|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:
Why the gently caress didn't you slap him and tell HR immediately
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:23
|
|
Personal Anecdote I am so sorry 
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:
Did she contact a discrimination attorney?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:Why the gently caress didn't you slap him and tell HR immediately HR was in the interview room. This was a company where HR's job is to protect the company itself from existing, former, and potential employees. Someone taking maternity leave would have inconvenienced the company and cost it money, so they were totally on board with this. monster on a stick posted:Did she contact a discrimination attorney? She was told "the position has been filled by a more qualified candidate" which was true. If she had sued, they would have denied saying it, and their hire was a pro pick so there was no reason to suspect she was passed over because she was a woman or wanted to have kids. This kind of "Company first, the law second" was one of many reasons that I left the job. I was constantly stressed that she would sue and my employer would ask me to lie.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
HR always exists to protect the company, but protecting them from lawsuits is one of the common ways they do that.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
This is why you wear a wire at all times.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:She was told "the position has been filled by a more qualified candidate" which was true. If she had sued, they would have denied saying it, and their hire was a pro pick so there was no reason to suspect she was passed over because she was a woman or wanted to have kids. That they hired a pro pick isn't relevant, she almost certainly had a good case against the company especially if they found a pattern of this (which it sounds like they would have if they had been asking many women the same question.)
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Yeah... they didn't interview many women. This girl probably got in by accident with a gender/race neutral name on her resume.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Virtue posted:Why did you decide to inject race and gender into the discussion? That's just what she does because it's pretty much always relevant.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
I sat in on an interview where the applicant said they had gotten another job at a different company in town but would rather work with us even though they'd make less. We hadn't mentioned pay and we pay more than that company. They didn't get the job.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:I assume they don't hire too many women at Nice Young Men Incorporated.  ?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:Yeah... they didn't interview many women. This girl probably got in by accident with a gender/race neutral name on her resume. Even better. Discrimination attorneys love that stuff, the only thing worse than rejecting all the women after an interview is obviously rejecting them based on their name.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
ate all the Oreos posted:Why the gently caress didn't you slap him and tell HR immediately Most people aren't in the position to righteously defend others against wrongs of federal employment law at the potential expense of their job or career advancement
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Virtue posted:Why did you decide to inject race and gender into the discussion? Are you new here? GoGoGadgetChris posted:This was a company where HR's job is to protect the company itself from existing, former, and potential employees. That is HR's primary job in any company. If you've worked for one that made you feel otherwise they were either very good or very bad at their job.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Even better. Discrimination attorneys love that stuff, the only thing worse than rejecting all the women after an interview is obviously rejecting them based on their name. I always assumed they were untouchable for this. How would you prove that they received applications from a diverse pool of genders/races but only considered white males? If they were sued would they have to produce all the applications they received? And then produce the applications that they moved forward with? What would be the metric used to determine guilt? Indicating that 30% of the applications were female but the interviews were only 10% female?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:I always assumed they were untouchable for this. How would you prove that they received applications from a diverse pool of genders/races but only considered white males? Formal hiring bias studies frequently use fake resumes with similar qualifications, to see if resumes with ethnic or female names, or experience that indicates minority status (volunteering with your local mosque, etc), get weeded out. They always do. To investigate a specific company the methods would depend on the resources available and the scale of the investigation. You can subpoena applications, and also interview hiring managers under oath. In this case someone asked a blatantly illegal question in front of witnesses, so it would be pretty cut-and-dried if the victim had the means to pursue it and wouldn't face repercussions for doing so. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:it would be pretty cut-and-dried if the victim had the means to pursue it and wouldn't face repercussions for doing so. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in. Freaking bingo on that part. The whole thing made me extra sick because I knew, if they asked me to lie or hold my tongue, I'd do it, because I needed the job.