It's the Wave of the Future
-
I've been taking some time off of work to scope out some new opportunities. I had a real winner the other day. I found an advertisement in one of those thin newspapers you find at the entrance of grocery stores. It said "Seeking software developer to create the next generation app. No one has thought of this before! Major potential, great $$$! Contact me at xxx-xxxx."
I should have thought more about the fact that they didn't provide an email address. But, what the heck, I wanted to see what this new idea was that "no one has thought of". So I gave the guy a call and he gave me an address where to meet him. It was one of those ramshackle, semi-abandoned plazas off the service road. I really hesitated before walking into the tiny "suite", I almost went home. But I figured I wasted gas on this, so here goes.
The office had nothing more than a table, a couple chairs, and a yellowed PC with one of those ancient bulky monitors. I felt nauseous.
The guy comes out of what looks like the bathroom in the back. He asks me to sit down and tell me about myself and my experience. He seemed really impressed and excited. The whole while I was wondering if this was it. Just him and his yellow PC. So I inquire about the size of his operation. The conversation went like this:
Him: Well, it's just me and a couple investors right now. We have to keep this real quiet. It looks like you're a good candidate for the position. But I can only tell you more if I can have your solemn agreement that you will take the job. I'm offering this job to you right now.
(Alarms started going off in my head.)
Me: I'm sorry, but you still haven't told me what it is you want to accomplish...how can I agree to something where I have no idea what I would be doing? If you want I can sign a confidentiality agreement...
Him: Oh no no no. That's not necessary. No paperwork here. Too much to keep up with.
(More alarms.)
Me: Really, I have no problem signing...
Him: Fine. Fine. I'll give you a broad outline. Two words: blog-ging.
Me: (laughing a little) That's funny. Seriously...
Him: What?
(He was serious.)
Me: (nervously) Blogging? Uh...what about it?
Him: It is the newest thing to the web. This is going to be huge.
Me: Um, so what...are you going to be offering technical advice on this site? What kind of traffic do you expect...
Him: Every day we will be posting new content. It will be fresh and informative. This will take the world by storm.
Me: (confused) Are you saying that blogging is...new? Uh, you do realize that blogging has been around for years? And that before that, I knew people who were doing online journaling? It's a very old concept. And prior to that there were things called diaries...
Him: (not getting my humor) Oh yeah, well tell me this. Do these blogging sites have ad-ver-tise-ments?
(He said it just like that too.)
Me: (matter-of-factly) Yes.
(He's glaring at me now.)
Me: If you would like I can show you. Just google "John's Blog" or "Mike's Blog". I'm sure you'll get thousands of results.
Him: We don't have internet acces here yet.
(Well, I guess that explains the lack of an email address in the job ad.)
Me: (looking at my watch) Listen. I gotta go. It's been nice talking with you and everything. I wish you the best of luck.
Him: So you don't want the position?
(That question threw me completely off guard. I thought it was pretty clear. I just shook my head and mumbled "N-nah. Thanks.")
Him: (as I'm walking out) Don't tell anybody about this!
-
Pfff, blogging is so yesterday... the new thing is -and keep this to yourself- online communities. See we let people make their own little webpages and set each other as "friends"... it'll be awesome, we'll be rolling in the dough.
On a side note we really need to move this to the sidebar forum.
-
How on earth did you last that long in the interview without just walking out? I would have excused myself after BLOG_GING
-
@galgorah said:
How on earth did you last that long in the interview without just walking out? I would have excused myself after BLOG_GING
THis is CPound we are talking about here. This is probably more how the interview went:
C#: Hi, I'm here for your position as a code monkey writing PHP pages because I keep losing every other job I've had
Them: Uh, OK.
C#: Do you have any tattoos or piercings?
Them: No... Uh, how about we get started?
C#: OK, what are you doing here.
Them: We make software for bloggers with seemless ad integration into some of the largest ad networks.
C#: Oh, bloggers are mostly hippies did you know that?
Them: Well, some are, but some are really interesting. Let me show you one of our clients blogs so you can get an idea of what we provide.
<tries to bring up a website but cannot connect>
Them: Oh, I forgot, our internet is out for the day. Damn ISP.
C#: This is the craziest interview I've ever been in, you curse like a sailor, and you aren't wearing a suit.
Them: Yeah, so tell me about yourself.
C#: I don't think this is a good match, where is security to escort me out?
Them: Uh, we have 3 employees in a tiny office suit. We don't have security.
C#: Amateurs!
-
@tster said:
C[b]£[/b]: Hi, I'm here for your position as a code monkey writing PHP pages because I keep losing every other job I've had
FTFY.
-
Oddly enough, I miss the days of long-haired hippies. That was as wild as it got back then. Tats and piercings were bikers only.
