I thought I would repost this article here since it's germane to several recent discussion topics around here:
QuoteAsk The Headhunter: The Talent Shortage Myth and Why HR Should Get Out of the Hiring Business
By Nick Corcodilos
When HR personnel are put in charge of hiring new employees, they often rely on database searches, keywords and collecting stacks and stacks of resumes. Headhunting expert Nick Corcodilos says these may not be the most effective strategies to find the right person for the job. Image by Art Glazer/Getty Images.
Nick Corcodilos started headhunting in Silicon Valley in 1979, and has answered over 30,000 questions from the Ask The Headhunter community over the past decade.
In this special Making Sense edition of Ask The Headhunter, Nick shares insider advice and contrarian methods about winning and keeping the right job, on one condition: that you, dear Making Sense reader, send Nick your questions about your personal challenges with job hunting, interviewing, networking, resumes, job boards, or salary negotiations. No guarantees -- just a promise to do his best to offer useful advice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: Throughout my career I have gotten new jobs by meeting and talking to managers who would be my bosses. Now I keep running into the human resources roadblock in companies where I'd like to talk to a manager about a job. Honestly, I just don't see the reason for silly online application forms or for "screeners" who don't understand the work I do, when companies complain they cannot find the right talent. I really don't get it.
Why do companies even have HR departments involved in hiring?
Nick Corcodilos: Good question. Better question: Should human resources (HR) be in the recruiting and hiring business? My answer is an emphatic no for two main reasons, though there are many others. First, I believe HR is qualified only to recruit and hire other HR workers. HR is not an expert in marketing, engineering, manufacturing, accounting, or any other function. HR is thus not the best manager of recruiting, candidate selection, interviewing, or hiring for any of those corporate departments.
Second, putting the critical tasks of recruiting and hiring in the hands of HR tacitly relieves departmental managers of what I believe are two of their most crucial management jobs -- finding and hiring good people.
In an article titled "The Recruiting Paradox," I offer employers three simple suggestions for improving recruiting:
•"Don't send a [human resources] clerk to do a manager's job,
•Put your managers in the game from the start, and
•Deliver value to the candidate throughout the job application process."
I think companies suffer when they subject applicants to the impersonal and bureaucratic experience of dealing with HR.
Which brings me to the third reason HR should be taken out of the recruiting and hiring business: HR has no skin in the game. It virtually doesn't matter who is recruited, processed, or hired because HR isn't held accountable. It's hardly HR's fault, but it's a rare company that rewards or blames HR for the quality of hiring. HR is typically insulated as a "necessary overhead function."
Don't get me wrong: There are some very good people working in HR, and there may be a legitimate role for HR in many companies. But HR's domination of recruiting and hiring has led to a disaster of staggering magnitude in our economy. In the middle of one of the biggest talent gluts in American history, employers complain they can't fill jobs.
According to NewsHour's latest estimate, nearly 27 million Americans are currently looking for work, either because they are unemployed or under-employed. (The U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS] reports 12 million unemployed. I prefer the NewsHour figure because it tells us just how big the pool of available talent is.) Concurrently, BLS also reports that 3.7 million jobs are vacant.
What does HR call this 7:1 ratio of available talent to vacant jobs? It has a special term. HR departments and employers call this 7:1 edge "the great talent shortage!"
While the economy has put massive numbers of talented workers on the street, HR nonetheless complains it can't find the workers it needs. That's no surprise when HR's idea of finding talent is to resort to database searches and keyword filtering, which are disastrously inadequate methods for finding and attracting the best hires.
The typical HR process of recruiting and hiring is most generously described as "hiring who comes along" via job boards and advertisements. It's a rare (and precious) HR worker who gets up from behind the computer display to actually go find, meet, and bring home good candidates.
"The typical explanation for why HR recruiters have no time to recruit actively is that they have too many resumes to sort. This very real problem is solved easily: Stop soliciting and accepting resumes." Go recruit! (That's just one of "Seven Mistakes Internal Recruiters Make.")
I could write pages about corporate maladies that arise from employers' over-reliance on HR to recruit and hire. Instead, I'm just going to list some of the ways HR can kill any company's competitive edge by interfering with these management functions:
•
Wasting money. Last year, almost a billion dollars was sucked up by just one online "job board," Monster.com, which was reported as the "source of hires" only 1.3% of the time by employers surveyed. HR could be advocating for the personal touch in recruiting, but blows through massive recruiting budgets with little to show.
•
Hiring who comes along. Job boards and similar advertisements--the high-volume, passive recruiting tools HR relies on--yield only applicants "who come along," not those the company should be pursuing.
•
Wasting good hires. Good candidates are lost because database algorithms and keyword filters miss indicators of quality that are not captured by software. And highly qualified technical applicants are rejected because they are screened not by other technical experts, but by HR, which is too far removed from business units that need to select the best candidates.
•
Mistaking quantity for quality. HR has turned recruiting into a volume operation--the more applicants, the better. This results in impersonal, superficial reviews of candidates and quick, high-volume yes/no decisions that are prone to error.
•
Excusing unprofessional behavior. Soliciting far more applicants than HR can process properly results in unprofessional HR behavior, angry applicants and damage to corporate reputations. HR routinely suggests that the high volume of applicants it must process "explains" its rude behavior--while it expects job applicants to adhere to strict rules of professional conduct.
•
Failing to be accountable. Because HR does not report to the departments it recruits for, it tends to behave inefficiently and unaccountably with impunity. The bureaucracy grows without checks and balances, and the hiring process becomes dull, rather than honed to a true competitive edge.
•
Marginalizing professional networks. HR tends to isolate managers from the initial recruiting and screening process, further deteriorating the already weak links between managers and the professional communities they need to recruit from.
•
Bureaucratizing a strategic function. The complexity of corporate HR infrastructure encourages isolation and "siloing." Evidence of this is HR's over-emphasis of legal risks in recruiting and its administrative domination of this top-level business function.
