|
Hiring tests like Unicru has, have pretty much no correlation with worker performance. They're just a gateway to cut down on applicants.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
If you're smart enough to know the "correct" answers, you may be smart enough to flip a burger or unload a pallet of kibble. At least that's what I thought those things were looking for. My favorite was, "Is it okay to come to work drunk/high if it doesn't effect your work?" MariusLecter fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:09
|
|
|
I love the question "It is maddening when the courts let obviously guilty people go free: SD/D/A/SA" I mean what the gently caress? Seriously, "obviously guilty" by what measure? since it sure as hell isn't from the court.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Sasarella posted:Except I actually do research and know a lot about the candiates. So for me (and I suspect most people in this thread) it would be true. But it would flag us as dishonest? On an actual psychological survey you'd answer other questions like "I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me." to get a better idea. Also the psychologist would be able to ask you related questions, if it turns out you aren't actually even sure what a senator is, he might decide you tend to lie to make yourself sound better. It's not a terrible or uncommon trait, but it's important to see how strong it is to judge how accurate your responses are. As for its use on an employment test, I can't think of any reason to answer 'true' to researching candidates. Either you're a liar or you think too much. Edit: Do you browse through railway timetables, directories, or dictionaries just for pleasure? Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
One of my friends is claiming, on his FB feed, that Obama is terrible because he ditched a security briefing immediately following the attack on the US consulate in Libya.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 01:51
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:One of my friends is claiming, on his FB feed, that Obama is terrible because he ditched a security briefing immediately following the attack on the US consulate in Libya. Well, aren't security briefings just updates on issues being watched all over the world, and so he SHOULD leave the briefing in order to go respond to the Libyan attacks in real time? I mean they can finish the briefing a few hours later and its not like its going to really impact our handling of North Korea or anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Well, aren't security briefings just updates on issues being watched all over the world, and so he SHOULD leave the briefing in order to go respond to the Libyan attacks in real time? I mean they can finish the briefing a few hours later and its not like its going to really impact our handling of North Korea or anything. e: I could never find it again, but the most succinct summation of American politics I ever read was in MAD magazine, c. 1996. It was something like 'The Bob Dole Guide to Perpetual Disagreement,' where any given action by Clinton (including opposing/mutually exclusive ones) all induced disapproving statements from Dole. I cannot rightly say that the GOP has improved in their rhetoric in the last 16 years. ZobarStyl fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
I got this today.
RalphyNoPants fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:I love the question "It is maddening when the courts let obviously guilty people go free: SD/D/A/SA" If you analyze things that deeply, clearly you aren't Office Depot/Taco Bell/Pet Smart/Whatever material.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
RalphyNoPants posted:I got this today. Imageshack and SA don't play nicely with each other. Use something like imgur instead and we'll all be able to see it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
My feed has been blowing up with conservative stuff this week. This popped up today. I don't even know how to reply to what he said(I'm red)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
White assholes make purposely inflammatory videos about how Muslims is Satan: Obama's fault. The internet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 04:00
|
|
|
Laminator posted:My feed has been blowing up with conservative stuff this week. This popped up today. I don't even know how to reply to what he said(I'm red) Theres a shitton wrong with his post. Take it slow and look for trees instead of the forest. Im not gonna go through the whole thing on my phone, but here are 2 things I saw: - He implies that obama is somehow responsible for the occupation going lovely when he says 'not learning from the russians' time in the region'. That isn't attributable to the president: not obama, not even bush; that failure falls squarely on the military commanders of the campaign and the intelligence community for not taking a clue. This whole campaign has been an absolute failure in my eyes (GiPer here) and the big disappointment is that we've been beaten like this before in Vietnam. America's military is just not built for occupations like this. - He likens obamas position as President of the USA to a football coach and his team with regards to responsibility for the way the 'team' performs, which is an oversimplification so gross that he would get laughed out of any college-level debate. Again, if you want to pick this apart, the whole post is rife with easy targets. The likelihood of him actually reading your logical and well-researched rebuttal is almost 0, so I'm going to recommend ignoring him or defriending him. While it's not a forwarded email, my handler that shares my cubicle now listens to WMAL all day on his computer. It' a local radio station that plays conservative talk all day (Chris Plant, Rush, Glenn Beck, etc). It started on Tuesday and I'm already prepared to quit this cushy job and go back into the army; listening to the hatred in their voices for more than a couple minutes actually makes me sick. Eulogistics fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
