Slashdot Mirror
Getting Over the Stigma of a Previous Job?
Subm asks: "Some friends-of-friends worked at a company with such a high profile downfall their past employer became a liability. They weren't involved in causing the downfall, but with the name 'Enron' on their resumes, interviews were spent defending their past employment. SCO is more focused in its industry than Enron, was and its reputation is in a downward spiral in that industry (Unix and GNU/Linux, not lawsuits, that is). SCO's staff will have to look for other jobs sooner or later, and most within the Unix/GNU/Linux community. Can good workers get over the stigma of an employer's reputation? How will working at SCO affect its staff's careers? Does anyone at SCO talk about this?"
If you can do the work, and do it well - - and you're reliable and honest and willing to take what's offered in the way of starting compensation - - many doors will open.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
- Chief Financial officer of Enron: Not hiring
- Poor grunt at Enron who had no clue what hit him: Could look past that to his real experience.
- Lower level accountant at Enron: My get some questions asked in an effort to determine their position in all the mess
Obviously many don't think that way and wouldn't touch an ex-Enron employee with a ten foot telephone pole and I really feel sorry for them.However for every door closed there's a door open, consider writing a book about the mess or posing for playboy for example (they did a women of Enron IIRC)? You get the idea there...
IMHO there's always an opportunity for you...just look....
...in bed
I'd say it depends. I worked at one company, and then several years later was applying for work at its direct competitor. The stigma didn't carry over (they offered me a job); instead, they were far more interested in what I had done and how it matched up with the job opportunity. They went out of their way not to ask me questions that tread on possible NDA (non-disclosure agreement) territory.
Unless your friends-of-friends are actively involved in upper management (director level +), they shouldn't have problems. If they are involved in upper-level management, then they already know several executive-level headhunters who will find them new jobs in a hurry. Sucks, but that's how it goes when you play at that level.
It's tough moving away from a former employer. I recently left a position to pursue better opportunities. My former employer (really the owner) was furious that I had the gaul to leave. They threatened me with lawsuites, they harrased me. They just couldn't let go.
I gave that company three long hard years, and developed some absolutely killer applications for them. Now, if an prospective employer calls them, they make me out to be some malicious, spiteful Developer who left them high and dry. Three years of stellar work... down the drain.
With that said, I guess the best advice is that employment is like a marriage, you need to check them out, just as much as they do you. Else your left with stigma of the former employer, either you on them, or them on you. Either case, it's not good.
The items I look for in hiring are:
If you are honestly doing your job and have nothing to do with any corrupt or questionable business practices, would you really want to work for a place that blacklists you based upon your commited work to a percieved "unethical" orginization?
Dude, I don't know if you are being serious or not. If you are, I am shocked.
I can not believe that you would put your wife at risk this way.
On the medical side of things:
HIV viral loads are more sensitive for early HIV infection. They were swabbing your various orifices because those are typical areas for gonorrhea and chlamydia that can be passed around during various sexual practices.
Davak
The original poster's point is not lost. If a scandal becomes apparent in June and people quit by July, I think that says well of them. Ultimately, I do think the rank-and-file gives implicit consent to bad behavior, and should hold themselves accountable. They can't know ahead of time, but they can be held accountable for how they react to what they do know when they learn it.
Yes, but
Of course, not all risks are created equal. Hiring an ex-SCO employee could be hiring a plant; someone who will be placing SCO code in their new employer's product for future litigation in exchange for financial consideration on the side, etc. This is a real risk, but a pretty remote one.
Far more likely than the possible-but-remote possibility outlined above, and far more troublesome, are the simple consiquences of having unethical people in your ranks, whether it be to moral (back-stabbing of fellow employees), effeciency (covering up one's own mistakes by shifting blame to another, resulting in incorrect corrective action being taken, etc.), or liability exposure of the company (unethical behavior towards clients to pad one's own performance, unethical behavior on behalf of the company but unbeknownst to its CEO), and so on.
Anyone still working at SCO, knowing what is widely known now, isn't someone with the kind of ethical or moral foundation I would want within my ranks. The risk of damage (to morale, to our firm's reputation, etc.) is far too high, and the possible reward (a decent employee hired on the cheap) is both not worth it (the difference between getting a cut-rate ex-SCO employee and paying someone with a less questionable resume something closer to market value doesn't begin to outweigh the risks) and far too fleeting (sooner or later that underpaid employee is going to want to be paid market value and demand a raise).
Does this mean all current SCO employees are unethical? No, it doesn't. But given the widespread knowledge within the industry of SCO's current behavior and its ethical implications, of which no employee can realistically or believably claim ignorance (and doing so would be quite telling in its own right), one can pretty much reduce their willingness to stay to a few possiblities, all negative qualities in a potential employee:
None of these possibilities bode well for the success of a potential hiree, or their contribution to the hiring firm. Indeed, they represent substantial risk to any future employer and offer no significant benefit to counterbalance that risk.
