LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2011 10:15pm
I Wear Pants;983126 wrote:Wouldn't it be simpler to not ask and then when they say "blah blah blah, they didn't hire me because of x" the company can say "that's not true, we didn't even know that"?
I assume not, since almost all decent sized companies do it
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2011 10:16pm
I Wear Pants;983123 wrote:This is one of those really vague laws that isn't consistently applicable.
Some people consider saying "fuck you" or flipping someone off to be "offensively coarse" others, like the California Sup. Court if I recall, would disagree.
Lets not forget being inside of a private business on private property.
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
Nov 21, 2011 10:16pm
Wouldn't apply why? Because you said so? You're pretty bad at arguing when you're wrong.LJ;983125 wrote:So wait, if the law wouldnt apply and you wouldnt be charged for it, its still illegal? ROFL
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Nov 21, 2011 10:17pm
Actually yes. There are plenty of times when people break the law and they aren't charged with a crime. Most of the time they are the intentionally, or unintentionally because of the stupidity of the people writting them, vague laws that this problem pops up with.LJ;983125 wrote:So wait, if the law wouldnt apply and you wouldnt be charged for it, its still illegal? ROFL
But you're right about the interviewer not getting charged, they wouldn't. Might get a civil case but not a criminal one brought against them.
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
Nov 21, 2011 10:17pm
Ya disorderly conduct laws don't apply on private property, lol. You're nuts.LJ;983131 wrote:Lets not forget being inside of a private business on private property.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Nov 21, 2011 10:18pm
See this is where our conclusions differ. You say "they're using it to safeguard against lawsuits" and I say "they're probably using that information to make, at least in some manner, hiring decisions."LJ;983129 wrote:I assume not, since almost all decent sized companies do it
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2011 10:21pm
Mooney44Cards;983138 wrote:Ya disorderly conduct laws don't apply on private property, lol. You're nuts.
You have no clue what you are talking about
"officer, I came here in my own will, I thought the question that was asked was threatening. Instead of leaving the business after being asked to for not answering the question I called you guys. I still refuse to leave until something is done officer!"
Cop-*facepalm*
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Nov 21, 2011 10:22pm
So under your interpretation of things LJ is someone on private property allowed to say/do anything they please as long as the person is free to leave?
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2011 10:23pm
I Wear Pants;983139 wrote:See this is where our conclusions differ. You say "they're using it to safeguard against lawsuits" and I say "they're probably using that information to make, at least in some manner, hiring decisions."
But you are, in fact, wrong. The information is vetted through HR and the hiring manger does not see that info when they get the app. Its solely informational, and optional
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2011 10:23pm
I Wear Pants;983148 wrote:So under your interpretation of things LJ is someone on private property allowed to say/do anything they please as long as the person is free to leave?
Im saying that question would not be disorderly conduct
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2011 10:24pm
Like I said, what if the job was a security position?
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Nov 21, 2011 10:25pm
So there are not companies out there that you could take the same applicant through and in one case omit the age or whatever and another case input it and have a different hiring result?LJ;983151 wrote:But you are, in fact, wrong. The information is vetted through HR and the hiring manger does not see that info when they get the app. Its solely informational, and optional
I'm not saying all companies necessarily do this but I guarantee you there are a bunch that do.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Nov 21, 2011 10:26pm
What if it was?LJ;983157 wrote:Like I said, what if the job was a security position?
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2011 10:26pm
I Wear Pants;983159 wrote:So there are not companies out there that you could take the same applicant through and in one case omit the age or whatever and another case input it and have a different hiring result?
I'm not saying all companies necessarily do this but I guarantee you there are a bunch that do.
I promise you it is less than .5%
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
Nov 21, 2011 10:27pm
LJ;983145 wrote:You have no clue what you are talking about
"officer, I came here in my own will, I thought the question that was asked was threatening. Instead of leaving the business after being asked to for not answering the question I called you guys. I still refuse to leave until something is done officer!"
Cop-*facepalm*
Oh thats cute, you made up your own little world where people act rationally when they feel threatened. Good job! :thumbup:
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Nov 21, 2011 10:27pm
You've made a bold claim, now you must prove it.LJ;983163 wrote:I promise you it is less than .5%
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2011 10:29pm
Mooney44Cards;983165 wrote:Oh thats cute, you made up your own little world where people act rationally when they feel threatened. Good job! :thumbup:
So o ask you again. What if the job was for a security position? Why do I have to pose this queation to you 3 times with no response?
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2011 10:29pm
I Wear Pants;983166 wrote:You've made a bold claim, now you must prove it.
Ill add ~
Mooney44Cards
Posts: 2,754
Nov 21, 2011 10:35pm
Ok, so there's maybe a handful of exceptions? What does that prove? Just that you're mostly wrong, not totally wrong?LJ;983170 wrote:So o ask you again. What if the job was for a security position? Why do I have to pose this queation to you 3 times with no response?
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2011 10:36pm
Mooney44Cards;983182 wrote:Ok, so there's maybe a handful of exceptions? What does that prove? Just that you're mostly wrong, not totally wrong?
Lol
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Nov 21, 2011 10:38pm
You'll add squiggly mustache?LJ;983171 wrote:Ill add ~
LJ
Posts: 16,351
Nov 21, 2011 10:39pm
I Wear Pants;983190 wrote:You'll add squiggly mustache?
It is movember.
That means approx
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Nov 21, 2011 11:02pm
Ummm, the whole purpose is to collect statistics to defend against lawsuits -i .e. 20% of our applicants were women and 22% of those we interviewed were women. In fact, companies that have been reprimanded in the past is EXACTLY how state/federal regulators evaluate compliance (i.e. the number of women interviewed for mgmt positions, hired, etc...).I Wear Pants;983159 wrote:So there are not companies out there that you could take the same applicant through and in one case omit the age or whatever and another case input it and have a different hiring result?
I'm not saying all companies necessarily do this but I guarantee you there are a bunch that do.
Plus, you're talking about information that is generally easily observable in an interview - you can spot a wedding ring, guestimate age based on experience/job history (when applicants haven't put the date of their college degree), and obviously if someone is male/female or white/black.
If one intends to discriminate in their hiring practices, there are far more subtle ways to accomplish it than asking someone the question directly.
I
I Wear Pants
Posts: 16,223
Nov 21, 2011 11:09pm
Just to be clear, I think a lot of the "I didn't get hired because they discriminate against x" cases are kind of ridiculous. I just don't think that the pure, innocent business operators don't also pull shit we all would think to be wrong.
And LJ, "I'll add approx." still makes no god damned sense. Stop smoking crack.
And LJ, "I'll add approx." still makes no god damned sense. Stop smoking crack.
S
Steel Valley Football
Posts: 4,548
Nov 21, 2011 11:22pm
~
College kids. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
College kids. :rolleyes::rolleyes: