Today's "Let's See How We Can Fuck Over the American Worker" Thread

[Neil]

You know, I forgot about Jacob.  He's usually good to stick up for women.

[Jacob]

You know, I forgot about Jacob.  He's usually good to stick up for women.

I'm eminently forgettable 

[garbon]

I'm assuming you guys are waiting on me to freak out over the use of the word "cunt". Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. I don't really care. It's just a word. Not a very nice word, culturally speaking, but still just a word.

Saying it in an interview, however, is just plain stupid. Hiring the guy after he does so? Yeah, more ignorant yet.

I was hoping for a little anger over the idea of hiring a man who said bad things about women.  Or, if I was really lucky, just hiring a man when there were unemployed women out there.  You're the closest thing to a gender warrior we have, other than the occasional member of the seduction community.  And then I suppose there's CdM, whose experiences with women have crushed his spirit like so much riff-raff at Tienanmen Square.

Aren't I the one who always gets knocked for my bit of feminist studies?

[Siege]

By reading this thread, I have come to the cuntclussion I am unhireable.

[CountDeMoney]

By reading this thread, I have come to the cuntclussion I am unhireable.

You're right where you're supposed to be, Kosher Kitten.

[grumbler]

Yeah, I'd never hire someone who used language like that in an interview. Fuck that.

Maybe you wouldn't, but a professional who was looking out for the interests of his company may.  When you are really hiring (rather than just talking about it on the internet) you realize that every candidate has strengths and weaknesses.  This guy would be low on my list of "otherwise qualified" candidates, for sure, because of the risk of him dragging down the team he was assigned to, but if my company needed his skills and there weren't other technically-qualified candidates, I'd hold my nose and hire him.  To do would be a betrayal of my responsibilities.

[Siege]

By reading this thread, I have come to the cuntclussion I am unhireable.

You're right where you're supposed to be, Kosher Kitten.

Yeah, but I'm getting old and tired.
I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to complete my 20 years.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah, but I'm getting old and tired.
I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to complete my 20 years.

How many more you need?

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, but I'm getting old and tired.
I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to complete my 20 years.

Sure you can, just find a desk. 

[Jacob]

By reading this thread, I have come to the cuntclussion I am unhireable.

You probably had one too many cuntcussions in the line of duty.

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, I'd never hire someone who used language like that in an interview. Fuck that.

Maybe you wouldn't, but a professional who was looking out for the interests of his company may.  When you are really hiring (rather than just talking about it on the internet) you realize that every candidate has strengths and weaknesses.  This guy would be low on my list of "otherwise qualified" candidates, for sure, because of the risk of him dragging down the team he was assigned to, but if my company needed his skills and there weren't other technically-qualified candidates, I'd hold my nose and hire him.  To do would be a betrayal of my responsibilities.

When he freaks out one day and the company gets sued for sexual harassment in fostering a hostile work environment because Mr. DBA discusses his pig cunt ex-wife in the break room, that explanation will look swell during your deposition when you're asked about the sexually derogatory and misogynist references you witnessed during his pre-employment interview.

Looking out for liability is also in the interests of the company, and one of your responsibilities which you betrayed by hiring him.

[Jacob]

Maybe you wouldn't, but a professional who was looking out for the interests of his company may.  When you are really hiring (rather than just talking about it on the internet) you realize that every candidate has strengths and weaknesses.  This guy would be low on my list of "otherwise qualified" candidates, for sure, because of the risk of him dragging down the team he was assigned to, but if my company needed his skills and there weren't other technically-qualified candidates, I'd hold my nose and hire him.  To do would be a betrayal of my responsibilities.

True enough, in the abstract. There's always a hypothetical scenario where any given red flag would still leave a particular candidate as the best possible of the available candidates.

Personally, and a more practical level, I've found that hiring for team fit and culture (assuming team culture includes getting shit done) provides the best results. And generally constructive team cultures don't benefit from having someone introduced to them who is overflowing with bitterness to the point that they don't respect common social boundaries. I'm much more concerned with that aspect of it than the use of the word "cunt" - it's a fine word provided it's used in the right context; a job interview, however, is not the right context.

As an aside (I'm not saying this applies to Cal's hire) - I don't buy into the whole "being socially offensive is acceptable in tech staff" thing. In my experience, nine times out of ten tech guys who are billed as being super smart to the point that it excuses being actively offensive are actually mediocre or worse when you look at what they bring to the overall project (and frequently even when you look just at their own tasks in isolation). I'd much rather take a chance on keen, bright new guy with little experience than on a crusty experienced fucker who thinks his skills excuse being dicks to his colleagues.

[merithyn]

Maybe you wouldn't, but a professional who was looking out for the interests of his company may.  When you are really hiring (rather than just talking about it on the internet) you realize that every candidate has strengths and weaknesses.  This guy would be low on my list of "otherwise qualified" candidates, for sure, because of the risk of him dragging down the team he was assigned to, but if my company needed his skills and there weren't other technically-qualified candidates, I'd hold my nose and hire him.  To do would be a betrayal of my responsibilities.

True enough, in the abstract. There's always a hypothetical scenario where any given red flag would still leave a particular candidate as the best possible of the available candidates.

Personally, and a more practical level, I've found that hiring for team fit and culture (assuming team culture includes getting shit done) provides the best results. And generally constructive team cultures don't benefit from having someone introduced to them who is overflowing with bitterness to the point that they don't respect common social boundaries. I'm much more concerned with that aspect of it than the use of the word "cunt" - it's a fine word provided it's used in the right context; a job interview, however, is not the right context.

As an aside (I'm not saying this applies to Cal's hire) - I don't buy into the whole "being socially offensive is acceptable in tech staff" thing. In my experience, nine times out of ten tech guys who are billed as being super smart to the point that it excuses being actively offensive are actually mediocre or worse when you look at what they bring to the overall project (and frequently even when you look just at their own tasks in isolation). I'd much rather take a chance on keen, bright new guy with little experience than on a crusty experienced fucker who thinks his skills excuse being dicks to his colleagues.

Said much better than I.

[Eddie Teach]

As an aside (I'm not saying this applies to Cal's hire) - I don't buy into the whole "being socially offensive is acceptable in tech staff" thing. In my experience, nine times out of ten tech guys who are billed as being super smart to the point that it excuses being actively offensive are actually mediocre or worse when you look at what they bring to the overall project (and frequently even when you look just at their own tasks in isolation). I'd much rather take a chance on keen, bright new guy with little experience than on a crusty experienced fucker who thinks his skills excuse being dicks to his colleagues.

You have more luxury to pick and choose than somebody hiring for dull business applications. Though I think it's more that tech people are expected to be offensive without meaning to, due to social awkwardness.

[CountDeMoney]

Christ, no wonder we're up to our asses in lawyers in this country.  You're all a bunch of liability magnets.