•
Wasting time. With recruiting and hiring relegated to an often cumbersome HR process, managers cannot hire in a timely way. Good candidates are frequently lost to the competition. (HR doesn't have to deal with the consequences, but when a good sales candidate is lost to a competitor, the sales department loses twice.)
•
Killing a company's competitive edge. HR owns two competing interests, further dulling a company's competitive edge: the hiring process and legal/compliance functions. Because hiring is a strategic, competitive function, it deserves its own advocate. If business units and managers took full responsibility for recruiting and hiring (while HR handled compliance) the daily abrasion of these competing interests would strengthen a company's edge.
This situation didn't arise overnight. It crept up on business in the form of a smothering shroud of red tape. Today this HR bureaucracy is propped up by an industry of "consultants," "professionals," and "experts" who advise corporate HR departments about how to maintain their administrative hegemony over the key differentiator that defines any company--its people.
HR should get out of the recruiting and hiring business and give this strategic function back to business units and managers who design, build, manufacture, market and sell a company's products. Give recruiting and hiring back to the people who actually do the business. Who better to decide who's worth hiring? Who better to aggressively go find the people who will give the company an edge?
In the meantime, job hunters have no choice but to "Outsmart The Employment System."
Please share your thoughts below about whether HR should relinquish its recruiting and hiring functions. Have you experienced problems with HR in this regard? What do you think should be done about it? (And if you think I'm wrong, please tell me why.)
For larger companies, HR is needed in the recruiting process. If you look at most companies, the higher paying positions are overwhelmingly male and white (compared at least to the general population). If you decentralize the process, in a lawsuit you are asking to get hammered. A lawyer finds a couple cases where it seems like there might be discrimination, you then look at the makeup of the company as a whole, and you have a solid case that there is a culture of discrimination.
With HR, you get relatively comprehensive CYA. You can document how you reach out to minority groups, detailed descriptions of non racial / gender discrimination searches to identify target candidates, and then documentation of why the interview process selected the candidate to hire that it did.
1) Great article. Too bad no one is listening to him.
2) His website is the absofuckinglutely ugliest thing I have seen in ages. It's the Goatse of websites.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2013, 12:28:27 PM
For larger companies, HR is needed in the recruiting process. If you look at most companies, the higher paying positions are overwhelmingly male and white (compared at least to the general population). If you decentralize the process, in a lawsuit you are asking to get hammered. A lawyer finds a couple cases where it seems like there might be discrimination, you then look at the makeup of the company as a whole, and you have a solid case that there is a culture of discrimination.
With HR, you get relatively comprehensive CYA. You can document how you reach out to minority groups, detailed descriptions of non racial / gender discrimination searches to identify target candidates, and then documentation of why the interview process selected the candidate to hire that it did.
The article's point still stands, though - despite all of the CYA (which is good), HR folks typically know two things - Jack and Shit - about the position for which they are hiring. The departmental manager's the one who knows the details (hopefully). And he is absolutely correct about HR not having a single bit of skin in the game. The only thing that ever comes back to bite HR is a discrimination lawsuit - not poor sales, not people who just don't fit the departmental culture, not ineffective work styles, none of it.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2013, 12:28:27 PM
For larger companies, HR is needed in the recruiting process. If you look at most companies, the higher paying positions are overwhelmingly male and white (compared at least to the general population). If you decentralize the process, in a lawsuit you are asking to get hammered. A lawyer finds a couple cases where it seems like there might be discrimination, you then look at the makeup of the company as a whole, and you have a solid case that there is a culture of discrimination.
With HR, you get relatively comprehensive CYA. You can document how you reach out to minority groups, detailed descriptions of non racial / gender discrimination searches to identify target candidates, and then documentation of why the interview process selected the candidate to hire that it did.
HR is nothing more than a compliance machine. They're simply there to check off the EEOC boxes at the end of the application.
YES I AM A NON-HISPANIC WHITE MALE OF EUROPEAN DESCENT I'LL ACCEPT MY REJECTION EMAIL NOW
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 12:36:25 PM
The article's point still stands, though - despite all of the CYA (which is good), HR folks typically know two things - Jack and Shit - about the position for which they are hiring. The departmental manager's the one who knows the details (hopefully).
I agree with what you said, but I still don't agree with the title of the article that HR should be out of the hiring business. Unless you aren't worried about getting sued.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2013, 12:28:27 PM
For larger companies, HR is needed in the recruiting process. If you look at most companies, the higher paying positions are overwhelmingly male and white (compared at least to the general population). If you decentralize the process, in a lawsuit you are asking to get hammered. A lawyer finds a couple cases where it seems like there might be discrimination, you then look at the makeup of the company as a whole, and you have a solid case that there is a culture of discrimination.
With HR, you get relatively comprehensive CYA. You can document how you reach out to minority groups, detailed descriptions of non racial / gender discrimination searches to identify target candidates, and then documentation of why the interview process selected the candidate to hire that it did.
It's possible to let HR be involved to the extent that they need to be, but fend them off from the extent that they
want to be, though. It's possible where I work, at least. HR is more than happy to let us 'do their work for them' when it comes to recruiting and screening, and really one could argue (as he is) that this shouldn't be their job anyway.
Virtually nothing in the article about the talent shortage myth.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 12:51:48 PM
Virtually nothing in the article about the talent shortage myth.
It seems that the author's contention is that since HR wouldn't know talent if it bit them in the backside, talented people are being turned away.
Anyway, Seeds got it right. HR is a compliance machine- by definition, they should be reviewing interviews and the application process, not conducting them. That way, you get the combined benefit of their CYA abilities and a trained set of eyes picking out the appropriate talent for the position.
Before I moved down here I had an experience that you guys will love to hear about. I had a position open for a Crystal developer, reporting to me. I had asked our HR rep to deal with it, in terms of posting the description (which I did write myself), recruiting, etc. About 30 days go by and I hear nothing, so I call her. She says "Nobody qualified for the position has applied which is why I didn't send you any resumes." So I said "ok, I guess" and waited like 2 more weeks, and still nothing. So I called her again and got basically the same reply, to which I said "But has anyone applied?" She said "Oh sure, lots of unqualified people" so I asked her to send me ALL of the resumes she'd ever gotten for the position.
