Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-23-2010, 07:10 AM   #16
Veteran Member
tokyoso's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Albums
Posts: 723
Haven't you heard?

Facebook Google and Twitter are the new Big Brother...

02-23-2010, 07:21 AM   #17
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
You just prefer not to work.


Just on the off chance that a person that didn't work.....decided they did want to work.....in my Children's Day Care Center, if I had one, and I just happened to read from them, on this Forum, that a Judge had declared them unfit to raise a child and removed that child from them........should I hire them? Should I give some consideration beyond that, to statements they had made on that same Forum that there is no "Evil"....only "backwards thinking"? If I posed a question to such a person as to the nature of a person that molested, raped, and mutilated a child to death, and I repeatedly received no response.....should I hire that person?

Would using the information that person provided on an open Forum for all the world to see be a "violation of their right to be self incriminating"?

I'll let others make the call.
Regards!
02-23-2010, 07:54 AM   #18
Veteran Member
Das Boot's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sparkle City, South Cackalacky
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 689
Has anyone here hired someone before? There's very little a business can use outside of an interview, a criminal background check and a credit check (depending on position applied for). Work history is really a waste of time because other businesses are not legally allowed to disclose anything other than if the person has worked there or not and personal references are a joke. An applicant could look like a golden boy on the application, but have a history of calling in sick, showing up drunk, gotten fired from one job for sexual harrasment, being verbally abusive to other employees and customers, and holding tight to the values of not giving a shit about anything. I have found that in order to find one good worker you have to hire about 3-4 people that end up not working out for one reason or another. It's a large waste of resources and if a business wants to use facebook, myspace, twitter, etc so be it. If someone looking for a job has something to hide they shouldn't display it for all the world to see including future employers.
02-23-2010, 08:41 AM   #19
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
You just prefer not to work.
While Elwood here phrases it in terms of the poor, disadvantaged, white male Republican potentially being 'discriminated against,' *gasp* ...I think we can see where the *real* likelihood of that happening is. Especially given how the Republicans are disproportionately represented among people with the *money,* who like Das Boot, apparently think profit justifies *any* intrusion or breach of what maybe ought to be ethics.

Frankly, if I were hiring employees, someone espousing an ideology like that, someone who might treat co-workers like that, someone who might think their own profit and self-righteousness would justify doing unethical things to *me* probably wouldn't be my first choice to hire, either.


Meanwhile, of course, the taint of *having ever been poor, or sick, or homeless,* is something that *conservative* ideology claims means you're someone of low character. You know, mocking someone while they're half-crippled isn't a way to get honest and high-functioning employees. Sure, maybe I could secure a job if I lied a lot about it, ...might even last a week or two if the timing was right with my health. But then I'd be among those people who 'didn't work out,' right? With attitudes like that, and trust me, from experience, I'd have every incentive to lie like a *rug.*

They've actually been woefully-abused on at least one occasion, (a whole story, there) but having some kind of principles about the truth does not serve to one's advantage from the other end of the equation.


Das boot accuses most of the workforce of: "holding tight to the values of not giving a shit about anything."

Ever wonder why that *is?* When management doesn't seem to return the sentiment even if you do?

It's beyond me how people can treat people so *cynically,* as 'human resources' that they have some 'God-given' right to exploit, pry into the personal lives of, blame for their own screwups, try and coerce religiously and socially, stand there and call a lot of people inherently unequal and even use that money to oppose their civil rights.... Set up an atmosphere where the Company wants to use your paycheck to control time they don't even pay you for?

Then expect in return perfect trust, great loyalty, and some kind of wonder-working Herculean efforts for the company? You want people who have the lowest real wages in a long time, whose health care you oppose, not to mention the social safety net they might need if they stick their neck out where a company snooper can see, never mind on the job... To be what. Enthusiastic?

Is that realistic?

Of course, if you treat people this way, they end up seeing cynicism, deceit, secrecy, and CYA as a survival skill, the company as an adversarial exploiter, treat the bosses as people who cannot be trusted, who are looking for anything they might get on you as an excuse to can you, treat the work as some kind of *sentence...*

Yeah, people resent that.

What do you expect.