Eulogistics posted:Theres a shitton wrong with his post. Take it slow and look for trees instead of the forest. Im not gonna go through the whole thing on my phone, but here are 2 things I saw: Just out of curiosity, as GiPer, I had a military history professor at U of IL back in the day (2002 and thereabouts) when the lead-in to the Iraq war was clearly advancing. He pretty much predicted EXACTLY what happened, that we'd kick-rear end on the military side, and then poo poo the bed on the occupation and transition. His thesis was that if we were going to get serious about regime change, we needed to build what he termed a "Civil/Constabulary Corps" of reservists that were drawn not just from construction/police/fire, but civil servants and the like that would be under military command, so they would be subordinate to the Theater Commander (and through him, the CinC) and thus have an unambiguous means of implementing a top-down civil/military rebuilding, rather than having a mishmash of military security and civilian bureaucracy. I wonder what your thoughts are on that. (Edit: derail, I know. Hopefully an illuminating one.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
While researching the article that was posted up in that Facebook conversation yesterday, I came to a really chilling conclusion: Right-wing media is damned efficient. I mean, I could literally find the same article (words changed here and there) posted up at tons of right-wing blogs and websites. It was like they were all updated at the same time with the same information. This isn't the first time it's happened either. A while back, a local blogger at the Houston Chronicle was ranting about liberals doing something or other and she referenced something that I found odd. I Googled it and every single result was a right-wing blog or website. While I understand the mechanics of how it happens, it's just crazy to me that they can come up with some story, cascade it out right away, and then the Google search for it is essentially poisoned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 05:38
|
|
|
Ratmtattat posted:While researching the article that was posted up in that Facebook conversation yesterday, I came to a really chilling conclusion: Ever watch the daily show where they show 50 pundits saying the same phrase? It's not a meme or anything. They literally have taking points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:Ever watch the daily show where they show 50 pundits saying the same phrase? It's not a meme or anything. They literally have taking points. Conan O'Brien really pushed the envelope on late night television.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
EDIT: I can't read. I'll try again later.
Eulogistics fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Sep 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
Eulogistics posted:While it's not a forwarded email, my handler that shares my cubicle now listens to WMAL all day on his computer. It' a local radio station that plays conservative talk all day (Chris Plant, Rush, Glenn Beck, etc). It started on Tuesday and I'm already prepared to quit this cushy job and go back into the army; listening to the hatred in their voices for more than a couple minutes actually makes me sick. I would politely ask him to turn it off or put some headphones on. If he won't, a call to HR isn't totally out of line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
Do you guys have anything to deal with people who just flatly don't trust the news that isn't Drudge, Fox, or other nutty right-wing sources. I don't even dismiss these sources outright, but I have friends who, when linked to somewhere like MotherJones or WaPo or even the NYT, just claim it's the "lame stream" media and dismiss it. It's irritating because you can't source anything that isn't inside their bias. I freely admit that HuffPo, MotherJones, and some locations are left-biased. That's fine. It doesn't impugn their credibility as long as they source their reporting - which they usually do. Has anyone successfully dealt with this kind of self-imposed stupidity?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 09:20
|
|
|
Enjoy. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 11:36
|
|
|