Ah, the good old days!
-
@CPound said:
Oddly enough, I miss the days of long-haired hippies. That was as wild as it got back then. Tats and piercings were bikers only.
Ah, the good old days!
Ah, the return of the sad little man and his social phobias. Unemployed at the moment are we CPound? Why am i not surprised?
Seriously though what is your problem with tats and piercings?
FYI, the 50's ended quite some time ago
-
@element[0] said:
Seriously though what is your problem with tats and piercings?
Other than the fact that these forms of "self-expression" show the wearer to be nothing more than a mindless joiner of gaudy, retarded fads? Well, they get infected sometimes, but I suppose that's just Nature's way of culling the least intelligent members of the herd...
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@element[0] said:
Seriously though what is your problem with tats and piercings?
Other than the fact that these forms of "self-expression" show the wearer to be nothing more than a mindless joiner of gaudy, retarded fads? Well, they get infected sometimes, but I suppose that's just Nature's way of culling the least intelligent members of the herd...
This is a prime example of the attitudes of someone who has little experience of cultures other than the ones that they grew up in. Many people from various places around the world have different customs and styles of dress which may(shockingly enough) differ from those of the white-bred american regions which i am assuming you inhabit. Where i live piercings and tats are considered to be a fairly normal stylistic choice and have no negative(or particularly positive) conotations associated with the people who wear them. While i understand that the particular place in which you live this may not be the case i do believe such a blanket statement highlights a high degree of ignorance on your part. Also your characterisation of piercings and tattoos as a "fad" seems to miss out on the fact that these practices have been part of human cultures for an extremely long time(1000's of years in fact), i'm not quite sure what your definition of a fad is but i believe a short timespan is a rather important factor in the definition.
Perhaps in order to expand your horizons you should try travelling and getting some life experience under your belt before you start making assumptions about people from different cultures of which you clearly have little experience. In addition to this unless you are the most stylish person in the world i think the wisest cause of action on your part would be to keep opinions on other peoples sense of style to yourself lest you yourself are judged for your appearance. So in future if you could try and be aware of the differences in culture between where you live and the rest of the world or just not comment at all on things which you do not understand, i think we'd all be better off.
-
@element[0] said:
This is a prime example of the attitudes of someone who has little experience of cultures other than the ones that they grew up in. Many people from various places around the world have different customs and styles of dress which may(shockingly enough) differ from those of the white-bred american regions which i am assuming you inhabit. Where i live piercings and tats are considered to be a fairly normal stylistic choice and have no negative(or particularly positive) conotations associated with the people who wear them. While i understand that the particular place in which you live this may not be the case i do believe such a blanket statement highlights a high degree of ignorance on your part. Also your characterisation of piercings and tattoos as a "fad" seems to miss out on the fact that these practices have been part of human cultures for an extremely long time(1000's of years in fact), i'm not quite sure what your definition of a fad is but i believe a short timespan is a rather important factor in the definition.
Perhaps in order to expand your horizons you should try travelling and getting some life experience under your belt before you start making assumptions about people from different cultures of which you clearly have little experience. In addition to this unless you are the most stylish person in the world i think the wisest cause of action on your part would be to keep opinions on other peoples sense of style to yourself lest you yourself are judged for your appearance. So in future if you could try and be aware of the differences in culture between where you live and the rest of the world or just not comment at all on things which you do not understand, i think we'd all be better off.
Wow, you're awfully defensive about this. Granted, morb was being rather strident, but he's not expressing a minority opinion in this country. What I find most amusing is that you go on and on about how morb should learn about other cultures, all the while refusing to grant morb the opinion of his own culture. Here there is clearly a stigma attached to having numerous tattoos and/or piercings. Why can't you respect our culture's disdain for tattoos and piercings? Perhaps you should expand your horizons before you start making assumptions about us.
@element[0] said:
Also your characterisation of piercings and tattoos as a "fad" seems to miss out on the fact that these practices have been part of human cultures for an extremely long time(1000's of years in fact), i'm not quite sure what your definition of a fad is but i believe a short timespan is a rather important factor in the definition.
Certainly the general concepts have been around forever, but specific styles are unquestionably fads. In tattoos, for example, the barbed wire, tribal designs, and chinese-characters-that-might-mean-what-you-think-they-mean are all fads.
-
@element[0] said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@element[0] said:
Seriously though what is your problem with tats and piercings?
Other than the fact that these forms of "self-expression" show the wearer to be nothing more than a mindless joiner of gaudy, retarded fads? Well, they get infected sometimes, but I suppose that's just Nature's way of culling the least intelligent members of the herd...
