Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Personal lives and hiring decisions (two threads in one!)

124

Posts

  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited April 2011
    Seol wrote: »
    hanskey wrote: »
    I have a slightly different take that I only really apply to myself, and that I acknowledge could be counterproductive in some instances, which is if I'm not "on the clock", then it's not company time. I don't seek to make an ass of myself for this reason, but I find no compelling reason to pretend that I care what people think of me (usually). Not that I'm in any danger of ending up with a pair of female companions at a work conference, but I don't understand why it would matter if I did.
    The trouble here being... it's not up to you whether it matters or not, it's up to your employer. As in: if they can act based on it, then it's something to be aware of.
    I totally accept this premise, but I would suggest that you, I, and other employees decide if we want to give a shit about what our employers think on such topics. Yes, we might get in trouble, but that doesn't mean that we must let our employer dictate shit. Another way to put it is: we are only empowered by as much power as we take from employers to control our actions and lives. In many cases, they don't want us to have any power whatsoever, because free agency is the enemy of efficiency, or at least many employers seem to believe so.
    Deebaser wrote: »
    ...It's not really that black and white...
    You're right. I'm really trying to talk about how I think things should be, not necessarily how they actually are, except to criticize the things I think are unjust, unfair, or wrong in some other way. I hate being a wage slave, though I accept it, because the alternatives in our times are not pretty, and I hate it even more when I hear about the ways companies abuse my fellow wage slaves. That's where I was coming from with that.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Ugh, my typing was atrocious in my last post.


    Sorry, guys.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited April 2011
    It's all good. That's one of the reasons I stay on the forums for way too much time and every post I make ends up being edited like 15 times before I'm done with it. Vanity, thy name is spelling.

  • 3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »

    Even security background checks by the government aren't terribly exhaustive. I was interviewed by a couple of FBI agents when my law school roommate was getting his Top Secret clearance, and these guys were pretty terrible at actually getting me to divulge stuff that might have hurt his chances.


    I know I'm quite late to the conversation, but as of a few years ago, I worked in industrial security, and often worked with the investigators who processed security clearances for the government.

    Your interview is typical, because your roommate isn't being investigated for a crime. You're not going to be put in a room, and have some guy grill you over your friend, because that's not the purpose of that interview. Before they even interview you, they've interviewed him, and read his SF-86, a massive document he's filled out detailing every aspect of his life. Some of it's silly - "Have you ever plotted to overthrow the U.S. government?", and some of it isn't "Have you done illegal drugs in the past seven years?".

    When they interview you, they're really confirming what he's written in a legal document by bouncing it off of you. And the thing is - even if he's spent the past 6 of his 7 years stoned out of his mind, if he admits it in his SF-86, and his interview, it doesn't disqualify him from holding a clearance. The whole, entire purpose of the clearance process is to make sure that your room mate can keep a secret. He can have DUI's, an old drug habit, or even terrible credit, but if he's trust worthy, that's what counts.

    That being said, there is an invisible bar that can keep folks from getting them. Too many black check marks are an auto-disqualify. A bankruptcy, or a foreclosure are sure fire ways to get screwed. If you're being blackmailed, that's an instant clearance denied. And then there's the aggregate - you're a recovering addict, your credit is terrible, and you haven't held a steady job. Odds are good the sum of all of those could likely deny you your clearance, and that's not counting your possible criminal background check, which can auto-disqualify you as well, if it's a serious offense. You might argue that none of those things make someone untrustworthy, but to Uncle Sam, they're indicators that you could inadvertently disclose information, or someone can apply pressure to you (tempt you, blackmail, or bribe you) to divulge state secrets - and that dog ain't gonna hunt.



    TL;DR - Clearances aren't so bad. Polygraphs on the other hand....

    I think Pringles original intention was to make tennis balls... but on the day the rubber was supposed to show up a truckload of potatoes came. Pringles is a laid-back company, so they just said, "Fuck it, cut em up!".
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Why do they ask about drug use? Pot smokers can't keep secrets?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    Why do they ask about drug use? Pot smokers can't keep secrets?
    It's basically a proxy for your willingness to break the law. But drug use isn't an automatic disqualifier. It's a question of what drugs you did, when you did them and for how long. Smoking pot in college isn't going to prevent you from getting the lower-level clearance, while doing blow recently probably will.