I spent about five minutes looking through the resumes and found a guy that was actually a close match, to the extent that he had previously had a job with the title 'Crystal Reports Writer' some place he'd worked. I was like "ummm, why did you reject this application?" and she said "He works as an AP clerk, that's why!" But if you actually bothered to spend more then 10 seconds looking at his resume you could tell he had lost his last IT job and most likely took the crappy AP position out of desperation, and she was too lazy to bother reading back beyond his most recent position. So I basically did a complete end-run around her, called the guy directly, had him in for an interview the next day, and extended an offer to him a few days later as soon as his (rush) background check came back clear. He worked for me for three years and then got a job at some think tank over at MIT, and is now down in San Diego doing some web architect stuff.
Anyway, as I mentioned elsewhere I advised our CIO last week to do a complete end-run around HR's recruiters after relating this story to him.
HR should die a thousand deaths. I am still picking the knives out of my back.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2013, 02:52:27 PM
HR should die a thousand deaths. I am still picking the knives out of my back.
But it keeps all those people with worthless degrees off the streets. :hmm:
So...in her opinion somebody had to currently be working as a Crystal Developer to get a job as a Crystal Developer? :wacko:
Quote from: Valmy on April 02, 2013, 02:55:46 PM
So...in her opinion somebody had to currently be working as a Crystal Developer to get a job as a Crystal Developer? :wacko:
She doesn't know what a Crystal developer is, so the easiest way for her not to make a mistake is to boil it down to that simplest and narrowest of criteria.
Sounds like a job in Dwarf Fortress.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 02:59:28 PM
Sounds like a job in Dwarf Fortress.
Sounds about right. Cal would fit right in. It's a wonder he ever left, to be honest.
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2013, 12:51:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2013, 12:28:27 PM
For larger companies, HR is needed in the recruiting process. If you look at most companies, the higher paying positions are overwhelmingly male and white (compared at least to the general population). If you decentralize the process, in a lawsuit you are asking to get hammered. A lawyer finds a couple cases where it seems like there might be discrimination, you then look at the makeup of the company as a whole, and you have a solid case that there is a culture of discrimination.
With HR, you get relatively comprehensive CYA. You can document how you reach out to minority groups, detailed descriptions of non racial / gender discrimination searches to identify target candidates, and then documentation of why the interview process selected the candidate to hire that it did.
It's possible to let HR be involved to the extent that they need to be, but fend them off from the extent that they want to be, though. It's possible where I work, at least. HR is more than happy to let us 'do their work for them' when it comes to recruiting and screening, and really one could argue (as he is) that this shouldn't be their job anyway.
Yeah, with the company I worked for from 1988-2002, essentially HR could veto people we wanted to hire after we interviewed them, but otherwise they were just there to administer benefits and the like, and explained to managers about what we could and couldn't do during the hiring process and when disciplinary action was necessary. They didn't have any role in recruiting or interviewing applicants.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 02:59:28 PM
Sounds like a job in Dwarf Fortress.
You have no idea how accurate that joke is.
Quote from: dps on April 02, 2013, 03:52:57 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 02, 2013, 12:51:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2013, 12:28:27 PM
For larger companies, HR is needed in the recruiting process. If you look at most companies, the higher paying positions are overwhelmingly male and white (compared at least to the general population). If you decentralize the process, in a lawsuit you are asking to get hammered. A lawyer finds a couple cases where it seems like there might be discrimination, you then look at the makeup of the company as a whole, and you have a solid case that there is a culture of discrimination.
With HR, you get relatively comprehensive CYA. You can document how you reach out to minority groups, detailed descriptions of non racial / gender discrimination searches to identify target candidates, and then documentation of why the interview process selected the candidate to hire that it did.
It's possible to let HR be involved to the extent that they need to be, but fend them off from the extent that they want to be, though. It's possible where I work, at least. HR is more than happy to let us 'do their work for them' when it comes to recruiting and screening, and really one could argue (as he is) that this shouldn't be their job anyway.
Yeah, with the company I worked for from 1988-2002, essentially HR could veto people we wanted to hire after we interviewed them, but otherwise they were just there to administer benefits and the like, and explained to managers about what we could and couldn't do during the hiring process and when disciplinary action was necessary. They didn't have any role in recruiting or interviewing applicants.
Seems like they serve a good purpose of keeping out people unable to attempt "name"dropping key words.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:05:07 PM
Seems like they serve a good purpose of keeping out people unable to attempt "name"dropping key words.
All other things being equal, I'd rather have an employee with actual skills and ignorance of industry buzzwords than the converse.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 04:36:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:05:07 PM
Seems like they serve a good purpose of keeping out people unable to attempt "name"dropping key words.
All other things being equal, I'd rather have an employee with actual skills and ignorance of industry buzzwords than the converse.
True but is it really all or nothing? After all the former isn't likely to be very good at workplace cohesion / fitting into company culture. They might be good at their specific tasks but don't appear particularly savvy at some of the negotiation stuff that comes with a workplace environment.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:38:32 PMTrue but is it really all or nothing? After all the former isn't likely to be very good at workplace cohesion / fitting into company culture. They might be good at their specific tasks but don't appear particularly savvy at some of the negotiation stuff that comes with a workplace environment.
That depends on your workplace culture, does it not?
I've certainly worked at places where an over reliance on buzzwords, acronyms and faddish management techniques would indicate a very poor fit.
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2013, 04:46:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:38:32 PMTrue but is it really all or nothing? After all the former isn't likely to be very good at workplace cohesion / fitting into company culture. They might be good at their specific tasks but don't appear particularly savvy at some of the negotiation stuff that comes with a workplace environment.
That depends on your workplace culture, does it not?
I've certainly worked at places where an over reliance on buzzwords, acronyms and faddish management techniques would indicate a very poor fit.
I think that's missing what I'm saying which is that an important part of being a successful employee is knowing how to adapt / play the game. In the current era, it is important to play the game of dropping keywords into one's cover letters and resumes/CVs.