This is a prime example of the attitudes of someone who has little experience of cultures other than the ones that they grew up in. Many people from various places around the world have different customs and styles of dress which may(shockingly enough) differ from those of the white-bred american regions which i am assuming you inhabit. Where i live piercings and tats are considered to be a fairly normal stylistic choice and have no negative(or particularly positive) conotations associated with the people who wear them. While i understand that the particular place in which you live this may not be the case i do believe such a blanket statement highlights a high degree of ignorance on your part. Also your characterisation of piercings and tattoos as a "fad" seems to miss out on the fact that these practices have been part of human cultures for an extremely long time(1000's of years in fact), i'm not quite sure what your definition of a fad is but i believe a short timespan is a rather important factor in the definition.
Perhaps in order to expand your horizons you should try travelling and getting some life experience under your belt before you start making assumptions about people from different cultures of which you clearly have little experience. In addition to this unless you are the most stylish person in the world i think the wisest cause of action on your part would be to keep opinions on other peoples sense of style to yourself lest you yourself are judged for your appearance. So in future if you could try and be aware of the differences in culture between where you live and the rest of the world or just not comment at all on things which you do not understand, i think we'd all be better off.
Man, I didn't think you'd actually be stupid enough to reply to this with precisely the blend of ignorance and defensiveness I had hoped for, but today must be my lucky day.
I don't dispute that tattoos and piercings have existed in numerous cultures for millenniums. Where you put your public school system to shame is in your assumption that the existence of other cultures is reason enough to respect or admire those cultures. Most of these cultures are rather barbaric, sexist and violent. They have not contributed to the advancement of human knowledge or the betterment of the human condition. There are numerous examples of cultures throughout history that have engaged in ritual human sacrifice and the mutilation of female genitalia, and in fact there are some who continue the latter. The mere fact that they have existed and continue to exist in no way lends support to a claim that these cultures are in any way admirable or worth emulating.
Within Western (and specifically American) culture, tattoos and piercings are a relatively recent fad, so my statement to this effect is still valid. Even within the cultures they originated in, tattoos and piercings were never a sign of rebellion or individuality, but instead the cattle-like brandings of conformity and submission of the individual to society. At one point, they did represent non-mainstream culture within the United States, but these days are long gone. In and of themselves they are merely another trendy fashion statement and as such I don't really mind them, but I am greatly amused by the morons like yourself who think they represent anything but ant-like conformity and base consumerism. I'm also amused by the white bread fools (such as yourself) who like to delude themselves by believing their tattoos and piercings give them some connection to bygone cultures that would have dashed your brains out on a rock before they accepted you as one of their own, or to the violent, anti-social antics of pirates and prison inmates.
Don't get me wrong, I think within modern Western culture tattoos and piercings are a fine trend and that most of the followers are decent people, even if they are a bit clueless and conformist. I have nothing against the conformity and consumerism represented by this recent fad, I simply find it a tad too boring for my tastes. However, I recognize that there is only a tenuous connection between the modern tattoos and piercing fad and the primitive cultures they were adopted from. For my own tastes, I prefer something a bit more representative of my individuality, but enjoy your pre-packaged non-conformity.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
who like to delude themselves by believing their tattoos and piercings give them some connection to bygone cultures
Not at all, i am well aware that piercings(other than ear piercing) have only been a part of modern western culture only since the 70's and not a connection to a bygone culture. Still, this timeframe puts them well out of the fad category. I merely wanted to make the point that it is not an uncommon thing in human societies. Tattoos on the otherhand have been part of mainstream western culture continuously for at least 500 years for example would you say my grandfathers' navy and airforce tattoss(from the 1940's) were just deluded consumerism?
@morbiuswilters said:
Even within the cultures they originated in, tattoos and piercings were never a sign of rebellion or individuality, but instead the cattle-like brandings of conformity and submission of the individual to society.
@morbiuswilters said:
clueless and conformist
I don't know where you get the idea that someone with a piercing is trying to be a non-conformist, maybe that was the idea back in the 70's and 80's but these days i think it would be a a pretty poor way to express "non-confornity" and therefore not the reason to do it. That's like saying a guy with long hair is trying to be a non conformist, maybe originally it was a sign of non comformity but we've all moved on since then and now it is normal. I think think you need to rid yourself of the delusion that people get tattoos and piercings in order to be "non-conformist" or make some kind of statement, that's just not the case and as you pointed out yourself it wouldn't achieve either of those goals.
Just out of interest where do you stand on ear piercings? Where do they rank on the non-conformist consumer scale?
-
@bstorer said:
Here there is clearly a stigma attached to having numerous tattoos and/or piercings. Why can't you respect our culture's disdain for tattoos and piercings?