    They're typically looking at the whole picture of a person. Few people are totally squeaky clean, but a few negative points aren't going to disqualify you for the more standard clearances. Once you start going up the clearance ladder, though, it becomes easier to get dinged. Foreign connections are a hot button, for example.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • 3lwap03lwap0 Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    Why do they ask about drug use? Pot smokers can't keep secrets?

    Not necessarily. What they look for are indicators of leverage. I don't mean some ne'r-do-wells kidnapped your family, and will start sending you body parts until you 'fess up. They look for something that can be used against you to make you divulge something you shouldn't, or, might coerce you into giving up the goods because you were on something that removed your good sense to keep your trap shut. Drug use is an indicator, because frankly, a lot of people who are drinkin' drugs do do stupid things, and they are hard to trust.

    It's also a way to maybe sneak some moral jabs at a clearance applicant. Uncle Sam isn't above that - hell, as of a decade ago, they asked you if you were gay, which has dick all to do with keeping secrets.


    Edit: Oh yeah, and willingness to break the law, etc., as well. Hi5 Modern Man.

    I think Pringles original intention was to make tennis balls... but on the day the rubber was supposed to show up a truckload of potatoes came. Pringles is a laid-back company, so they just said, "Fuck it, cut em up!".
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    3lwap0 wrote: »
    It's also a way to maybe sneak some moral jabs at a clearance applicant. Uncle Sam isn't above that - hell, as of a decade ago, they asked you if you were gay, which has dick all to do with keeping secrets.
    It used to be a pretty good way to blackmail someone who was in the closet, though. It's lost a lot of that impact, so I guess they don't care about it so much anymore.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    As far as I'm concerned, most people are aware that pre-employment drug tests are a thing. With that in mind, if you can't put the bong down for the time it takes you to get a job and pass the piss test, then you're either a total fuck up, immature, or you actually have drug problem.

    Those are three classes of people worth filtering out, imo.

  • hanskeyhanskey Registered User
    edited April 2011
    I have a lot of perfectly functional pothead friends. I might not trust them with state secrets, because of the leverage thingy, but I'd trust them in pretty much anything else.

    That said, they all managed to find a way to pass their screenings to get their jobs, and that has not kept them from partaking once hired, nor should it.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    3lwap0 wrote: »
    It's also a way to maybe sneak some moral jabs at a clearance applicant. Uncle Sam isn't above that - hell, as of a decade ago, they asked you if you were gay, which has dick all to do with keeping secrets.

    Yeah, I figured this was part of it. It almost seemed like a bit of a throwback to the Nixon days when they thought that LSD was undermining American values.
    Deebaser wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned, most people are aware that pre-employment drug tests are a thing. With that in mind, if you can't put the bong down for the time it takes you to get a job and pass the piss test, then you're either a total fuck up, immature, or you actually have drug problem.

    Those are three classes of people worth filtering out, imo.

    Sadly, false positives are possible. They generally ask what medications you've been taking, but I wonder if some employers disqualify positive tests even if the listed medications can cause false positives.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The only time that my private life or internet personality affected my professional life was when I worked at Microsoft and chose a forum to write about the game I was testing.

    I was connected to the post and told that if I had used the title of the game, then I would have been fired and possibly sued, but since I hadn't I could consider myself lucky and keep my job.

    With that being said, Penny Arcade's hiring practices are abnormal and should not be considered standard in any industry.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    So either I have to be really good at lot letting my love of Quarians color my hiring decisions, which as a human being I'm not sure that I can objectively do that, or there has to be another employer close-by in the solar system who is anti-Quarian and needs somebody with his skills.

    I'm not convinced that this would be a desirable state of affairs, nor am I convinced that the solution is to except Congress to pass a law saying that proquarianism or antiquarianism is a protected class.

    This assumes that its OK to be 'anti-Quarian' and that people should be protected from a negative reaction to 'anti-Quarian' behavior. Often a near universal negative reaction to a behavior, belief system or association is justified and even a useful tool. Its those situations where its not that either Congress of the Supreme Court (or its equivalents) steps in.

