but would be proactive to point out that you are looking for stability and are committed to your career direction.

  38. MailOrderAnnie*

    Re #1, I would not have any choice at an event like this. I am allergic to most wine and I never drink beer – I really hate it. So if there isn’t a mixed drink choice, I’m out of luck. And I doubt I’m the only one like this.

  39. Prorata*

    #1, FWIW, in the last half of the 20th century, there was a US Presidential administration where officially, only beer and wine were served at White House functions – no hard liquors.

    Logistics, concern about potential overindulgence, or just personal views….or all of the above, may be what drives your colleague’s position.

    Time for yard-work, then back to the job hunt.

  40. DramaQ*

    The majority of work events I’ve been to rarely have a full bar unless it is being hosted at a place that already has one of it’s own. If it is brought in the choices are usually beer, wine and nowadays the hard seltzers because those come in cans which are easy to transport. I have every once in a blue moon seen a “signature” cocktail or two listed and those are the only mixed drinks they have which again limits how much inventory they have to bring on site. You could suggest the hard seltzer to her she might not find that as scandalous as mixed drinks and gives people another option.

  41. Felicity Flowers*

    our office used to have a similar issue with cold call vendors asking to use the bathroom. What I found without fail is this is them just trying to get an excuse to walk around the office and sell things directly to the employees. I tend to believe access to a bathroom should be a human right so what I started to tell them is yes but for security reasons they need to leave what they are selling at the reception desk and I need to find someone to escort them if they can hang on a minute…. no one ever felt like hanging on a minute.

  42. CommentOn5*

    Re: #5- We pulled candidates offer when it was revealed she had been fired. People get fired all the time for all kinds of reasons and if she’d offered a reasonable explanation, we might not have pulled the offer. As we’ve all read, sometimes people’s personal lives mess with their professional. And who hasn’t read a story about someone messing up their first job? As it was, she did not disclose this up front and thus the offer was pulled. It always pays to be upfront. (I was actually considering sending this in as something to share, but then todays post offered a perfect comment.)

    1. Cardboard Marmalade*

      Just curious, did she actively conceal that she had been fired in some way, either by using the wrong terminology (“laid off” or “quit”), or by answering no to an application question that asked if she’d ever been fired?

      I’m curious in part (and now I’m thinking maybe this should actually be a standalone question to send to Alison), because during 2020, I had a conversation with my boss about whether it made sense for me to be assigned new classes to teach in the upcoming semester, due to a combination of my having long COVID; the physical location for classes having been shut for the lockdown with no chance of it opening within the next semester; and my students not having access to technology and/or the tech literacy to be able to attend classes remotely (I taught free adult beginner-level English classes for a nonprofit, which absolutely did not have the resources to provide the students with iPads, internet access, and lessons on how to use Zoom). My understanding at the end of the conversation was that we agreed it didn’t make sense for me to teach in the upcoming semester, but that we would check in again in a few months. To my surprise, a few weeks later, I received a physical letter in the mail from HR that said I had been let go. I don’t remember the exact wording (fired vs laid off– at the time I honestly don’t think I even realized there was a difference) and at the time I was too shocked/hurt (and dealing with serious health complications) to reach out and ask for an explanation. Months later, it occurred to me that maybe they thought they were doing me a favor because if I had a note saying I was let go instead of having quit, I could apply for unemployment? It was also a very chaotic, poorly run nonprofit, so I didn’t badly want to go back to them and try to get my job back even after my health started to improve. But now I’m wishing I’d saved the letter, because I genuinely have no idea what I should put on an application if it asked me if I’ve ever been fired.

      1. CommentOn5*

        The background check was done by a different office, so I’m not sure on that point. Based off how they communicated to us, my guess is she answered no.

  43. Dido*

    I know a lot of people who could get drunk off their ass off two gin and tonics so I’d rather avoid that too

  44. Juicebox Hero*

    The REAL reason they don’t serve mixed drinks is so that your wannabe magician date won’t bring you a mudslide instead of what you asked for because all girls love chocolate. Of course the downside is, when he starts moping and playing sad songs on the piano at you, your tablemates can’t give you all their drink tickets to get martinis and become #relationship goals.

    Still my favorite Christmas party story ever.