I can, but i won't go around making blanket statements like, "anyone who wears tracksuit pants around is poor and uneducated" becuase it's unture and would make me sound like an arrogant dick(even if it is a genreally held perception).@bstorer said:
Certainly the general concepts have been around forever, but specific styles are unquestionably fads. In tattoos, for example, the barbed wire, tribal designs, and chinese-characters-that-might-mean-what-you-think-they-mean are all fads.
I agree completely, some tattoo design are, but i don't think that gives licence to lump all tattos together and put all people with them in the same category.
-
@element[0] said:
@morbiuswilters said:
who like to delude themselves by believing their tattoos and piercings give them some connection to bygone cultures
Not at all, i am well aware that piercings(other than ear piercing) have only been a part of modern western culture only since the 70's and not a connection to a bygone culture. Still, this timeframe puts them well out of the fad category. I merely wanted to make the point that it is not an uncommon thing in human societies. Tattoos on the otherhand have been part of mainstream western culture continuously for at least 500 years for example would you say my grandfathers' navy and airforce tattoss(from the 1940's) were just deluded consumerism?
@morbiuswilters said:
Even within the cultures they originated in, tattoos and piercings were never a sign of rebellion or individuality, but instead the cattle-like brandings of conformity and submission of the individual to society.
@morbiuswilters said:
clueless and conformist
I don't know where you get the idea that someone with a piercing is trying to be a non-conformist, maybe that was the idea back in the 70's and 80's but these days i think it would be a a pretty poor way to express "non-confornity" and therefore not the reason to do it. That's like saying a guy with long hair is trying to be a non conformist, maybe originally it was a sign of non comformity but we've all moved on since then and now it is normal. I think think you need to rid yourself of the delusion that people get tattoos and piercings in order to be "non-conformist" or make some kind of statement, that's just not the case and as you pointed out yourself it wouldn't achieve either of those goals.
Just out of interest where do you stand on ear piercings? Where do they rank on the non-conformist consumer scale?
Once again, outside of bikers and other classless trash, tattoos and piercings are a recent mainstream fad. Your inability to comprehend this basic point is indicative of a severe learning disability or perhaps is just evidence that you can't admit your original reply to me was extremely ill-conceived. I really don't give a shit about fashion trends or those that jump on bandwagons, but your initial defensive nature coupled with your shoddy reasoning is simply too tempting a target to pass up. Clearly the mere act of having an anonymous person on the Internet call them a "retarded, gaudy fad" has so shaken your faith in your own lame little fashions that you've felt compelled to stand up for them with all the capability of a Special Olympics audience attempting to stand for the national anthem. Bravo.
You seem offended by the suggestion that tattoos and piercings are a recent fad and attempt to construct a weak argument to the contrary. However, you also try to act as if the negative implications of being a fad (such as the tedious conformity and bandwagon-joining) are of no concern. This raises two questions with me. Why do you support body modification in the first place? And why do you care so much that is labeled as a fad? I look forward to the verbal and logical diarrhea that will follow.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
comprehend this basic point is indicative of a severe learning disability
I comprehend the point, i just disagree with it, your ability to comprehend this basic point is indicative of a severe learning disability.
@morbiuswilters said:
perhaps is just evidence that you can't admit your original reply to me was extremely ill-conceived
perhaps is just evidence that you can't admit your original reply to me was extremely ill-conceived
@morbiuswilters said:
I really don't give a shit about fashion trends
at least you do enough to comment on them on forums
@morbiuswilters said:
You seem offended by the suggestion that tattoos and piercings are a recent fad and attempt to construct a weak argument to the contrary
You seem offended by the suggestion that tattoos and piercings are not a
recent fad and attempt to construct no argument to the contrary.This is based on the assumption that 25+ years in mainstream culture is not recent, your perceptions may differ.
@morbiuswilters said:
I look forward to the verbal and logical diarrhea that will follow.
as do i
-
@element[0] said:
...
You do realize morbius is trolling you, right? He's gone way beyond his normal level of sarcasm and has gone into full fledge hyperbole mode.
-
@tster said:
@element[0] said:
...
You do realize morbius is trolling you, right? He's gone way beyond his normal level of sarcasm and has gone into full fledge hyperbole mode.
shhhh!! Watching him go crazy over this is hilarious.
-
@element[0] said:
@bstorer said:
The only stigma attached to tracksuits is that whoever wears them looks fabulous.@element[0] said:Here there is clearly a stigma attached to having numerous tattoos and/or piercings. Why can't you respect our culture's disdain for tattoos and piercings?
I can, but i won't go around making blanket statements like, "anyone who wears tracksuit pants around is poor and uneducated" becuase it's unture and would make me sound like an arrogant dick(even if it is a genreally held perception).
It takes a bold man to be willing to make blanket statements. Don't hate morb just because he has the temerity to say what we're all thinking.@bstorer said:
Certainly the general concepts have been around forever, but specific styles are unquestionably fads. In tattoos, for example, the barbed wire, tribal designs, and chinese-characters-that-might-mean-what-you-think-they-mean are all fads.