    I mean the guy who wears a toupee made out of the poorly preserved otter pelts and carries a pile of human shit in his pocket at all times is going to find it difficult to get a job, but that doesn't mean that he deserves protection or that an employer should be forced to associate with this individual.
    Deebaser wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned, most people are aware that pre-employment drug tests are a thing. With that in mind, if you can't put the bong down for the time it takes you to get a job and pass the piss test, then you're either a total fuck up, immature, or you actually have drug problem.

    Those are three classes of people worth filtering out, imo.

    This is often the type of perspective that gets lost in the "hiring practices are unfair because it discriminates against me in the following ways" threads (not that this one is like that, but its a cousin thread). A great deal of having a job is doing what you are told, following the rules and conforming the behavior expected of you by your employer and society. Different jobs have different levels of expectations. Being able to show up dressed appropriately, pass the drug test, not publish pictures of yourself vomiting after doing a keg stand where all your professional contacts can easily find it? Those are standards of behavior that its not unreasonable to follow and if you can't its likely you will have difficulties with other expectations.

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2011
    I guess my larger issue is that a lot of these screenings and internet searches and whatnot are geared towards finding the absolute worst thing you've ever done, when the fact is that everyone, every last person on the planet, has done something really stupid or horrible at some point.

    If you introduced me to someone and then immediately told me the worst thing he's ever done, I'm probably going to think he's an asshole. "This is Bob, he cheated on his wife." Or: "This is Betty, she kicked a puppy." Or: "This is Todd, he was a Scientologist." Yeah, all those are pretty damning, but they really don't tell you anything other than that this person, over the course of the last couple decades, has done at least one really bad thing.

    But since that applies to everyone - and if you tell me you've never done anything really terrible, you're a pathetic liar - you're really not communicating anything relevant. But since the information exists in a near vacuum, since it's one of the few data points you have to go from, you're going to hold it against them, because you're also human, and the human brain works with what it has.

    And as society is increasingly comprised of people who grow up with their entire lives recorded on the internet in some capacity, it's going to be easier to find that One Terrible Thing if you're determined to search for it. Maybe Bob is a great person who donates to charity and is a great father and is now a great husband. But that doesn't matter, because all you know is that he cheated on his wife, and you know this only because you were specifically trying to find something bad about him.

    And it's all pretty irrelevant. You can portray it as "it was just a background check, because we didn't know anything about the guy, and maybe his resume was a lie." Except a personal background check has dick-all to do with your resume, because all that information can be verified by calling up past employers and saying, "Hey, did this dude work here as a so-and-so?"

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2011
    PantsB wrote: »
    This is often the type of perspective that gets lost in the "hiring practices are unfair because it discriminates against me in the following ways" threads (not that this one is like that, but its a cousin thread). A great deal of having a job is doing what you are told, following the rules and conforming the behavior expected of you by your employer and society. Different jobs have different levels of expectations. Being able to show up dressed appropriately, pass the drug test, not publish pictures of yourself vomiting after doing a keg stand where all your professional contacts can easily find it? Those are standards of behavior that its not unreasonable to follow and if you can't its likely you will have difficulties with other expectations.

    Except I am skeptical that how you conduct your personal life and how you conduct your business life are necessarily that intertwined. Someone can be a shitty husband, a lousy friend, and a giant asshole, but still follow the orders his boss gives them. And a better means of seeing if the guy can follow orders is to look at his professional references and whether or not he's been fired from past jobs.

    I mean, gauging future business performance by looking at someone's personal life is a bit like trying use phrenology to see if some guy is missing a leg when he's sitting in front of you pointing at the stump.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    PantsB wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    So either I have to be really good at lot letting my love of Quarians color my hiring decisions, which as a human being I'm not sure that I can objectively do that, or there has to be another employer close-by in the solar system who is anti-Quarian and needs somebody with his skills.

    I'm not convinced that this would be a desirable state of affairs, nor am I convinced that the solution is to except Congress to pass a law saying that proquarianism or antiquarianism is a protected class.