The Rokstar posted:I've been an attorney for almost six years now and I have literally never been drug tested once, nor do I know of anyone I've worked with who has ever been drug tested for a legal job. And you would think law would be a profession where you wouldn't want your attorney high on something while he's doing your work, so it's clearly not about the public. I got piss tested to be a public defender. Which is just weird if you think about it. Government employment is government employment though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:One of my friends is claiming, on his FB feed, that Obama is terrible because he ditched a security briefing immediately following the attack on the US consulate in Libya. Yeah the OBAMA SKIPPED SECURITY BRIEFINGS thing is Rove-brand "attack the strengths" nonsense plus some additional water-muddying. First off, it's completely untrue. It's constructed around intentional pedantic misunderstanding: reading a briefing instead of having it read out to you (like Bush, a Real American President, preferred) constitutes "skipping a briefing". Any day in which he didn't have a briefing listed on his public schedule is counted as skipping a briefing regardless of what actually happened on that day. So, y'know, looks like he might be a good public speaker and speech composer? Teleprompters it's all teleprompters. Seems like, by plenty of accounts, that the guy works real hard? He's lazy, he golfs too much and he skips briefings. As for water-muddying, well, people did start accusing him of skipping briefings shortly after these stories show up-- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opinion/the-bush-white-house-was-deaf-to-9-11-warnings.html
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
sicarius posted:Do you guys have anything to deal with people who just flatly don't trust the news that isn't Drudge, Fox, or other nutty right-wing sources. I don't even dismiss these sources outright, but I have friends who, when linked to somewhere like MotherJones or WaPo or even the NYT, just claim it's the "lame stream" media and dismiss it. HuffPo bias is a little bit more complicated than straightforward leftism ;} http://shameproject.com/profile/arianna-huffington
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
nm posted:I got piss tested to be a public defender. Which is just weird if you think about it. I've worked for my local state park system for 10 years. In that time my tasks have included managing an entire park, hiring and firing employees, driving multiple state vehicles, handling hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, supervising lifeguards, and participating in mountain rescues. I've never once had to piss in a cup for my parks job. I once had a month long temp job at an Amazon.com warehouse where I took things out of boxes and put them on shelves, and sometimes took things off of shelves so someone else could put them in boxes. A drug test was included in my job interview.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 16:46
|
|
|
It still infuriates me that employers can include tests/evaluations for criteria which are either patently useless (broad-spectrum psychological/personality inventories) or irrelevant to the job (drug testing as a condition of employment). I mean, I'm about as introverted as they come without tipping over into the Asperger's spectrum, and yet I was a highly successful bartender and restaurant manager for over a decade...and it's not like that's a stereotypical introvert job, is it? Know why? Because it doesn't loving matter whether I prefer to socialize after work or go home and read a book. I can't believe that Americans have so quiescently bought into the idea that their employers have the right to pry into every facet of their off-the-clock life.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
Decades of business schools teaching the MBTI as gospel probably hasn't helped.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Decades of business schools teaching the MBTI as gospel probably hasn't helped. No drug test though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 18:40
|
|
|
CarterUSM posted:Just out of curiosity, as GiPer, I had a military history professor at U of IL back in the day (2002 and thereabouts) when the lead-in to the Iraq war was clearly advancing. He pretty much predicted EXACTLY what happened, that we'd kick-rear end on the military side, and then poo poo the bed on the occupation and transition. His thesis was that if we were going to get serious about regime change, we needed to build what he termed a "Civil/Constabulary Corps" of reservists that were drawn not just from construction/police/fire, but civil servants and the like that would be under military command, so they would be subordinate to the Theater Commander (and through him, the CinC) and thus have an unambiguous means of implementing a top-down civil/military rebuilding, rather than having a mishmash of military security and civilian bureaucracy. Tried to get this out last night, but I couldn't brain too good and wound up deleting what I had. While it is an interesting idea to have the civilians reporting to the theater/regional commander, I doubt it would have had much of an effect. The issues that I see all essentially stemmed from us not thinking the war would last this long or be this complicated. A lot of the military advisors and intelligence people were really hoping we could pull off another Desert Storm and be in and out, but it didn't work out that way; instead, we got bogged down in the occupation mode with no clear goal, started making stuff up on the fly and the rest is history. Here is GlobalSecurity's summary of Enduring Freedom; I don't agree with everything that they write, but their dates and the gist of it is correct. If you want to hear more from someone who has actually studied these things, check out this A/T thread by Admiral Snackbar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