Your bit about buzzwords/acronyms and "faddish management techniques" is here nor there - unless I guess one has a culture where those are enshrined - in which case it would be foolish to reveal how much one despises them.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:38:32 PM
True but is it really all or nothing? After all the former isn't likely to be very good at workplace cohesion / fitting into company culture. They might be good at their specific tasks but don't appear particularly savvy at some of the negotiation stuff that comes with a workplace environment.
I've never found industry buzzwords to be useful in, well, any context.
Technical jargon is just buzzwords with its own army.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 02, 2013, 05:00:18 PM
Technical jargon is just buzzwords with its own army.
More or less. To be sort of serious, I'd say that the proper use of technical jargon is to efficiently communicate nuanced concepts amongst people who are all educated in a particular field. Buzzwords are used to show membership of a group or to claim some sort of status; while they can be technical jargon originally, they're not used as such and are in fact stripped of nuance and meaning through over- and mis-use.
Yeah, there has definitely been a paradigm shift when it comes to the use of buzzwords.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:52:52 PMI think that's missing what I'm saying which is that an important part of being a successful employee is knowing how to adapt / play the game. In the current era, it is important to play the game of dropping keywords into one's cover letters and resumes/CVs.
I think that while that various processes has caused that to become important to succeed in several sectors of the employment market, success in that field is pretty orthogonal to what you actually want from your employees.
Basically the incentives and deliverables are misaligned from an employee perspective, creating a risk which should be addressed and mitigated.
QuoteYour bit about buzzwords/acronyms and "faddish management techniques" is here nor there - unless I guess one has a culture where those are enshrined - in which case it would be foolish to reveal how much one despises them.
Au contraire, mon ami. My point is both here and there. To wit:
Here: It's a counter to your point that being conversant in them is required to be a successful employee.
There: It is also counter to your implication that being conversant with the screening process vocabulary indicates a good workplace fit.
Finally, I contend that the workplace fit that should matter is not compliance with HR generated hoops, but fit with the company culture, attitude and skills; being conversant in HR generated key-word matching only matters where HR has taken control of the culture.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2013, 12:48:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2013, 12:28:27 PM
For larger companies, HR is needed in the recruiting process. If you look at most companies, the higher paying positions are overwhelmingly male and white (compared at least to the general population). If you decentralize the process, in a lawsuit you are asking to get hammered. A lawyer finds a couple cases where it seems like there might be discrimination, you then look at the makeup of the company as a whole, and you have a solid case that there is a culture of discrimination.
With HR, you get relatively comprehensive CYA. You can document how you reach out to minority groups, detailed descriptions of non racial / gender discrimination searches to identify target candidates, and then documentation of why the interview process selected the candidate to hire that it did.
HR is nothing more than a compliance machine. They're simply there to check off the EEOC boxes at the end of the application.
YES I AM A NON-HISPANIC WHITE MALE OF EUROPEAN DESCENT I'LL ACCEPT MY REJECTION EMAIL NOW
And that's why you really can't blame HR. It's lawyers that have ruined everything, as always.
Quote from: DGuller on April 02, 2013, 05:20:32 PM
Yeah, there has definitely been a paradigm shift when it comes to the use of buzzwords.
I believe we've pivoted away from using paradigm shift.
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2013, 03:22:01 PM
Sounds about right. Cal would fit right in. It's a wonder he ever left, to be honest.
:hmm:
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:38:32 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 04:36:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:05:07 PM
Seems like they serve a good purpose of keeping out people unable to attempt "name"dropping key words.
All other things being equal, I'd rather have an employee with actual skills and ignorance of industry buzzwords than the converse.
True but is it really all or nothing? After all the former isn't likely to be very good at workplace cohesion / fitting into company culture. They might be good at their specific tasks but don't appear particularly savvy at some of the negotiation stuff that comes with a workplace environment.
That makes the assumption that the culture of the HR department is the same as the culture of the rest of the company--a questionable proposition at best.
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2013, 05:17:48 PMMore or less. To be sort of serious, I'd say that the proper use of technical jargon is to efficiently communicate nuanced concepts amongst people who are all educated in a particular field. Buzzwords are used to show membership of a group or to claim some sort of status; while they can be technical jargon originally, they're not used as such and are in fact stripped of nuance and meaning through over- and mis-use.
Yep. I think of Stephen Fry on poetry. Technical jargon are ways for people who know about something to express a specific meaning quickly - iambic pentameter, andante, some programming thing.
Buzzwords seem to be a short way to express a baggy concept - synergise, pivot.
From the outside they all look the same, but they're actually very different.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 06:24:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2013, 05:17:48 PMMore or less. To be sort of serious, I'd say that the proper use of technical jargon is to efficiently communicate nuanced concepts amongst people who are all educated in a particular field. Buzzwords are used to show membership of a group or to claim some sort of status; while they can be technical jargon originally, they're not used as such and are in fact stripped of nuance and meaning through over- and mis-use.
Yep. I think of Stephen Fry on poetry. Technical jargon are ways for people who know about something to express a specific meaning quickly - iambic pentameter, andante, some programming thing.
Buzzwords seem to be a short way to express a baggy concept - synergise, pivot.
From the outside they all look the same, but they're actually very different.
Yup. I'd put it more shortly: some terms are used to add clarity and precision; others, for exactly the opposite reason - to remove clarity and precision.
As you say, outsiders may not be able to tell the difference.
Lawyering is a job where knowing that difference is very important. :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on April 02, 2013, 06:31:17 PM
Yup. I'd put it more shortly: some terms are used to add clarity and precision; others, for exactly the opposite reason - to remove clarity and precision.
:lol: I did think of saying that but I didn't want to be unfair to any management consultants on the board.
QuoteLawyering is a job where knowing that difference is very important. :lol:
Law's a great example of words that to an outsider are baffling and sound like they're trying to confuse, but are actually clarifying.
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2013, 05:31:42 PM
And that's why you really can't blame HR. It's lawyers that have ruined everything, as always.
And yet lawyers would never rely on HR for hiring decisions . . .
Quote from: Jacob on April 02, 2013, 05:30:53 PM
Au contraire, mon ami. My point is both here and there. To wit:
Here: It's a counter to your point that being conversant in them is required to be a successful employee.
There: It is also counter to your implication that being conversant with the screening process vocabulary indicates a good workplace fit.
Finally, I contend that the workplace fit that should matter is not compliance with HR generated hoops, but fit with the company culture, attitude and skills; being conversant in HR generated key-word matching only matters where HR has taken control of the culture.
I don't think you need to be conversant at buzzwords, I think you need be able to willing and able to fit in appropriately and part of that is jumping through requisite hoops as you'll inevitably have them even when working. Showing an inability to play the game whether that's keywords or what have you - seems like a bad thing.
Besides, I'm not talking things like "synergy" but keywords that let HR know you actually know something about the position - so methodologies, types of disease areas like oncology and quantitative are key words when looking for a pharma market research position.
Quote from: dps on April 02, 2013, 06:14:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:38:32 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 04:36:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:05:07 PM
Seems like they serve a good purpose of keeping out people unable to attempt "name"dropping key words.
All other things being equal, I'd rather have an employee with actual skills and ignorance of industry buzzwords than the converse.
True but is it really all or nothing? After all the former isn't likely to be very good at workplace cohesion / fitting into company culture. They might be good at their specific tasks but don't appear particularly savvy at some of the negotiation stuff that comes with a workplace environment.
That makes the assumption that the culture of the HR department is the same as the culture of the rest of the company--a questionable proposition at best.
A willingness to be compliant and "know the game" so to speak transcends individual company/departmental cultures...I think. :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:38:32 PM
True but is it really all or nothing?
No, because you never really get "all else being equal".
Quote from: dps on April 02, 2013, 06:14:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:38:32 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 04:36:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:05:07 PM
Seems like they serve a good purpose of keeping out people unable to attempt "name"dropping key words.
All other things being equal, I'd rather have an employee with actual skills and ignorance of industry buzzwords than the converse.
True but is it really all or nothing? After all the former isn't likely to be very good at workplace cohesion / fitting into company culture. They might be good at their specific tasks but don't appear particularly savvy at some of the negotiation stuff that comes with a workplace environment.
That makes the assumption that the culture of the HR department is the same as the culture of the rest of the company--a questionable proposition at best.
As an aside, I recently saw a situation where there was a group of managers that were not particularly competent at the technical stuff they were supposed to handle. Someone apparently came to the decision that the easiest way to deal with this was to guide them into less technical matters in the department, for example, bringing on board new employees. The problem with this strategy became apparent when some new hires were found to be lacking some basic skills.
Actually--this is probably related to how people end up in HR, and then screwing up the hiring process.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2013, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2013, 05:31:42 PM
And that's why you really can't blame HR. It's lawyers that have ruined everything, as always.
And yet lawyers would never rely on HR for hiring decisions . . .
Things are a lot easier when you aren't a publicly traded company that has to release financial statements showing the money you have available for potential plaintiffs, are likely thinly capitalized with ownership that start new businesses with less disruption than most, and also aren't making massive numbers of hiring decisions that are as susceptible to showing discriminatory patterns.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2013, 07:13:20 PM
Things are a lot easier when you aren't a publicly traded company that has to release financial statements showing the money you have available for potential plaintiffs, are likely thinly capitalized with ownership that start new businesses with less disruption than most, and also aren't making massive numbers of hiring decisions that are as susceptible to showing discriminatory patterns.
Yeah that all sounds like a huge headache.
Fucking lawyers.
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 06:44:46 PM
Quote from: dps on April 02, 2013, 06:14:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:38:32 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 02, 2013, 04:36:36 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 02, 2013, 04:05:07 PM
Seems like they serve a good purpose of keeping out people unable to attempt "name"dropping key words.
All other things being equal, I'd rather have an employee with actual skills and ignorance of industry buzzwords than the converse.
True but is it really all or nothing? After all the former isn't likely to be very good at workplace cohesion / fitting into company culture. They might be good at their specific tasks but don't appear particularly savvy at some of the negotiation stuff that comes with a workplace environment.
That makes the assumption that the culture of the HR department is the same as the culture of the rest of the company--a questionable proposition at best.
A willingness to be compliant and "know the game" so to speak transcends individual company/departmental cultures...I think. :unsure:
What I'm trying to get across is that the "game" that HR is "playing" isn't necessarily the same game the rest of the company is playing.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2013, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2013, 05:31:42 PM
And that's why you really can't blame HR. It's lawyers that have ruined everything, as always.
And yet lawyers would never rely on HR for hiring decisions . . .
Which is another reason everyone with HR degrees should be taken out and shot. They're just one more facet of the de-lawyerization of legal services. Also, regulatory compliance employees. Especially regulatory compliance employees.
How about everyone over 35?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2013, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2013, 05:31:42 PM
And that's why you really can't blame HR. It's lawyers that have ruined everything, as always.
And yet lawyers would never rely on HR for hiring decisions . . .
Of course not. Your dark priesthood doesn't need HR buy indulgences from HR. They have a closer relationship with the source.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 02, 2013, 11:09:47 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 02, 2013, 06:40:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 02, 2013, 05:31:42 PM
And that's why you really can't blame HR. It's lawyers that have ruined everything, as always.
And yet lawyers would never rely on HR for hiring decisions . . .
Which is another reason everyone with HR degrees should be taken out and shot. They're just one more facet of the de-lawyerization of legal services. Also, regulatory compliance employees. Especially regulatory compliance employees.
How about everyone over 35?
Wouldn't it make more sense to kill the lawyers, as it is their evil that forces HR to exist?
What, by generating profits therefore requiring people to be hired?
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 02, 2013, 02:52:27 PM
HR should die a thousand deaths. I am still picking the knives out of my back.