    This assumes that its OK to be 'anti-Quarian' and that people should be protected from a negative reaction to 'anti-Quarian' behavior. Often a near universal negative reaction to a behavior, belief system or association is justified and even a useful tool. Its those situations where its not that either Congress of the Supreme Court (or its equivalents) steps in.

    I mean the guy who wears a toupee made out of the poorly preserved otter pelts and carries a pile of human shit in his pocket at all times is going to find it difficult to get a job, but that doesn't mean that he deserves protection or that an employer should be forced to associate with this individual.

    So what, in your mind, makes otter-pelt-toupee-wearers acceptable for discrimination, but not Muslims or married people?

    "The law says so" isn't a complete answer. There needs to be a logical moral justification behind laws, or else they're pointless.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Skoal CatSkoal Cat Registered User
    edited April 2011
    The biggest misconception is that employees really don't have much of a choice. Its not a employee's market, its an (and always has been) an employer's market. I can't risk my job, no one is hiring and I have a family to support. So you know what? As much as I hate invasion of privacy and as much as I might disagree with shit my company may or may not be doing, what the fuck difference does it make?
    They want me to work overtime for free? Schedule me for more than 8 hours a day? Have me work holidays? I need to not get fired.

    note: The shitty situations I get to deal with at work are not specific to me, they are across the board. If someone is being unfairly singled out and asked way more than others, it would be a different story.

    ceres wrote: »
    Skoal Cat is correct.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    PantsB wrote: »
    I mean the guy who wears a toupee made out of the poorly preserved otter pelts and carries a pile of human shit in his pocket at all times is going to find it difficult to get a job, but that doesn't mean that he deserves protection or that an employer should be forced to associate with this individual.

    And as Feral already pointed out, what if your boss is as repulsed by small-breasted women as you are by the guy with the otter-pelt toupee? "Oh well the law" is not an answer, because then all you're saying is that perhaps we should amend the law so that bosses are forced to hire people with pocket-shit.

    You're also assuming that every findable bit of information about you on the internet is a) put there by you, b) under your control and c) true.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Modern Man wrote: »
    The corporate world isn't like "Mad Men" anymore, where male executives can get drunk and pick up attractive waitresses in front of their co-workers and clients. There's no double standard in this regard.

    Your belief is touching, if kinda wrong.

    It's certainly true that the world has changed such that it is often considered unacceptable for corporate executives to treat the entire world like their personal titty bar. It's certainly not true that there is no double standard anymore, or that the entire corporate world has gone straight-edge.

    Now, this is not to say that the executive you speak of should have been retained, or that that particular company would have reacted any differently if the miscreant were male, but the idea that there is no longer a double standard - particularly in male-dominated sectors - is, let's call it overly optimistic.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    So what, in your mind, makes otter-pelt-toupee-wearers acceptable for discrimination, but not Muslims or married people?

    "The law says so" isn't a complete answer. There needs to be a logical moral justification behind laws, or else they're pointless.

    I'm no philosopher, but discriminating against someone based on their race, religion, or orientation is bad discrimination that is wrong in its essence.

    Discriminating against someone based on their education, hygiene, fashion sense, or the fact that they brought their pillow chan to the interview because "they're a team" feels more justifiable because to some extent it speaks to their social skills. I suppose the thing that makes it ok to exclude someone that has a horrible toupee is that his lack of self awareness is a character flaw.

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    Why do they ask about drug use? Pot smokers can't keep secrets?

    A lot of people with clearances have done drugs. Really, the best use of that question these days is "Is this applicant a lying sack of shit?"

  • SliderSlider Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    Why do they ask about drug use? Pot smokers can't keep secrets?

    A lot of people with clearances have done drugs. Really, the best use of that question these days is "Is this applicant a lying sack of shit?"

    I do not condone polygraph examinations.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    So what, in your mind, makes otter-pelt-toupee-wearers acceptable for discrimination, but not Muslims or married people?

    "The law says so" isn't a complete answer. There needs to be a logical moral justification behind laws, or else they're pointless.

    I'm no philosopher, but discriminating against someone based on their race, religion, or orientation is bad discrimination that is wrong in its essence.

    Discriminating against someone based on their education, hygiene, fashion sense, or the fact that they brought their pillow chan to the interview because "they're a team" feels more justifiable because to some extent it speaks to their social skills. I suppose the thing that makes it ok to exclude someone that has a horrible toupee is that his lack of self awareness is a character flaw.

    I don't have a clear idea of an answer to the question I posted above, BTW. I'm honestly not sure. I doubt that there is a clear logical dividing line - anything we come up with is going to be based to a certain degree on arbitrary notions of appropriateness. Neckties are desirable, but not clown noses.

    I know that some things clearly have no bearing on a person's work. My sexual practices are so far removed from my professional life that I should not be discriminated against for being gay, or bi, or a swinger, or whatever. It shouldn't matter whether I take vacations to Branson Missouri, Aspen, Burning Man, or a red light district in Thailand. So I tend to feel that somebody's sexual orientation, and sexual practices in general, should have as little bearing on employment as possible.

    At the same time, I do think it would be awfully nice to work for a boss who is polyamorous, or work for a boss who loves Democratic politics, or even a boss who enjoys video games. Simply liking my boss as a person makes me happier and improves my work productivity. Maybe it shouldn't, but I'm a human being and I think that it's natural. So why shouldn't a poly liberal gamer give me preferential treatment in a hiring decision? Maybe I lack one or two skills that my Christian conservative competitor has - but I can learn skills!

    But a few years ago, when I was desperate for any job, I balked at that attitude. I can do the job just as well as a conservative Republican! Why should my boss's politics or hobbies or personal subcultures affect my work?

    I suppose maybe the least-bad situation would be a more robust social safety net, and less inequality of wealth. That way, if I'm out of work, I won't be quite so desperate to take any job. At the same time, we could let employers have a lot more personal discretion, because firing somebody or failing to hire somebody over personal incompatibility would be less of a problem. We'd still maintain anti-discrimination laws in situations where discrimination threatens to put entire classes of people on welfare - like blacks, or single mothers.

    But, again, I'm not sure. I'm kind of thinking aloud here.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    Why do they ask about drug use? Pot smokers can't keep secrets?

    A lot of people with clearances have done drugs. Really, the best use of that question these days is "Is this applicant a lying sack of shit?"

    It's kind of a bad way to gauge that, though. Everyone will lie about certain things under certain situations. If a prospective employer is asking you about drug usage, you're going to assume that answering positively will keep you from getting the job. Even if they say, "If you say yes we totally won't discount you automatically."

    So what they're doing is manufacturing a situation where you're more likely to lie, and about an issue that almost certainly has nothing to do with your job performance. They may as well ask if you've cheated on your wife, or if you're the guy who farted in the lobby. If they want to see if you're lying, they should interrogate the shit out of you regarding your claimed accomplishments. Because that's actually, you know, relevant.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Why do they ask about drug use? Pot smokers can't keep secrets?

    A lot of people with clearances have done drugs. Really, the best use of that question these days is "Is this applicant a lying sack of shit?"

    It's kind of a bad way to gauge that, though. Everyone will lie about certain things under certain situations. If a prospective employer is asking you about drug usage, you're going to assume that answering positively will keep you from getting the job. Even if they say, "If you say yes we totally won't discount you automatically."

    So what they're doing is manufacturing a situation where you're more likely to lie, and about an issue that almost certainly has nothing to do with your job performance. They may as well ask if you've cheated on your wife, or if you're the guy who farted in the lobby. If they want to see if you're lying, they should interrogate the shit out of you regarding your claimed accomplishments. Because that's actually, you know, relevant.

    For a security clearance it does matter. If you're willing to lie about breaking federal law then you shouldn't hold a security clearance. Should an employer be willing to discriminate based on what you do on your off time? No, Unless what you do is illegal. Nobody wants to hire criminals/liars.

    steam_sig.png
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    jclast wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Why do they ask about drug use? Pot smokers can't keep secrets?

    A lot of people with clearances have done drugs. Really, the best use of that question these days is "Is this applicant a lying sack of shit?"

    It's kind of a bad way to gauge that, though. Everyone will lie about certain things under certain situations. If a prospective employer is asking you about drug usage, you're going to assume that answering positively will keep you from getting the job. Even if they say, "If you say yes we totally won't discount you automatically."