    1. Ginger Cat Lady*

      lol that you think cold sales people respect those signs. They always “didn’t see them” on the way in.

    2. Good Enough For Government Work*

      This amuses me every time because in the UK, a solicitor is a lawyer.

  46. David Levenson*

    Many years ago I applied for an internal transfer, and asked this, “what do you see as my biggest obstacle in succeeding in this position, so I can have the opportunity to address it?” I had assumed correctly I knew the answer, handled it, and got the job! It’s good to know how others perceive you, and to be honest with yourself about where you need to improve.

    1. firelizard*

      Ooh, that’s a good one! I’m going to note it down alongside Alison’s “magic question” for the future, kinda a more specific variant of the “any concerns I can address” question. It runs the risk of putting them on the spot the same way, so would need to be used carefully, but I like it! It’s open to interpretation so if they want to just discuss a challenge of the role not your candidacy in particular they can do that.

  47. flb*

    a few years ago, we had a holiday party with craft cocktails. many people got too drunk, so i planned on only beer/wine for the following year…. joke’s on me, i threw up from too much wine! (at home, not the party, but still!)

  48. Wilbur*

    For the bathroom issue, it’s pretty simple. You’re in manufacturing and you don’t have a lobby so you can’t leave them unattended because people stick their fingers in places they don’t belong. You also have confidential information out, whether it’s yours or other companies, so you need to control access to that information. You don’t pay for an employee to babysit visitors, so no public access. Get comfortable with telling people no and don’t feel like you have to elaborate.

  49. 1-800-BrownCow*

    LW #2. I work in contract manufacturing, so no direct-to-consumer products either. I’m perplexed by the number of sales people just swinging by that have no connection to your business. We get some cold-calling salespeople that stop by our facility, but usually they sell equipment/tooling/materials that our business uses and are trying to get their foot in the door and a name/email/phone number of someone they can continue bothering. Our front desk receptionist is very good at stopping them at the door. They can leave any brochures or business cards, but that’s about it.

    I’m curious if your company has a policy about letting visitor’s onto the manufacturing floor to use the restroom. Obviously if you have a vendor or install/repair technician there for actual work, then you would accommodate. But my facility, we have locked doors to our manufacturing floor and visitors are not allowed onto the floor without an escort and for certain things, they have to go through safety training and a few other things first. Additionally, they or their company must have an NDA with us to be able to be in our building outside the reception area.

    Regardless, a simple “No public restrooms” is all you need to say when they ask.

    1. OP #2*

      Thanks

      Yeah, we do say “no public restrooms” and don’t allow these visitors past the front door.
      I was just personally having second thoughts… like am I being a heartless meanie?
      It’s clear from Alison’s answer and the many comments that, no, I am not. It’s a perfectly reasonable policy to NOT allow random people to use the bathrooms.
      And no visitors, even expected ones, are allowed to wander around on their own.

      I’ve always been surprised at the number of random people who show up at our door, for a whole range of reasons. We’re a small company, in a building with several other companies, in an industrial park of dozens of companies. Our entrance isn’t visible from the street, you have to drive around to the back of the building to even realize it is there.
      But at least once a week, someone random shows up … lost and looking for directions, in the area and selling something, for an interview (with a completely different company that is NOT the name on our door) or in the last few years, trying to deliver something that is for a completely different address because their dispatch or GPS steered them wrong.

  50. River*

    #1. I can think of 2 possible reasons why she doesn’t want mixed drinks at the event. Mixed drinks, depending on the spirit, can be stronger in alcoholic content than a beer or a serving of wine. Also depending on the drink, there could be multiple alcohols mixed together. Also don’t forget the cliche saying “Liquor before beer, you’re in the clear. Beer before liquor, it’ll make you sicker.” I personally have found that to be true. Secondly, having a bartender make mixed drinks can make for long lines at the bar and may take people away for extended time when the focus of the night should be the event.