HR :ultra: Fucking usless twats.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2013, 07:09:58 PM
As an aside, I recently saw a situation where there was a group of managers that were not particularly competent at the technical stuff they were supposed to handle. Someone apparently came to the decision that the easiest way to deal with this was to guide them into less technical matters in the department, for example, bringing on board new employees. The problem with this strategy became apparent when some new hires were found to be lacking some basic skills.
Actually--this is probably related to how people end up in HR, and then screwing up the hiring process.
How did those managers enter the company in the first place?
Quote from: Iormlund on April 03, 2013, 07:16:10 AM
How did those managers enter the company in the first place?
They juggled with buzzwords?
G.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 02, 2013, 06:38:20 PM
Law's a great example of words that to an outsider are baffling and sound like they're trying to confuse, but are actually clarifying.
Well, *should* be. Reading some agreements allegedly drafted by lawyers ... :D
Quote from: Iormlund on April 03, 2013, 07:16:10 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2013, 07:09:58 PM
As an aside, I recently saw a situation where there was a group of managers that were not particularly competent at the technical stuff they were supposed to handle. Someone apparently came to the decision that the easiest way to deal with this was to guide them into less technical matters in the department, for example, bringing on board new employees. The problem with this strategy became apparent when some new hires were found to be lacking some basic skills.
Actually--this is probably related to how people end up in HR, and then screwing up the hiring process.
How did those managers enter the company in the first place?
In this case, they were acquired through a merger.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 02, 2013, 12:48:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on April 02, 2013, 12:28:27 PM
For larger companies, HR is needed in the recruiting process. If you look at most companies, the higher paying positions are overwhelmingly male and white (compared at least to the general population). If you decentralize the process, in a lawsuit you are asking to get hammered. A lawyer finds a couple cases where it seems like there might be discrimination, you then look at the makeup of the company as a whole, and you have a solid case that there is a culture of discrimination.
With HR, you get relatively comprehensive CYA. You can document how you reach out to minority groups, detailed descriptions of non racial / gender discrimination searches to identify target candidates, and then documentation of why the interview process selected the candidate to hire that it did.
HR is nothing more than a compliance machine. They're simply there to check off the EEOC boxes at the end of the application.
YES I AM A NON-HISPANIC WHITE MALE OF EUROPEAN DESCENT I'LL ACCEPT MY REJECTION EMAIL NOW
I wonder if claiming to be bi on those stupid sections would up my chances :hmm:
They don't ask questions about your sexual orientation.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 03, 2013, 09:57:12 AM
They don't ask questions about your sexual orientation.
Several I've encountered do.
Quote from: fahdiz on April 03, 2013, 09:57:12 AM
They don't ask questions about your sexual orientation.
The EEOC creams its pants every time somebody does.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 10:09:37 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 03, 2013, 09:57:12 AM
They don't ask questions about your sexual orientation.
The EEOC creams its pants every time somebody does.
I think he is talking about the "voluntary" sections the EEOC and its international equivalents
make employers put there.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 10:09:37 AM
Quote from: fahdiz on April 03, 2013, 09:57:12 AM
They don't ask questions about your sexual orientation.
The EEOC creams its pants every time somebody does.
There is no federal law against discrimination relating to sexual orientation, so the EEOC likely doesn't give a shit.
Some states do have laws that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination.
Fuck, I'm been too nice to the weirdos when I didn't have to be. Damn HR.
I'm trying to fill an open position right now, and I'm surprised how bad the candidates are. One dude put that he's been running a consulting firm for the last seven years. The company has no incorporation status, no business license, no presence whatsoever. He's got a domain name for it but no site. If you theoretically wanted to do business with them, there's no way you could find them. Fake.
At least HR is sending me the resumes. Lord knows what I'd end up with.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 03, 2013, 01:04:36 PM
I'm trying to fill an open position right now, and I'm surprised how bad the candidates are. One dude put that he's been running a consulting firm for the last seven years. The company has no incorporation status, no business license, no presence whatsoever. He's got a domain name for it but no site. If you theoretically wanted to do business with them, there's no way you could find them. Fake.
At least HR is sending me the resumes. Lord knows what I'd end up with.
He didn't say it was a very good consulting firm :p
I'd bring him in just to question him about that.....
I used to get that a lot. People that had been unemployed not wanting to admit it and therefore saying they were the 'President' of 'Joe Sixpack Inc.' providing "consulting" services. Dude, just tell me the truth.
Speaking of interviews, we did panel interviews today for two sys admin guys. One of the boys who's based in Chicago couldn't make it down so we set up an audio feed and then the IT Architecture guy busted out this camera so he could see the candidate and he piped the guy in Chicago's voice through the camera. Only this camera literally looked like an eye on a stalk and could track the candidate's movement... it was seriously creeping me the fuck out as it looked like the candidate was interacting with HAL or that monster from the trash compactor in Star Wars. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2013, 06:39:22 PM
I used to get that a lot. People that had been unemployed not wanting to admit it and therefore saying they were the 'President' of 'Joe Sixpack Inc.' providing "consulting" services. Dude, just tell me the truth.
Why? It's not going to make you hire them anymore.
I don't like being lied to. It's not great to have huge employment gaps, but it's better than lying about your work history.
That said, in the case where someone has serious felony convictions (we've discussed this before in other threads), I do think the best strategy for the candidate is to try and lie and hope the company doesn't bother to run a background check... if you have certain kinds of convictions, such as theft, murder, etc. you will NEVER be hired by a company, ever.
I liked being a consultant.
Easiest job in the world.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 06:59:59 PM
I liked being a consultant.
Easiest job in the world.
I'm not talking about the kind of consultant you are/were, Colonel. I'm talking about the kind of consultant that isn't actually a consultant.
I know.
I just liked sharing. :)
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2013, 06:49:14 PM
I don't like being lied to. It's not great to have huge employment gaps, but it's better than lying about your work history.
That said, in the case where someone has serious felony convictions (we've discussed this before in other threads), I do think the best strategy for the candidate is to try and lie and hope the company doesn't bother to run a background check... if you have certain kinds of convictions, such as theft, murder, etc. you will NEVER be hired by a company, ever.