    So what they're doing is manufacturing a situation where you're more likely to lie, and about an issue that almost certainly has nothing to do with your job performance. They may as well ask if you've cheated on your wife, or if you're the guy who farted in the lobby. If they want to see if you're lying, they should interrogate the shit out of you regarding your claimed accomplishments. Because that's actually, you know, relevant.

    For a security clearance it does matter. If you're willing to lie about breaking federal law then you shouldn't hold a security clearance. Should an employer be willing to discriminate based on what you do on your off time? No, Unless what you do is illegal. Nobody wants to hire criminals/liars.
    Clearance investigations primarily size you up for honesty and susceptibility to bribery and blackmail. These can be legit concerns in the context of private industry as well.

    If I'm hiring you to work on a new high frequency trading algorithm, and I find out you've got some serious (to you), but legal skeletons in your closet, should I not be allowed to toss your application? If I found out, my competitors can too.

    What if I find out that neither your wife, nor your kids, know that you hang out at gay bars on Thursday nights? I'm not discriminating against your sexual preference directly, am I ethically permitted to decline your employment?

    Automata-Sg.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Feral wrote: »
    I think I agree with this, for the most part. The problem as I see it is that it assumes either a plurality of social value systems or an ability to compartmentalize our opinions in a way that I'm not sure humans are innately capable of.
    True, but they seem to do so when the fabric of society itself demands it. However, I don't think your example was really what I was talking about. It was a little bit more extreme than I was thinking. In short, you're right, what you describe wouldn't be a desirable state of affairs. But right now we are way too eager to leap onto out-of-context sound bites, or try to dig up past evidence of any typical youthful indiscretion as if it defines the person today and how they'll do their job. I just think that as society faces more and more online archived content, and more and more decent people get shoved up against a wall for some low-point in their past that was dug out of that archive, over time we'll develop different attitudes and awareness and, ultimately, practicality, about what such things really mean or don't mean.

    Things like this, and future evolutions of it that we can only imagine, are just going to become more common and ubiquitous as time goes on and I'm pretty sure we're all going to have to become practical about it. And perhaps also in the process finally find some extrinsic motivation to be accountable for shit.

  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    jclast wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Why do they ask about drug use? Pot smokers can't keep secrets?

    A lot of people with clearances have done drugs. Really, the best use of that question these days is "Is this applicant a lying sack of shit?"

    It's kind of a bad way to gauge that, though. Everyone will lie about certain things under certain situations. If a prospective employer is asking you about drug usage, you're going to assume that answering positively will keep you from getting the job. Even if they say, "If you say yes we totally won't discount you automatically."

    So what they're doing is manufacturing a situation where you're more likely to lie, and about an issue that almost certainly has nothing to do with your job performance. They may as well ask if you've cheated on your wife, or if you're the guy who farted in the lobby. If they want to see if you're lying, they should interrogate the shit out of you regarding your claimed accomplishments. Because that's actually, you know, relevant.

    For a security clearance it does matter. If you're willing to lie about breaking federal law then you shouldn't hold a security clearance. Should an employer be willing to discriminate based on what you do on your off time? No, Unless what you do is illegal. Nobody wants to hire criminals/liars.
    Clearance investigations primarily size you up for honesty and susceptibility to bribery and blackmail. These can be legit concerns in the context of private industry as well.

    If I'm hiring you to work on a new high frequency trading algorithm, and I find out you've got some serious (to you), but legal skeletons in your closet, should I not be allowed to toss your application? If I found out, my competitors can too.

    What if I find out that neither your wife, nor your kids, know that you hang out at gay bars on Thursday nights? I'm not discriminating against your sexual preference directly, am I ethically permitted to decline your employment?

    It depends on what those skeletons are, but if they make me unattractive as an employee then yes, I think you should be able to disqualify me for that. The gay bar one, I don't know. What if it's not a gay bar? What if my wife just thinks I work late Thursday nights but I really go to any bar, hang out with friends, and hit on the patrons? Nothing has really changed as I'm still lying to my wife about my whereabouts and actions. Would you still want to disqualify me?

