Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
I think the system could still work fine if companies had to register all interviews while removing names from applications. That way there is still some sort of trail leading to possible discrimination claims should twenty PoC apply for a job and the one that gets it is the sub-qualified white dude. Of course, the question is who would be put in charge of such a register.
This sound totally not paranoid...
I still think there are qualified candidates who I wouldn't want to work with - team spirit matters a lot. A very aggressive, rude, negative, or any number of personality flaws could be a good reason not to work with them. I'm not going to bring down the staff with a toxically unhappy person just because they have the qualifications that matter, and I'm certainly not going to fill out the paperwork to hire them - which includes all the expenses that come along with that.
I'm also specifically talking about your claim that 'interviews are worthless' - the thing you dismiss so quickly is 'only tells you if you like the candidate' is actually a big deal in many jobs. You do not want to hire unlikeable people. I am not saying there aren't some problems in interviewing, and some are surmountable, and some not, but I will never hire someone I haven't met face-to-face.
I see both social and fiscal worth in interviews. It's true, it gives me an opportunity to discriminate if I am some -ist but it gives me a chance to build the best team and company and set my already-working employees and the new one for success.
This is sort of why the interview process is set as the very last step in programs that are unwilling to move past them; at the very least, this makes it clear who made the decision to discriminate.
If you MUST do interviews, there are some things you can do to make them less awful? The interviews with no visual contact/disguised voices are part of that, but the single biggest thing is having all interviews structured the same and with the same questions asked, no more or less. This at least reduces the variability in interviews to something tolerable; one of the biggest reasons interviews ARE considered worthless is because interviewers tend to just wing it and tend to believe they are talented at detecting lies in others but virtually all data says that no, they are terrible at it. Standardizing the processes helps avoid most of that being reducing their personal involvement.
No sir, there is clearly no brain attached to your mouth.
I read this to Julie without context. She thought it was a speech predictor AI. A bad one.
This really depends on what you think the point of the interview is. I do not see it as understanding the person's qualifications; as you've pointed out, that's more-or-less established. I see it as an opportunity for them to put their best foot forward, and for me to see if I want to work with this person. Sure, I could standardize my questions, but it's honestly mostly about 'Will this person fit with my company?'
And the no visual contact/disguised voices thing is out of the question absurd, especially in my industry: I'm in customer service. How this person chooses to present themself is a big deal.
You seem more interested in being able to disqualify candidates that could, potentially, cost you a minor sum then in preventing people from disqualifying them for petty, society injuring ways. I'm not really sure why you're interested in this conversation when it seems like you're more interested in enabling folks to do the things these system changes are designed to prevent. As I'm saying for the... what, 4th time now, no system is perfect and changes to any system can create new, different problems. But that shouldn't prevent changes to a system that has a serious, corrupting problem inherent in it's design that's being exploited.
Also, to put it mildly... this system doesn't care who you hire to work entry level customer service. It mostly cares about who you hire to manage your customer service and who you hire to manage your managers because those are the positions that have historically been denied to workers of a certain hue.
Maybe we should ask Putin.
figmentPez
Staff member
Even with more context, it's still just babbling. Dolt45 loves to brag. It doesn't even have to make sense. His followers will make up what they want to hear, and fill in the massive gaps. I'm convinced that's why so many people think he's smart. Because he says things in such a fragmented manner, that his audience has to add in their own reasoning to have it make any sense at all. Thus it's always thoughts that are exactly on their level, because it's really their own thoughts. He's a big dumb hazy mirror that reflects back what his audience sees in themselves.
Hehehe Elton John has an "organ" and he doesn't
FINISH.THE.FUCKING.GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Iberians and criollos are considered white, specially in the context of European colonialism.
Pfft, you kids and your acceptance of Mediterraneans as white... What next, you're going to reject Phrenology now?
....
And i was actually thinking further back, since, in the end, it's a latin word...
Ah, I've never seen the word "latino" in English being used to refer to romance language speakers.
And you probably won't, since it's almost exclusively used as a label for Hispanics.
--Patrick
Hence the "" around it.
Also, you mean in American English...
Which are people from Spain...