I suppose whether or not it's better then lying about your work history depends on whether or not the interviewer buys it.
This thread makes me think to the time shortly after undergrad. I was dicking around trying to figure out something to do and I ran into a former dormmate in a Metro station. All dressed up, flashed me out a business card. He was president of a consulting company too.
I was sincerely impressed. Wondered to myself whoa how the fuck did that dude pull that off so quick?
:D
When I hear the words "president of my own consulting company" I reach for my Beretta.
:(
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2013, 06:49:14 PM
I don't like being lied to. It's not great to have huge employment gaps, but it's better than lying about your work history.
That said, in the case where someone has serious felony convictions (we've discussed this before in other threads), I do think the best strategy for the candidate is to try and lie and hope the company doesn't bother to run a background check... if you have certain kinds of convictions, such as theft, murder, etc. you will NEVER be hired by a company, ever.
How about an eleven year old assault and battery, DUI, and sundries?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 08:59:34 PM
Quote from: Caliga on April 03, 2013, 06:49:14 PM
I don't like being lied to. It's not great to have huge employment gaps, but it's better than lying about your work history.
That said, in the case where someone has serious felony convictions (we've discussed this before in other threads), I do think the best strategy for the candidate is to try and lie and hope the company doesn't bother to run a background check... if you have certain kinds of convictions, such as theft, murder, etc. you will NEVER be hired by a company, ever.
How about an eleven year old assault and battery, DUI, and sundries?
Pass.
On the obvious jokes which I'm sure are so funny, on answering, or on hiring?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:03:01 PM
On the obvious jokes which I'm sure are so funny, on answering, or on hiring?
Both. I personally would find the DUI most offensive.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:03:01 PM
On the obvious jokes which I'm sure are so funny, on answering, or on hiring?
Both. I personally would find the DUI most offensive.
You're so full of shit.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 09:06:50 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:03:01 PM
On the obvious jokes which I'm sure are so funny, on answering, or on hiring?
Both. I personally would find the DUI most offensive.
You're so full of shit.
Nope. Lack of self control. Pass.
You realize there are approximately five times as many years into my adulthood since then, than before then, right? Oh well. Thanks for being honest.
Also interested in Cal's take, tho.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:08:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 09:06:50 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:03:01 PM
On the obvious jokes which I'm sure are so funny, on answering, or on hiring?
Both. I personally would find the DUI most offensive.
You're so full of shit.
Nope. Lack of self control. Pass.
Because assault and battery speaks to a high degree of self control.
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 09:18:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:08:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 09:06:50 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:03:01 PM
On the obvious jokes which I'm sure are so funny, on answering, or on hiring?
Both. I personally would find the DUI most offensive.
You're so full of shit.
Nope. Lack of self control. Pass.
Because assault and battery speaks to a high degree of self control.
I never addressed Ide's Kung fu.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:17:46 PM
You realize there are approximately five times as many years into my adulthood since then, than before then, right? Oh well. Thanks for being honest.
Also interested in Cal's take, tho.
Drunk driver killed my fiancé. IT IS A SORE SPOT.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:20:21 PM
Drunk driver killed my fiancé. IT IS A SORE SPOT.
Serious question though, and not being a dick about it: you scored some major sympathy ass after that, didn't you?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 09:27:17 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:20:21 PM
Drunk driver killed my fiancé. IT IS A SORE SPOT.
Serious question though, and not being a dick about it: you scored some major sympathy ass after that, didn't you?
Nope. I was a mess for about a year.
But after that, tons of sympathy ass, right?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 09:30:19 PM
But after that, tons of sympathy ass, right?
Some bank teller ass, yes.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:20:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:17:46 PM
You realize there are approximately five times as many years into my adulthood since then, than before then, right? Oh well. Thanks for being honest.
Also interested in Cal's take, tho.
Drunk driver killed my fiancé. IT IS A SORE SPOT.
I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't know about it.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:35:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:20:21 PM
Drunk driver killed my fiancé. IT IS A SORE SPOT.
I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't know about it.
Unfortunately, none of my ex-girlfriends were in any accidents.
And don't think I wasn't tossing my share of pennies into the fucking wishing well, either.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:35:04 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:20:21 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:17:46 PM
You realize there are approximately five times as many years into my adulthood since then, than before then, right? Oh well. Thanks for being honest.
Also interested in Cal's take, tho.
Drunk driver killed my fiancé. IT IS A SORE SPOT.
I'm sorry to hear that. I didn't know about it.
He's mentioned it before you insensitive ass.
Hey, lay off Ide. His slight frame makes him fragile.
Quote from: katmai on April 03, 2013, 09:37:49 PM
He's mentioned it before you insensitive ass.
Hey, he got another one, didn't he?
OK, that was fucked up.
Don't you mean frágil?
It's alright. I've made my peace with it long ago.
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 09:18:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:08:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 09:06:50 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:03:01 PM
On the obvious jokes which I'm sure are so funny, on answering, or on hiring?
Both. I personally would find the DUI most offensive.
You're so full of shit.
Nope. Lack of self control. Pass.
Because assault and battery speaks to a high degree of self control.
Done right it does!
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:39:24 PM
Hey, lay off Ide. His slight frame makes him fragile.
I'm pretty sure anything that katmai lays on turns out to be fragile.
About assault and battery, some people need a good beating.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 09:44:28 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:39:24 PM
Hey, lay off Ide. His slight frame makes him fragile.
I'm pretty sure anything that katmai lays on turns out to be fragile.
:lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:44:30 PM
About assault and battery, some people need a good beating.
Fwiw, the only reason I took the plea is because it was overcharged absurdly high to a felony, and it seemed like a bad risk to attempt a self-defense affirmative defense, even one let's say 80% likely to succeed due to my history with the alleged victim, his size (I was 5'10", 155 at the time, he was about 6'2", 220) and his own violent reputation, when the cost of failure was up to three years in prison, when the alternative, a plea, let me walk away $800 lighter.