If *management* treats people as though all that matters is the bottom line and that that justifies doing all the things they're terrified of 'the gummint' doing to *them,* ...Why should the employees be any different? It's what you want, isn't it? For people to be in it for themselves and all about money? Where's this 'incentive' you claim is all there is to people? Maybe you convinced them you're right on that score. Heck of a time to get indignant about it *now,* I say.


Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 02-23-2010 at 09:01 AM.
02-23-2010, 08:51 AM   #20
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,324
Yeah, I guess you're right, RML. What gives management the right to tell an employee what to do and how to do it? Who do they think they are, expecting to have things done their way? Hm, maybe the fact that they are giving the employee a paycheck has something to do with it, ya think!?

(In case you are confused, a paycheck is something people get for doing work, or providing a service for an employer)
02-23-2010, 08:51 AM   #21
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
I never have liked the feature here that allows "Ignore", but have to admit that it is so nice be able to post on the Ratlady's insanity and not have a three page rant as a reply. Still, I wouldn't mind if she could see my question posed above and give us an answer? It would be very interesting I am sure. Industrial Compactor Material...first grade stuff!
Regards!
02-23-2010, 09:03 AM   #22
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
QuoteOriginally posted by Parallax Quote
Yeah, I guess you're right, RML. What gives management the right to tell an employee what to do and how to do it? Who do they think they are, expecting to have things done their way? Hm, maybe the fact that they are giving the employee a paycheck has something to do with it, ya think!?

(In case you are confused, a paycheck is something people get for doing work, or providing a service for an employer)
Right. A paycheck is a *transaction.* It's paying someone for *services,* not for signing over their life, even off the clock, to some company Big Brother.

02-23-2010, 09:04 AM   #23
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 60
QuoteOriginally posted by Hey Elwood Quote
Hi everyone,

I've been debating this issue for a long time and want to get the forum's opinions on this. Should HR departments be allowed to weed out employment candidates utilizing social websites such as Facebook and MySpace? Should companies have the right to preselect people based on their religious, political, etc background or should this be concidered a descrimination violation? I'm just curious what everyone thinks?

Elwood
I think private employers ought to be able to use any criteria they deem important to them to make their decisions on whom to employ.
02-23-2010, 09:13 AM   #24
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,324
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
Right. A paycheck is a *transaction.* It's paying someone for *services,* not for signing over their life, even off the clock, to some company Big Brother.
It is also consideration under the terms of a contract. The employer tells the employee what is to be done, to what standard the employee will be held, and what the pay will be for doing it. As long as the requirements and consideration are within the law the employee (or perspective employee) has two choices; do the job as required, or get out.
02-23-2010, 09:26 AM   #25
Veteran Member
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Rupert's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Texas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,123
As a person that has hired many workers over a lifetime, I find this article disturbing, but still a norm for hiring practices....or firing practices. As a private employer I have had discretion, that was missing in this woman's case, but when I have worked for large Corporations, there was generally no discretion allowed. Bad credit ...NO. Criminal record....NO. There are also "code words" one employer will give to another regarding a prospective employee, so while it may appear that a former employer can't or won't say that you were late or absent a lot....in reality they do that all the time. One of my favorite methods was to send a Greeting Card to the new prospective employer congratulating them on their new prospect.....and telling them how thrilled I was that the new prospect was joining their firm. Worked every time! If you are a bad employee, you are in deep do do in today's world and in the current employment situation. Employers have choices, and they take full advantage of every bit of information at hand. If you are on Facebook or such sites, you had better look Golden.....but often just being there is a red flag.
Read it, I feel for this lady, but it is reality....
Bad credit sidelines some jobless workers - Eye on the Economy- msnbc.com
Regards!
02-23-2010, 09:27 AM   #26
Veteran Member
Ratmagiclady's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: GA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 13,563
QuoteOriginally posted by JnM_in_VT Quote
I think private employers ought to be able to use any criteria they deem important to them to make their decisions on whom to employ.
I think that first and foremost, it poisons the employer-employee relationship before it even starts, that attitude. Frankly, I think it's the threefold return on this all-for-the-money, in-it-for-yourself, whatever-makes-money-and-you-can-get-away-with-or-blame-someone-else-for, get-the-most-for-the-least attitude that corporate management and conservative ideology have been sowing at least since *I* can remember.