I agree completely, some tattoo design are, but i don't think that gives licence to lump all tattos together and put all people with them in the same category.
-
I think you are all missing the point of tattoos and piercings in the context of an interview setting. Up to this point, I'm assuming all of you are picturing a male ruffian walking in and kicking his feet up on the interview table. But consider the following...
Imagine if a female candidate walked in, with a nose piercing and a visible barbed wire tattoo on her arm.
I know all of you will deny this, but that's sexy. That's hot. As a male interviewer, all you would be thinking about during the interview would be that she is wild in bed.
Tell me I'm wrong.
-
@CPound said:
I think you are all missing the point of tattoos and piercings in the context of an interview setting. Up to this point, I'm assuming all of you are picturing a male ruffian walking in and kicking his feet up on the interview table. But consider the following...
Imagine if a female candidate walked in, with a nose piercing and a visible barbed wire tattoo on her arm.
I know all of you will deny this, but that's sexy. That's hot. As a male interviewer, all you would be thinking about during the interview would be that she is wild in bed.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Why would a woman be interviewing for a technical position?
-
@CPound said:
Imagine if a female candidate walked in, with a nose piercing and a visible barbed wire tattoo on her arm.
I know all of you will deny this, but that's sexy. That's hot. <snip>
Tell me I'm wrong.
You're wrong. There is nothing sexy about a girl with a barbed wire tatoo. Maybe a cute little butterfly in the center of her back, but I don't find anything sexy at all about a bitch that is all tatted up like some fucking biker. Belly button ring: sure. Four in each ear, one in the tongue, one in the eyebrow and another in her nose really does nothing for me.
And who are you Paris Hilton ("That's hot")?
-
@CPound said:
Imagine if a female candidate walked in, with a nose piercing and a visible barbed wire tattoo on her arm.
This is a JOB INTERVIEW. You should not have your nose piercing in. Your attire should cover your tattoo if possible. You are expected to be a professional at my company, and your piercings and tattoos may offend or upset our clients and customers. Hell, they might offend ME. You don't know me. You don't know how unreasonable I might be about this.
I will give pointed looks to your tattoo and piercing. I will then interview you as though you were any other candidate, and if you are worth further consideration I will send you home and call you back for a second interview a day or two later.
If you show up with a piercing and tattoo again, you don't get the job. If you can't take the hint that I disapprove of your tattoo and piercing, you can't be on a client site for me. Your diplomatic skills are lacking. When my company's big enough to have a dark basement with a corner where you can work, maybe I'll call you.
@CPound said:
As a male interviewer, all you would be thinking about during the interview would be that she is wild in bed.
The piercing and tattoo are irrelevant to this. If you are female, and I am interviewing you, my mind is already preoccupied with your sexual prowess and proclivities - no less than if I pass you in the hallway or on the street. If you're at all attractive to me, and I've seen you anywhere, I've imagined having sex with you. I will continue to do so every single time I see you. And yet, I will still conduct myself professionally and courteously; any job I am doing will still get done, and my brains will not slide out my arse because the sex button got pushed. The sex button always gets pushed. That will never change.
-
@CDarklock said:
This is a JOB INTERVIEW. You should not have your nose piercing in. Your attire should cover your tattoo if possible. You are expected to be a professional at my company, and your piercings and tattoos may offend or upset our clients and customers. Hell, they might offend ME. You don't know me. You don't know how unreasonable I might be about this.
I will give pointed looks to your tattoo and piercing. I will then interview you as though you were any other candidate, and if you are worth further consideration I will send you home and call you back for a second interview a day or two later.
If you show up with a piercing and tattoo again, you don't get the job. If you can't take the hint that I disapprove of your tattoo and piercing, you can't be on a client site for me. Your diplomatic skills are lacking. When my company's big enough to have a dark basement with a corner where you can work, maybe I'll call you.
Maybe it's because I've never had to meet customers in-person in any job, but I find this attitude ridiculous. Tattoos and piercings are hardly so unusual they would disrupt any kind of office life. I always go to job interviews dressed professionally and I'm not a fan of tattoos and piercings myself, but any place that was this anal about tech people looking "professional" would suck the life out of me. I've always been the best-dressed tech person at my jobs, but if my employer implemented a dress code I would seriously consider leaving.
@CDarklock said:
The piercing and tattoo are irrelevant to this. If you are female, and I am interviewing you, my mind is already preoccupied with your sexual prowess and proclivities - no less than if I pass you in the hallway or on the street. If you're at all attractive to me, and I've seen you anywhere, I've imagined having sex with you. I will continue to do so every single time I see you. And yet, I will still conduct myself professionally and courteously; any job I am doing will still get done, and my brains will not slide out my arse because the sex button got pushed. The sex button always gets pushed. That will never change.
You seem to miss the point. Of course we're all treating every semi-attractive woman we meet as a sex object, but if she's got a tramp stamp and a several piercings it's much more likely she's the kind of chick that likes to get fucked up on K and screw like rabid badgers all night. Keep in mind: tongue piercings dramatically increase oral pleasure. Unless she turns out to be a radical feminist and her tattoos and piercings are her way of expressing herself, in which case it's not very cool unless she introduces you to some of her lesbian friends and they let you watch / videotape / participate. If not, she may have to be let go, but that's part of what makes hiring good people so difficult: you have no way of knowing if they are cool nymphos or stuck-up lesbians.
Look, you may dig that "girl next door" look and that's fine, but just keep in mind that sometimes they are as sweet and innocent as they appear. By hiring them you are taking on the risk that they will end up being intelligent, independent, hard-working and chaste, which is hardly what you were looking for when you decided to call the lady in for an interview instead of tossing her resume into the trash without reading it.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I always go to job interviews dressed professionally and I'm not a fan of tattoos and piercings myself, but any place that was this anal about tech people looking "professional" would suck the life out of me.
If you go to a client site looking like a biker, and that client loses three hours of productivity throughout the office because nobody will shut up about that creepy scary person working on the web server, we have a problem. We may even have lost a contract, or even the entire client.
So if I tell you not to go in there looking like a biker, you had damn sure better do it, or you will not be working for me much longer. You represent my company at those sites, and I am not going to have you wearing swastika earrings and showing off your "AIDS KILLS FAGS DEAD" tattoo. You can HAVE those things - just take them off or cover them up when you go out to a client site.
Yes, I am rather anal about whether I keep my clients. That's because if I don't have clients, you don't get paid. Maybe you should be anal about it, too.
@morbiuswilters said:
You seem to miss the point.
No, you do. The appearance, availability, and sexual proclivities of a job candidate are IRRELEVANT. They are not part of the interview. Indeed, they cannot be part of the interview. Professionalism is at issue; if you can't get through a sentence without double-entendre and suggestive language, no damn way do you work for me - no matter how much I like it. What are the Jehovah's Witnesses going to think when they point at their server and say "we need a bigger one"... and you reply "that's what SHE said"? No fucking way. I don't care how you look, or what implied promises you make, or whether I want to bone you. It simply doesn't matter. The job interview is about your ability to do the job, and if you can't represent my company appropriately on a client site, you don't have that ability. Full-stop.
-
@CDarklock said:
So if I tell you not to go in there looking like a biker, you had damn sure better do it, or you will not be working for me much longer. You represent my company at those sites, and I am not going to have you wearing swastika earrings and showing off your "AIDS KILLS FAGS DEAD" tattoo. You can HAVE those things - just take them off or cover them up when you go out to a client site.
Hey now! Let's stop this sterotyping shit! =P
I ride bikes and I sure as hell don't have any piercings or tattoos!
-
@CDarklock said:
If you go to a client site looking like a biker, and that client loses three hours of productivity throughout the office because nobody will shut up about that creepy scary person working on the web server, we have a problem. We may even have lost a contract, or even the entire client.
As I said, we're talking about employees who never meet customers face-to-face. In that case, who cares?
@CDarklock said:So if I tell you not to go in there looking like a biker, you had damn sure better do it, or you will not be working for me much longer.
You better watch that tone, or I'll fire you!@CDarklock said:
You represent my company at those sites, and I am not going to have you wearing swastika earrings and showing off your "AIDS KILLS FAGS DEAD" tattoo.
Who said anything about blatantly offensive stuff like that? There's a difference between "tattoos and piercings" and "swastika earrings". Hell, you couldn't even allow an employee to wear those things if you wanted to, unless you desired a lawsuit.
@CDarklock said:
You can HAVE those things - just take them off or cover them up when you go out to a client site.
You're saying you'd knowingly hire a rabid homophobe or a neo-Nazi just as long as they don't act out? I think I found TRWTF.
@CDarklock said:
The appearance, availability, and sexual proclivities of a job candidate are IRRELEVANT.
Just to be clear, I'm talking about lady job candidates, not man ones. Appearance doesn't matter as much for male candidates, although I don't want them to be so ugly they make me vomit or so pretty they swoop in and take all the lady employees I'm hiring for myself.
@CDarklock said:
What are the Jehovah's Witnesses going to think when they point at their server and say "we need a bigger one"... and you reply "that's what SHE said"? No fucking way.
Bah, they don't believe in blood transfusions so what makes you think they believe in servers, either?