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:I always assumed they were untouchable for this. How would you prove that they received applications from a diverse pool of genders/races but only considered white males? I don't know the exact number since I'm not an attorney specializing in discrimination law, though something like that, yes. There's a reason a lot of companies have moved to automated resume screeners that filter based on keyword, so they can filter out garbage resumes but not have someone claim they are also filtering out protected classes. I'm not sure whether you blowing the whistle would count as "retaliation" for legal purposes; the lawyer I know said that retaliation was an even bigger deal than the act of discrimination itself when it came to damages.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:Freaking bingo on that part. The whole thing made me extra sick because I knew, if they asked me to lie or hold my tongue, I'd do it, because I needed the job. I dunno, the payout from the wrongful termination suit would've been pretty sweet.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:
My wife got asked that in an interview. She ended up working there, and you'll be shocked to hear that the work environment sucked  https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/6a59kr/mother_spent_inheritance_money_left_for_college/ Mother spent inheritance money left for college (self.personalfinance) submitted 9 hours ago by GeneralYorrick quote:Looking through past tax records, my dad and I found out that my brother and I got $11,000 each (in stocks and bonds) from my late grandmother. Bringing this up with my mother, she said that the money was gone. Asking around, I discovered that the money was meant for college. Turns out my mother spent all $22,000 on court costs (and alternate medicine treatments which we didn't need) in an attempt to try to get my dad to pay for said alternative treatments. Not only did mom steal from her kids, she spent it on "alternative medicine" magic beans
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:Not only did mom steal from her kids, she spent it on "alternative medicine" magic beans And suing the dad for not paying for the magic beans!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/6a59kr/mother_spent_inheritance_money_left_for_college/ This happens often enough that if you want to leave money to someone who is still a child and want to make sure they don't spend it on jelly beans or something, you should consider ponying up and getting an actual trustee at a bank or Vanguard or something. (At the very least you can sue the bank.) There's a fantastic book called Beyond the Grave by Gerald and Jeff Condon that is basically a volume of estate planning horror stories.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:That's edited? What the hell is the original then?! Oh wow! I guess he reused this template then. Ah, hah, that's the original. My bad. http://explosm.net/comics/1896/
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
People often ask illegal questions naively rather than maliciously too. I talk to a lot of startups about hiring and the percentage that might ask things like "do you have any kids?" or "whereabouts do you live?" (both just to be social) is about 110. We did a lot of interviewing and implicit bias training at my last job, and people were always very surprised at what you shouldn't be asking.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Wait, you can't ask where they live? Like, not even what town?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:Wait, you can't ask where they live? Like, not even what town? Nope, think about how much implicit information there is in where people live. Does a white-collar outfit hire a candidate with a "ghetto" address? This is a good article about prohibited interview questions that's really illuminating.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
22 Eargesplitten posted:Wait, you can't ask where they live? Like, not even what town? No. If you want to make polite/semi-revelant location-based small-talk, you can ask "How was the commute? Was getting here okay?"
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
An interviewer once noticed my cell phone's area code (which was for the city we were in, but not that exact neighborhood) and demanded to know where I lived, and told me not living in the same neighborhood as the office was a dealbreaker. The neighborhood was comprised exclusively of multi-million-dollar homes and luxury condos, and the position paid $32k a year.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Nope, think about how much implicit information there is in where people live. Does a white-collar outfit hire a candidate with a "ghetto" address? uhhhh quote:What you can't ask: How long have you lived here? the article is hilariously self contradictory and doesn't cite anything.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Zo posted:uhhhh There are lots of things it could cite, but I'm on my phone so 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Colin Mockery posted:No. If you want to make polite/semi-revelant location-based small-talk, you can ask "How was the commute? Was getting here okay?" Nope. Don't ask about how they traveled.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:There are lots of things it could cite, but I'm on my phone so lol sure feel free whenever to find a source confirming that interviewers can't ask what your address is
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Nope, think about how much implicit information there is in where people live. Does a white-collar outfit hire a candidate with a "ghetto" address? I guess that makes sense, I've been asked that all the time. Maybe it's for the best I mentioned it this time, since my last job was in Northern Colorado's biggest ghetto, but I don't live there (gently caress Greeley).