Treating a paycheck like it's largesse that buys people's entire lives before they're even hired, while providing no security, respect, or honor in return... then expecting 120 percent and pride in their work from employees...

Is just not something which works out.

Whatever the legalities, I think such policies and practices are ...unwise.
02-23-2010, 09:33 AM   #27
Veteran Member
Das Boot's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sparkle City, South Cackalacky
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 689
RML - You've twisted what I was saying. If you're hiring someone you have no idea what kind of worker they're going to be. You can't legally ask former employers of their performance, attitude, etc... For a long time the only thing you could ask a former employer was - "Would you hire them again?" That has since gone away. Hiring someone involves committing HR resources, possibly time training, pulling other workers away from what they're doing to cover until the new hire can get up to speed. Having to do this three or four times in a row trying to blindly find someone to actually fill the position is extremely wasteful. On top of all this, you have customers complaining about the rise in costs / high costs passed on to them because of all this. Again, I think a business should use whatever means legally to find that right person for their open position - including facebook, twitter & myspace.
02-23-2010, 09:33 AM   #28
Senior Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter
Parallax's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Dakota
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 19,324
QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert Quote
I never have liked the feature here that allows "Ignore", but have to admit that it is so nice be able to post on the Ratlady's insanity and not have a three page rant as a reply. Still, I wouldn't mind if she could see my question posed above and give us an answer? It would be very interesting I am sure. Industrial Compactor Material...first grade stuff!
Regards!
You mean this one?


QuoteOriginally posted by Rupert:
Just on the off chance that a person that didn't work.....decided they did want to work.....in my Children's Day Care Center, if I had one, and I just happened to read from them, on this Forum, that a Judge had declared them unfit to raise a child and removed that child from them........should I hire them? Should I give some consideration beyond that, to statements they had made on that same Forum that there is no "Evil"....only "backwards thinking"? If I posed a question to such a person as to the nature of a person that molested, raped, and mutilated a child to death, and I repeatedly received no response.....should I hire that person?

Would using the information that person provided on an open Forum for all the world to see be a "violation of their right to be self incriminating"?
02-23-2010, 09:35 AM   #29
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jan 2010
Photos: Albums
Posts: 60
QuoteOriginally posted by Ratmagiclady Quote
I think that first and foremost, it poisons the employer-employee relationship before it even starts, that attitude. Frankly, I think it's the threefold return on this all-for-the-money, in-it-for-yourself, whatever-makes-money-and-you-can-get-away-with-or-blame-someone-else-for, get-the-most-for-the-least attitude that corporate management and conservative ideology have been sowing at least since *I* can remember.

Treating a paycheck like it's largesse that buys people's entire lives before they're even hired, while providing no security, respect, or honor in return... then expecting 120 percent and pride in their work from employees...

Is just not something which works out.

Whatever the legalities, I think such policies and practices are ...unwise.
Letting people decide what to do with their own money (i.e. whom to hire) is unwise? Gee, that's brilliant. Why didn't I think of that? Tell you what, you clearly understand the importance of smarter people telling you what to do, so here's what I'll do for you to help you out. I'll send you the link to make a deposit into my Paypal account weekly, you send me all your money and I'll decide how to spend it best for you. Sound good?
02-23-2010, 09:36 AM   #30
Pentaxian
reeftool's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Upstate New York
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,543
Anything you put out on the internet might as well be on a billboard sign. HR departments scan social networks all the time. People have been fired from jobs because of something they posted on a social networking site. So far, the courts have sided with the companys in most of the cases.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
candidates, websites
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The jobs are there (at least some) jeffkrol General Talk 10 10-11-2010 03:22 PM
LR 3.2 and ACR 6.2 release candidates..... bobrapp Pentax Medium Format 1 08-12-2010 04:19 AM
Democrat states rate worst for businesses. GingeM General Talk 60 05-20-2010 04:51 AM
Am I allowed to curse here? Ira General Talk 41 04-17-2010 07:56 AM
Candidates to replace Lady Queen FA 31mm f/1.8 limited hinman Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 68 02-03-2010 12:45 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:47 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top