-
@Kermos said:
@CDarklock said:
So if I tell you not to go in there looking like a biker, you had damn sure better do it, or you will not be working for me much longer. You represent my company at those sites, and I am not going to have you wearing swastika earrings and showing off your "AIDS KILLS FAGS DEAD" tattoo. You can HAVE those things - just take them off or cover them up when you go out to a client site.
Hey now! Let's stop this sterotyping shit! =P
I ride bikes and I sure as hell don't have any piercings or tattoos!
That's because your bike is a Huffy. Get a real bike!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
As I said, we're talking about employees who never meet customers face-to-face.
No, YOU are. All my employees are likely to meet customers face-to-face. How you interview and how I interview will therefore be different. Even if your job duties don't normally require you to see customers in person, I may at any time have someone come to the office for a meeting, and emergency conditions may even force you into an on-site service call. Even if the chance is small, operational readiness is paramount. There are certainly employers like you out there, but there are a lot more employers like me.
@morbiuswilters said:
Who said anything about blatantly offensive stuff like that?
How do you know what is blatantly offensive? I'm offended by the Hindu idols some Indian employees display on their desks. The point is that no matter what your tattoo is or where your piercing is, someone may find it blatantly offensive. Most people wouldn't be offended by a barbed wire tattoo, but the few people that are could be anywhere. Just because your client's peculiarities are peculiar doesn't mean you get to ignore them.
There are people out there who have Chinese ideographs tattooed on their arms; some of them are supposed to say "love" or "peace" but actually say something offensive, because someone who can read Chinese thought it would be funny. What happens when I send one of those people to a Chinese client's site? Am I supposed to learn Chinese, just so I know what these tattoos say? Cover the damn thing. Yes, I'm sure it really does say "serenity". All tattoos must be covered.
@morbiuswilters said:
You're saying you'd knowingly hire a rabid homophobe or a neo-Nazi just as long as they don't act out?
Yes, because it is illegal and unethical to consider that in your hiring decision. It is every bit as illegal as refusing to hire someone because he is a homosexual or a Jew. I can refuse to hire anyone for failure to cover a tattoo or remove a piercing, no matter how innocuous it is, but I cannot refuse to hire them because they have one. The double-interview tactic distinguishes between the two cases: if you come in with your offensive tattoo visible, I will treat it like any other tattoo. I want it covered. I'll express that nonverbally, because I want you to pick up on it. You'll need to do that with clients all the time. When you come back in, I don't care whether you have a tattoo or what it is. I only care that you picked up on the nonverbal signal and took the appropriate action. If you can't do that, it's relevant to the job, and I can legally and ethically refuse to hire you.
@morbiuswilters said:
Just to be clear, I'm talking about lady job candidates, not man ones.
Again, it is illegal and unethical to distinguish between the two.
It strikes me that when we argue, you seem to spend a lot of time insisting that my policies and procedures are stupid, and recommending that I do something illegal or unethical instead.
-
@CDarklock said:
Yes, because it is illegal and unethical to consider that in your hiring decision. It is every bit as illegal as refusing to hire someone because he is a homosexual or a Jew. I can refuse to hire anyone for failure to cover a tattoo or remove a piercing, no matter how innocuous it is, but I cannot refuse to hire them because they have one. The double-interview tactic distinguishes between the two cases: if you come in with your offensive tattoo visible, I will treat it like any other tattoo. I want it covered. I'll express that nonverbally, because I want you to pick up on it. You'll need to do that with clients all the time. When you come back in, I don't care whether you have a tattoo or what it is. I only care that you picked up on the nonverbal signal and took the appropriate action. If you can't do that, it's relevant to the job, and I can legally and ethically refuse to hire you.
I don't know what the laws are like where you live, but in most of the US you certainly can refuse to hire someone who is homophobic, a neo-Nazi or even a homosexual. You can also refuse to hire someone for having a tattoo or being a smoker or any number of reasons outside of being a particular race, religion or gender. I'm shocked you think it's unethical to consider homophobia or racism in your hiring decision. The very definition of ethics is upholding a certain moral standard and I would assume that includes refusing to hire neo-Nazis. Just because someone is guaranteed the right to free expression does not mean they are guaranteed to be free from repercussions for unpopular or offensive views or activities. The First Amendment protects individuals from Government censorship, it does not force everyone else to like you or hire you or associate with you and it is not an excuse for abrogating your personal moral code.
In fact, it can be illegal to hire a neo-Nazi (and in some states, a homophobe). If you don't know the person is a neo-Nazi or homophobe, that's one thing, but if their views are in any way made known you will be establishing a hostile work environment by hiring them. That is definitely illegal.
@CDarklock said:
Again, it is illegal and unethical to distinguish between the two.
Clearly I was joking about discriminating against women. Have you not noticed the pattern of mock sexism I have displayed throughout this thread?