I love my dad but this is usually 90% of my email:
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
My friend started tagging me in all his image macros he has been posting after I commented on the Reagan one that was posted earlier. HUSSEIN 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Send him this link. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/egypt-embassy-marines-live-ammo#USMCmemo
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Send him this link. Though, to be fair, even if it had been true, I'd be in favor of it, given the average marine's penchant for shooting anything brown and moving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Though, to be fair, even if it had been true, I'd be in favor of it, given the average marine's penchant for shooting anything brown and moving. Historically, U.S. Marines have shown a lot of restraint during embassy attacks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 01:00
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Though, to be fair, even if it had been true, I'd be in favor of it, given the average marine's penchant for shooting anything brown and moving. What's it like being a walking stereotype?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:Historically, U.S. Marines have shown a lot of restraint during embassy attacks. I get the idea they're pretty selective for embassy guards. An acquaintance of mine decided not to reenlist after they wouldn't let him become one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
CarterUSM posted:I can't believe that Americans have so quiescently bought into the idea that their employers have the right to pry into every facet of their off-the-clock life. Completely agree. Smoking a little weed after hours has no impact on any job. Your employer has the right to have you working sober, but drug tests don't test whether you are under the influence. Some of the best public defenders I know smoke a bit on the weekends, but if they'd applied for jobs today they'd be rejected if they didn't abstain for months before. There was a great piece on how drug testing prompted some of the use of meth in blue collar fields. Essentially, many people work schedules where they work for a few weeks constantly and then take a week or two off. Upon return they get drug tests. Marijuana will stay in your system for months. Meth will leave you system much faster. So it is "better" to party your first weekend on meth and spend the rest of the time clean than smoke some weed. Of course, none of this catches chronic alcoholics as long as you can be soberish for the test. Also, the best part is that the tests they use are hilariously inaccurate. They're not admissible in court. Hell they're not admissible if you're in prison and they just want to do ban administrative sanction. You have to use a much more expensive test. Check out this cross reaction list: http://www.redwoodtoxicology.com/documents/products/cross_reactions.pdf Zantac, methamphetamine, what's the difference? None to this test. Hope you don't have heartburn. "All positive results from onsite drug testing are presumptive and should be confirmed by an alternative method such as gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS)" Ha! Walmart isn't paying for that poo poo. Note that this is actually probably one of the better companies that openly admits the test has no purpose besides making sure you're not testing clean urine. Many other tests may be less accurate and won't publish tables like this Goatman Sacks posted:Though, to be fair, even if it had been true, I'd be in favor of it, given the average marine's penchant for shooting anything brown and moving. Also, you made me agree with Armyman25, and that is unforgivable. nm fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
dms666 posted:My friend started tagging me in all his image macros he has been posting after I commented on the Reagan one that was posted earlier. "Unarm" The mistake so good, you have to make it twice! Edit: holy poo poo, that's actually a word? Well, mea culpa, my face is red  Though I've literally never heard someone use it before today, given that "disarm" is, in my experience, the ubiquitous word for that action.
CarterUSM fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
No, you're right. Unarm is a very weird word choice and I can't think of a single example where it would work in a sentence, at least in American English. Use unarmed to describe someone that does not have a weapon. Use disarmed to describe someone who had been armed but then had the weapons taken away. Edit: Unarm could maybe work in the context of changing a weapons configuration. It'd still be a little weird but you avoid a connotation of defenselessness that disarm implies. Unarm that helicopter and get it equipped for anti-armor. Vs Disarm that helicopter and get it equipped for anti-armor. Dr. Arbitrary fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Sep 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:30 |
|
|
CarterUSM posted:"Unarm" Don't feel bad, I came very close to making the same post. But I've been bitten before by ridiculous-looking and rarely used words, so I always double-check now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2012 04:36
|
|