    1. fhqwhgads*

      I don’t think there’s any question that one mixed drink is generally stronger. And that probably is why she thinks of them as inappropriate. But the issue is still that she thinks that makes them inappropriate, rather than them actually being inappropriate due to being stronger.
      There’s been no indication that her reasoning is time-in-line-for-the-bar. She pretty clearly said otherwise. And there’s no real need to come up with a reason why liquor wouldn’t be offered. The usual reasons are price, and she made it clear she says no even if price isn’t a factor.
      In my experience with these types of events: when the sponsor offers full bar it’s usually seen by attendees as “oh they must be doing well” because it seems like they spared no expense. Sometimes a beer+wine only event is seen as cheaping out a little, more often it’s viewed as just the default thing. Regardless of size of event, and whether the crowd is generally not rowdy, there’s always one or two people who are gonna overdo it no matter what you serve, drink ticket limit or not. Everyone else is fine.
      I’m saying this as a non-drinker who had to run said events for years and heard directly from guests this sort of feedback on the regular.
      So I think OP’s coworker’s take is essentially pointless if cost is not a factor as she indicates.

      1. HummusAndChips*

        We don’t actually know what is going on in the mind of OP’s coworker…
        and to that I also say, I am hoping we get an update on this even if it’s a small update. I am curious the reasoning behind the co-workers decisions on not wanting to serve liquor.

  51. Sneaky Squirrel*

    #5 – I can’t guarantee that honesty about being fired would help secure anyone a job but I can guarantee if someone said they were laid off and we found out they were fired, we would pull that offer back so quickly. Now we have two pieces of negative information; the candidate was fired which means that there’s now an unknown flag about the candidate’s work ethic that the candidate never addressed and the candidate just demonstrated that they’re willing to lie.

  52. fhqwhgads*

    #5: The answer to your first question depends a little bit on if you’re Hermes from Futurama and want to be technically correct.
    Does being fired come up in a background check? Usually, no.
    Does being fired come up in normal-pre-offer candidate screenings besides the background check (eg calling references, etc)? Yup. Totally.
    So if you’re Hermes, whoever said that’s not really a background check thing wins the debate.
    But if the point of the debate was about whether to lie/likelihood of being caught in a lie: Pinocchio loses the debate.

  53. Ms VanSquigglebottoms*

    LW4: I hate being asked by candidates about my concerns about their candidacy, because it’s never anything they can explain away–usually just that they had a gap on their resume, they flubbed a question about engaging in productive workplace conflict, they couldn’t think of a recent example where they made a mistake, etc. If I do have a concern that there’s a reasonable chance they could address in the interview, I’m always sure to ask it directly.

  54. NobodyHasTimeForThis*

    #1 – depending on the state you are in the food and permitting requirements if you add liquor to the options are very very different. Also the liability can increase because quite often 1 mixed drink is much stronger than 2 beers.

  55. JGA*

    LW #2 – was working in a real estate office a long time ago which was located adjacent to a row of shops. We had a random lady come in and ask to use the restroom, locked herself in and would not leave – for hours! We were very close to calling the police after several hours, but she finally left.
    Be careful who you let in the back part of the office.

    1. GreenDoor*

      LW #2, you’re on solid ground to say “no public restrooms.” These people could be looking to wander around and find that lunchroom to leave their wares anyway. They could be hoping to wander and run into someone who looks “higher up” than you and try to get a better answer from them. One time, we had an Avon lady come into my building and stand outside the women’s restrooms trying to sell as ladies were going to the facilities.

  56. I'm so old I'm historic*

    LW#1: I can’t help but wonder if the person has had an incident involving liquor. Like, Billy Bob took off with the whiskey bottle at the company mixer and made a scene kind of incident. Something that was so big that she has sworn she will never be put in that type of position again.

  57. Goody*

    The “visitors” in #2 (and boy was that appropriate placement) are likely using the bathroom request as an attempt to get past the receptionist/front desk. Their reasoning is irrelevant. If it makes you feel better, perhaps a sign along the lines of “no visitors, no solicitation, no restroom” so you can point to that as published policy when you turn them away.

  58. Cosmo*

    I definitely know of folks who hold a culturally value that beer and wine are “okay alcohols” and spirits are “only for people with a problem.” It is very much cultural, and those beliefs seem more present in older generations, with folks from more conservative areas, and from folks with certain religious backgrounds where alcohol in general is not looked upon fondly.

    Personally, I strongly dislike beer and I don’t really enjoy drinking at all at work. It doesn’t feel “safe” if that makes sense. I’m content to hold a beer rather than drink a beer if that’s all they have. But having mixed drinks usually means there’s a good selection of mixers and therefore some better options for getting a non-alcoholic drink like soda with a lime or juice and soda or something.

  59. Head Sheep Counter*

    LW#1: Depending on your location – your venues often set these rules. I think the argument through out the string about the additional prep and staff are legit as well. What I mean for my G&T (if I’m pouring for myself) could be wildly different than a bartender’s. :)

    I love that canned cocktails might help in these situations. The whole industry has really come a long way. I am not sad that Zima has never come back. :)

    The states and their blue laws are wild. Drive thru liquor stores in some areas and parsimonious dens of sin in others.

  60. Semi-retired admin*

    Re: L1, offering just beer and wine is easier and simpler. If you mixed drinks are offered, you not only need an array of liquor, but also mixers, garnishes, different glassware, a more knowledgeable bartender.

  61. Drinking Dry doesn't have to mean Drinking Boring*

    I see some things here similar to this, but I’ll put in my two cents. While I think it’s fine to do just wine and beer, I really think that offering mixed drinks should be seen as a bonus, not a detriment. A vodka soda can be zeroish carbs, your beer and wine aren’t (that’s definitely helpful for some diets). Others have already mentioned the option to have something fake alcohol, but it’s important to think beyond just “I don’t want people to question my choice of drinks” and also realize some people would enjoy a bloody mary mix minus the alcohol (very popular on airplanes, for instance). Also, the number of people here saying “we have great non-alcoholic options like selzer and sugary drinks”. As somebody who avoids high carb sodas, I wouldn’t be very happy with bad flavored water or a super-sugary cordial as my two options when other people are drinking beer and wine. If there were cocktails, there would probably be Diet Coke. The positives of a basic mixed drink bar go far and at most places I’ve seen, a G and T takes as much time to pour as the wine and doesn’t make the lines crazy long.

  62. The Tinman*

    I work for a building materials company that had a once a year conference open to all customers and their workers. They served a full buffet and full bar with two drink tickets per person. There were more than a few drunk people over the years from pregaming or buying extra drinks. On the bathroom question we have employee bathrooms and a public men’s room. Women and children are allowed to use the employee bathrooms. A few of the men will just stroll into the employee bathrooms even the women’s. One joked he should be invited to our employee cookout. I am not allowed to say anything to him about it.

  63. Elizabeth West*

    Bathroom — This happened a LOT at OldExjob. We just told them our restrooms were only for employees, and there was a gas station very close by, which was true. It was actually a truck stop they had to drive by to get to us, and it was very big and had clean bathrooms.

    One exception was regular vendors. We always let them use the bathroom because we had an existing business relationship with them. In fact, one vendor was out driving nearby the day of the Super Derecho of ’09. He came over and we let him shelter with us because of course we did; it was a damn derecho and the tornado siren was going off (multiple tornadoes, actually, and one of them hit us).

    The other exception was anyone who came in for a job interview (not every random applicant). Interviewees are nervous and often have to pee — if you don’t let them use the bathroom, you are a monster!

  64. Raida*

    1. Is liquor inappropriate at a work event that offers beer and wine?

    I’ll tell you this: I don’t like beer or wine. So if this was the setup then I’d do one of two things: trade my two tickets for someone to buy me a drink from the bar, or tell the organiser they are useless to me and I’ll just have to buy my own drinks so they can have the drink tickets back.

  65. Nerfmobile*

    My company (a fairly large one) used to have a pretty liberal policy for alcohol at company events, which often included things like monthly “beer busts” and even more informal gatherings for small groups. At some point, a new HR leader led an analysis of risk incidents, harassment reports, and so forth – and discovered that those situations were highly correlated with the presence of alcohol and particularly alcohol beyond beer and wine. So now we have much higher approval and oversight requirements for having self-supplied beer and wine at events, and harder drinks require VP approval and a catering company with bartenders.

    There were some people who were upset at the new restrictions, but overall I’d say the actual impact to the company culture has only been positive (because of the reduction of incidents) and people still are able to socialize just fine.

  66. Rosacolleti*

    #5 wait, isn’t a background check just a police check in which case being fired would only show up if it were something illegal you were charged for? If not, how does one go about conducting one? Is it an American thing? Or is it referring to reference checks?

Comments are closed.