@CDarklock said:
It strikes me that when we argue, you seem to spend a lot of time insisting that my policies and procedures are stupid, and recommending that I do something illegal or unethical instead.
To me it sounds like you already are acting illegally and unethically, if you are hiring racists. At the very least, you are setting yourself up for some trouble.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I don't know what the laws are like where you live, but in most of the US you certainly can refuse to hire someone who is homophobic, a neo-Nazi or even a homosexual.
Not for that reason, you can't. You have to base your decision exclusively on the candidate's qualifications for the job. If you refuse to hire a neo-Nazi, the burden is on you to demonstrate that a neo-Nazi couldn't be expected to do the job.
Personally, I can't demonstrate anything of the sort, so if he's the best qualified candidate - I'll hire him. Am I asking for trouble? Well, yes. But the trouble I'll get is minimal compared to the trouble I might face in court. By hiring him in spite of his views and giving him a fair shot, I completely destroy any chance that he or anyone else might ever have to claim that I'm somehow prejudicial or discriminatory in my hiring practices. If another neo-Nazi comes in and isn't qualified, I can say "no hire" immediately without fear. If he tries to say I was biased against his neo-Nazi ideals - I'm a Jew, after all - I just point to my neo-Nazi employee and say "honestly?"
Most importantly, this policy scales well into the millions of employees, where a policy of avoiding a hostile work environment does not.
-
@CDarklock said:
Not for that reason, you can't. You have to base your decision exclusively on the candidate's qualifications for the job. If you refuse to hire a neo-Nazi, the burden is on you to demonstrate that a neo-Nazi couldn't be expected to do the job.
Personally, I can't demonstrate anything of the sort, so if he's the best qualified candidate - I'll hire him. Am I asking for trouble? Well, yes. But the trouble I'll get is minimal compared to the trouble I might face in court. By hiring him in spite of his views and giving him a fair shot, I completely destroy any chance that he or anyone else might ever have to claim that I'm somehow prejudicial or discriminatory in my hiring practices. If another neo-Nazi comes in and isn't qualified, I can say "no hire" immediately without fear. If he tries to say I was biased against his neo-Nazi ideals - I'm a Jew, after all - I just point to my neo-Nazi employee and say "honestly?"
Most importantly, this policy scales well into the millions of employees, where a policy of avoiding a hostile work environment does not.
You are simply wrong. Neo-Nazism is not a protected status under the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. As far as avoiding a hostile work environment, that is your responsibility. If you hire a neo-Nazi and another employee feels the environment is hostile they can sue your ass. As an employer you have a legal responsibility for doing what you can to avoid a hostile work environment.
For reference, claiming neo-Nazism is your religion is no defense. The EEOC stipulates that you must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion or pregnancy unless it would place an undue burden on the employer or would create a hostile work environment. Now, if an employee keeps his views to himself, you are fine, but if you know a particular employee is racist or sexist and that can be shown in court you are on the hook for permitting a hostile work environment to exist. Even if the employee plays nicely, other employees might feel threatened because of that employee's radical views. Remember, it is not the intent of the offender that matters in hostile work environment cases, it is the fact that someone was offended.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Neo-Nazism is not a protected status under the Equal Employment Opportunity Act.
Which prohibits "employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities" (emphasis mine).
We can pretty easily say that neo-Nazism is not sex, race, age, or a disability. We can also argue rather convincingly that it is not a religion. But what is an ethnic group?
Title 18, USC: "A set of individuals whose identity as such is distinctive in terms of common cultural traditions or heritage."
Do neo-Nazis have common cultural traditions or heritage?
I think they might. And if you think to yourself "a neo-Nazi will create a hostile work environment", that's based on a stereotype or assumption. So if neo-Nazis constitute an ethnic group, you're in violation of the law.
Can you answer that question? Well, no, I don't think you can. I think the answer to that question fundamentally depends on the judge, and you don't have one yet, and by the time you do it will be too late. I choose to assume the neo-Nazi is part of an ethnic group, against whom I cannot discriminate, because I honestly don't see any value in discriminating.
@morbiuswilters said:
If you hire a neo-Nazi and another employee feels the environment is hostile they can sue your ass.
You can say that about anyone. What if everyone in your company is a Democrat, and you hire a Republican? That could create a hostile environment. Republicans aren't a protected class. Should I fire the Republican because the Democrats don't like him? Could they sue me for hiring him?
How is a neo-Nazi different from a Republican?
@morbiuswilters said:
Remember, it is not the intent of the offender that matters in hostile work environment cases, it is the fact that someone was offended.
And it's the same thing that matters in employment discrimination. It's not that you intended to discriminate, it's that the candidate felt you were discriminatory.
-