Regarding the history, we'd had two previous altercations. The first time he was being a too-old-for-that-kind-of-shit bully, and I was extremely young (17 I think tops), but I did kind of start it by not taking his nonsense, and he wound up with a broken hand. Obviously not particularly forgiving, a year or so later, he he showed up to a mutual friend's house after I'd fallen asleep (or passed out, but that's not illegal), recognized me, and beat me roughly half to death. Guess how far filing a police report got? If you guessed a police officer refused to file an A+B report after a man with a severely contused face and neck, covered in blood, and still bleeding showed up at the station, you'd be right. The points there is that I did try to use legal channels.
Anyway, in point of fact, on this third occasion, he was already assaulting (threatening with imminent unwanted bodily contact, and the really harmful kind, reasonably apprehended) me and I simply did not wait for the first blow to fall, which does not negate a claim to self-defense (and is one supposes the stupid way to go about trying to avoid injury or death). I'm still pretty happy that I fucked up his face semi-permanently (I understand that he still has troubles with his nose and sinuses). But in retrospect, I would trade a savage beating any day, and on some really bad days I've been prepared to trade death, for all the trouble that night has caused me since.
So. To the law, and an unrestrained private sector meting out collateral consequences forever till you're old and get on social security, if you've even been allowed to work long enough to qualify! :cheers:
P.S.: The rest was, of course, totally my fault. 100%. And I do feel bad about that, especially how stupid and avoidable all of it was.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 10:08:42 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 03, 2013, 09:44:30 PM
About assault and battery, some people need a good beating.
Fwiw, the only reason I took the plea is because it was overcharged absurdly high to a felony, and it seemed like a bad risk to attempt a self-defense affirmative defense, even one let's say 80% likely to succeed due to my history with the alleged victim, his size (I was 5'10", 155 at the time, he was about 6'2", 220) and his own violent reputation, when the cost of failure was up to three years in prison, when the alternative, a plea, let me walk away $800 lighter.
Regarding the history, we'd had two previous altercations. The first time he was being a too-old-for-that-kind-of-shit bully, and I was extremely young (17 I think tops), but I did kind of start it by not taking his nonsense, and he wound up with a broken hand. Obviously not particularly forgiving, a year or so later, he he showed up to a mutual friend's house after I'd fallen asleep (or passed out, but that's not illegal), recognized me, and beat me roughly half to death. Guess how far filing a police report got? If you guessed a police officer refused to file an A+B report after a man with a severely contused face and neck, covered in blood, and still bleeding showed up at the station, you'd be right. The points there is that I did try to use legal channels.
Anyway, in point of fact, on this third occasion, he was already assaulting (threatening with imminent unwanted bodily contact, and the really harmful kind, reasonably apprehended) me and I simply did not wait for the first blow to fall, which does not negate a claim to self-defense (and is one supposes the stupid way to go about trying to avoid injury or death). I'm still pretty happy that I fucked up his face semi-permanently (I understand that he still has troubles with his nose and sinuses). But in retrospect, I would trade a savage beating any day, and on some really bad days I've been prepared to trade death, for all the trouble that night has caused me since.
So. To the law, and an unrestrained private sector meting out collateral consequences forever till you're old and get on social security, if you've even been allowed to work long enough to qualify! :cheers:
P.S.: The rest was, of course, totally my fault. 100%. And I do feel bad about that, especially how stupid and avoidable all of it was.
Were you passed out because you were drunk, cause I think that's illegal if you are 18.
Well, good point. Whatever.
If only Ideologue spent as much time and effort on his legal career as he does on beating people's faces like pizza dough.
Beating people's faces like pizza dough is an honorable profession. Well at least some of my cousins say it's okay and they told me they were "men of honor".
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 10:26:00 PM
If only Ideologue spent as much time and effort on his legal career as he does on beating people's faces like pizza dough.
Five to ten seconds?
I think I'm ready to give it my best shot!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 10:26:00 PM
If only Ideologue spent as much time and effort on his legal career as he does on beating people's faces like pizza dough.
He was only 17, just a child.
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 10:31:23 PM
He was only 17, just a child.
Like he's not one now.
I wasn't really trying to build a defense. :goodboy:
You guys are dicks.
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2013, 10:43:54 PM
You guys are dicks.
surprised, even after all these years? :D
Quote from: HVC on April 03, 2013, 10:45:29 PM
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2013, 10:43:54 PM
You guys are dicks.
surprised, even after all these years? :D
No.
Did my post indicate any kind of surprise? :huh:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 03, 2013, 10:35:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on April 03, 2013, 10:31:23 PM
He was only 17, just a child.
Like he's not one now.
I dunno, your journey from man-child straight to effective retiree seems to be going well.
And I deleted the really mean stuff, you ass. I've been doing what I can.
Quote from: Jacob on April 03, 2013, 10:43:54 PM
You guys are dicks.
Any particular post bother you?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 10:50:29 PM
I dunno, your journey from man-child straight to effective retiree seems to be going well.
Now don't go confusing me with Ed, dammit. He's the retiree; I'm merely the unemployed man-child.
QuoteAnd I deleted the really mean stuff, you ass. I've been doing what I can.
You can start by getting some fucking furnishings. And I know damned well you never put the futon back up to the sitting position today, either.
I haven't been home because I've been at my JERB.
Bed's coming, probably this weekend. Around the same time I SWEAR TO GOD IT HAD BETTER my biospy cut's healed.
How does CdM know about your furniture?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 03, 2013, 10:58:05 PM
I haven't been home because I've been at my JERB.
Bed's coming, probably this weekend. Around the same time I SWEAR TO GOD IT HAD BETTER my biospy cut's healed.
Rub some dirt on it and get back in the game dammit
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2013, 10:59:59 PM
How does CdM know about your furniture?
New meme, I hope. I've been due.
Quote from: katmaiRub some dirt on it and get back in the game dammit
I've been gingerly practicing and doing some stretches. But I don't think I can play yet, coach. But pray for me.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 03, 2013, 10:59:59 PM
How does CdM know about your furniture?
How wouldn't he?