    It's all grey area when you get into "but that might be risky." A criminal record is less so. If you want to disqualify somebody from working for you for taking part in illegal activities that ought to be your right as an employer.

    steam_sig.png
  • pablo_pricepablo_price Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    jclast wrote: »

    It depends on what those skeletons are, but if they make me unattractive as an employee then yes, I think you should be able to disqualify me for that. The gay bar one, I don't know. What if it's not a gay bar? What if my wife just thinks I work late Thursday nights but I really go to any bar, hang out with friends, and hit on the patrons? Nothing has really changed as I'm still lying to my wife about my whereabouts and actions. Would you still want to disqualify me?

    The issue isn't whether you're lying to your wife or not, it's whether the secret you're lying about is dangerous enough to possibly compromise your ethics to keep it.

    No one is gonna cave to "tell us _______ or we'll tell your wife you're really with your mates at the pub."
    Many will cave to "tell us or we reveal to your whole family that you're cruising gay bars/seeing hookers/cooking meth in an rv"

    Steam / Xbox Live / Rock Band DLC / WoW: Allanna, Kolii
    SWTOR: Allanna (Shadowlands) / TSW: Sara-Luna
  • jclastjclast Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I guess then disqualify me for the second 2 (hookers, meth) because they're illegal and leave me alone for the first because being gay isn't.

    steam_sig.png
  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    The issue isn't whether the action is legal or illegal. It absolutely isn't even about a person's sexual orientation. The issue is whether or not a third party can blackmail you with information that was available from a background check.

    In any case, this is going off on a tangent as your basic background check doesn't delve balls deep into your personal life. This is really only a concern where some serious goddamn vetting is being done.

  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2011
    I don't have much to say about this thread that hasn't already been said other than that when you search for JustinSane07 on Google, it says I touch little boys.

    Why?

    Because of ElJeffe.

    Thanks, Jeff!

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Deebaser wrote: »
    The issue isn't whether the action is legal or illegal. It absolutely isn't even about a person's sexual orientation. The issue is whether or not a third party can blackmail you with information that was available from a background check.

    In any case, this is going off on a tangent as your basic background check doesn't delve balls deep into your personal life. This is really only a concern where some serious goddamn vetting is being done.
    And very few employers are willing to spend the money and time needed for this level of background check. Why would they bother when it came to the average cubicle-dweller job? Most companies are really only looking for big flashing warning signs and evidence of really bad judgment in your personal life.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    I don't have much to say about this thread that hasn't already been said other than that when you search for JustinSane07 on Google, it says I touch little boys.

    Why?

    Because of ElJeffe.

    Thanks, Jeff!

    Every time this quote is posted, the pagerank goes up.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    ElJeffe sums up pretty much how I feel. I've tried to keep my online identity separate from my offline one, as well as my private and professional lives. And even my private and professional lives have separate identities online. It is extremely difficult to link me together.

    A quick search of my real name doesn't really turn up much. A quick search of this username doesn't turn up much. A quick search of my professional handle turns up some of my professional work. There is some stuff that might be considered a "hot button" but it was really a one-off I had with someone who 'sperged about my not following standard definitions when I reported a problem which I eventually solved without his help altogether because he couldn't get past my not using the non-standard terms to give out any meaningful advice. He harped on it for about 3 posts then started sputtering nonsense I had already covered. To which I think that would be beneficial in my professional career calling out shitstains of coworkers.

    I also clashed with some douchebag at codeproject and microsoft's forums because he disliked that I gave a partial answer to a problem to help someone rather than get deeper about bytes and bites and why you can't know this and that because it's platform independent this and that. But all the dude asked was if there was a way to do xyz and there sure was.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited April 2011
    Oh man, that is the best thing.

    Also unfortunate and I am so very sorry and whatnot.

    But mostly the best thing.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2011
    You know that thread is still open. You can edit the title still.

  • DeebaserDeebaser Lead Frog Rammer Fake Board GamerRegistered User regular
    edited April 2011
    fuck. I just googled myself and apparently a youtube comment I made back in 2009 was quoted in a newspaper. Goddamnit Brumby! I said that comment was OFF the record!

  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited April 2011
    Reading this thread, I can't help but wonder if the admin's choice to allow Google to index the forums was a bad idea.

    steam_sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.