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Zo posted:lol sure feel free whenever to find a source confirming that interviewers can't ask what your address is https://www.google.ca/search?q=interview+question+where+do+you+live&oq=interview+question+where+do+you+live
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:https://www.google.ca/search?q=interview+question+where+do+you+live&oq=interview+question+where+do+you+live yes good job coming up with a google search where the garbage article linked above is the first result you know, the one that both says you can ask what your address is but not where you live 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
An ex-coworker has opened her own horse stable. The stable is open for riding lessons and birthday parties. From the six months or so it's existed, the Facebook shows only one party. Perhaps two people have commented on riding there. I will continue to check in. I have not had that many bad with money coworkers. One was his own special category, though. The worst was when he called up his sister to beg for $40. So he could buy a replica athletic jersey. He didn't have $40 to his name at that time, but had to get that jersey. He also wouldn't deposit his paychecks in a financial institution, but rather exchange them for a Walmart MoneyCard.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
 Total price: $1,949.35 
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
RC and Moon Pie posted:The worst was when he called up his sister to beg for $40. So he could buy a replica athletic jersey. He didn't have $40 to his name at that time, but had to get that jersey. He also wouldn't deposit his paychecks in a financial institution, but rather exchange them for a Walmart MoneyCard.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Asking about potential openings when a company isn't actively hiring (to your knowledge) is actually smart. Coming fresh out of grad school (PhD in EE), this was indeed a really good strategy. It showed that I actually was aware of their work (by ready the work they published in journals and conferences), and not just looking for a job. Also as others have mentioned, sometimes a job opening is about to be posted online, but they are waiting until the funding is secured. So if you get lucky and contact them ~1-4 weeks before they post the opening, your resume is at the top of the stack. Of the four positions I applied for using this strategy, I was invited for three onsite interviews, got an offer from two of them, and accepted one of them. Of the 20+ other positions which I applied for through the regular online process I was invited to ~2 interviews and it went nowhere.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
I've got content! So, I work in a small FedGov office. My boss and I are the only permanent staff, but we hire 2-3 seasonals every year during the summer. They're decent seasonal positions, GS-4 or 5 ($15ish/hr) with cheap govt housing available and at least 150-200 hrs of OT. So a reasonable seasonal position. The issue is we're in a remote location, and hiring tends to be difficult because no one wants to come work for a summer in the middle of nowhere. So we kind of take what we can get. Another employee in a nearby office had a niece who lived in Nebraska or somesuch who was interested in working for us. So we have her apply and she calls us and we answer all her questions, hit it off pretty well. The job itself is a pretty easy gig, so the interpersonal stuff is most important. Both my boss and I think she would be a great fit. We would still have to do the interview and everything, but we both agreed that she would be a good hire. Posting closes, we pull the applicant list. No one is on it. Not even Nebraska lady. We call her up and ask her what happened. She hemmed and hawwed, and said she was going to, but thought about it and decided she wanted something not seasonal and for more money. Which is quite tough to come by with no qualifications or post-secondary education. But, whatever. We wish her well and that was that. Not necessarily BWM. The BWM comes in when we chatted with the other employee a few days later. Turns out her niece was going to take our job, quit her previous ($9/hr) job to take our job (even though it didn't start until June) , and then didn't take ours. So now she has no job. And we have no seasonals. The government is now going to have to pay more so our short staff can cover the hours that we need to cover. So BWM all around.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:36 |
|
|
According to Title 7 of the CRA of 1964, federally protected classes include race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Age and disability were specifically added by later individual statutes. Some states add language specifically relating to sexual orientation/gender status. You're also protected from discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities because of the equal pay amendment. Unless you can make the case that your status is a protected class of the variety discussed above (I'm looking at you, poverty), it's not illegal for employers to discriminate against you. Felons, for instance, aren't a "protected class" from discrimination so long as you're not ALSO specifically discriminating by race (or some wonky state law prevents discrimination by felony status). I can ask you how you got to the interview, and then when you tell me you don't have a car and have to take the bus every day, make the decision not to hire you on that basis. I can ask where you live and make the decision not to hire you on that basis, provided my decision can't be framed as being explicitly racist. This bullshit about "can't ask about whether I live or have a car" has literally no basis in reality, and people are readily discriminated against for socioeconomic status every single day with zero legal ramifications. Sex? National origin? You have a case, and a discrimination attorney will HAPPILY dive in.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2017 12:44
|
|