Sorry, SCO denizens. There's no work for you here, at any price.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
What if they're in debt and need the money? If my options were work for SCO or don't have a place to live, I'd work for SCO.
What if you have a sick family member, and need the health insurance the company provides you?
They should simply be asked: Did you do your job to the best of your ability whether you agreed with management or not?
If they say yes, hire them, anyone that'll do a good job there will do a good one for you.
If they say no, I did my best to sabotage their antiGNU efforts show them the door and say thank you very much for taking your time to come down, then warn your buddies at lunch just in case the guy ever shows up at their business. If they have no more personal integrety than that you can't trust them enough to hire them, they'll do the same thing to you as soon as the coffee vender puts in a blend they don't like, their favorite candy is out at the machine, etc.
You hire people to get work done, not to go off on their own prima-donna crusades.
It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
Fortunately it is easy to recognize a Lunix zealot in a job interview. Just ask him what he thinks of Microsoft operating systems in a company network.
;)
You'll have to be more specific than that or you may end up confusing Mac zealots with Linux zealots... similar, but different
You leave no room for the concept that a current employee has a job, gets up in the morning, goes to work, does their work, goes home, goes to bed just so they can get money to pay the rent.
If I worked at SCO, I don't think I'd want to work for you...
|>>?
... one can pretty much reduce their willingness to stay to a few possiblities, all negative qualities in a potential employee: Unethical: they stay because they value their income above personal ethics cowardice: they stay because they fear change more than hanging on to an ever-more untenable situation... Oh Yeah! I am sure that most of the overworked, underpaid staff who have no choice but to live from paycheck to paycheck and whose main concern is, "If I lose this job, my kids lose thier medical insurance," are just stupid, unethical or cowards. Before you jump all over this with, "I am talking about the programmers/techs, not the whole company..." Enter the real world - most people (programmers/techs/support, even admin assnt's) do not have the luxury of letting their ethics win out over a paycheck - especially when they are simply the innocent crew of a ship steered by a lunatic.
You also missed one important possible attribute that a SCO employee may have: the desire to feed his kids in a bad job market. The idea of explaining to your children why they're having to move into public housing and buy milk with coupons might be enough to make someone want to stick it out until their idiot CEO is replaced by someone more rational.
Talk about morality all you want, but given the current IT career options, it could be suicidal to quit a full-time job. If you're blind to the possibility that there may be good, talented people at SCO, then that's a shame.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Remember, the original SCO is now Tarantella, Inc., and a SCO employee of 5 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with the actions of the current SCaldera. Do such people deserve the opprobrium anyway? Similarly, should Ransom Love be blamed for the actions taken by Darl McBride?
MCI/Worldcom was one of the early corporate adopters of PHP. If you were interviewing for an IT position and wanted a forward-thinking individual, would you pass over an ex-Worldcom employee based on the ethics problems of Bernard Ebbers and his (probably small) cabal?
A single individual can rarely take credit for large corporate efforts (i.e. implementing an ERP system, etc.). Similarly, outside of situations where corporate officers are legally responsible, individuals should not be blamed for corporate wrongdoings.
If you claim after having said why not just say, "I see some code that is identical, but I know nothing of its true origins" since there are obviously many, many more examples of identical code in Linux, BSD, and SCOwhatever. Moreover, many others have been making the same conclusions bases on the same scant evidence.
Integrity is the willingness to do what is right even when no one is looking. I have deliberately made choices knowing I would lose my job and career but did so anyway because it was simply the right thing to do. So it should be with the SCO employees.
I am the CIO of my company. What do you think the chances of any post-SCO-implosion employee being hired by me? Slim to none.
I'm sick and tired of people who know only about situational ethics.
I absolutely agree - let me say that up front. Given a such a choice, I would feed my family first.
Ethics, however, is a deeper topic than either/or in a given situation. While it is true that companies go bad (like SCO), this is somewhat rare, I think. At least, most of the companies I've worked with both as a consultant and as an employee (more than 100, easily) rarely was much more than disingenuous on the edge cases. When they were more than that, I was among many that pitched the argument in the other direction.
Truly nasty companies are easy to spot: they target a market that has a weakness they think they can exploit. SCO (at least publically) thinks it can use legal attacks against Linix; Telemarketers attempt to exploit old people; credit councillor companies prey on those in debt. Most (not all, but most) reasonable companies realize they are part of a chain of commerce. Think about how your company fits into that chain.
I believe evil employers are rare. Should you find yourself in bed with one, leave. Worse, should you be employed by one, leave quickly!
I must say, I'd be very hesitant to hire someone who tolerated, say, Enron or SCO's behavior. I've been the part of some creepy deals, and when they crossed the line, I stopped taking part. I've been involved with startups that wanted to "grow" though non-standard methods, and I have refused to take part. What "the line" is varies for various people, but one bright line is what gets reported in the news. On a personal basis, I've missed out on some things because I wouldn't be dishonest. And that's not only OK, but very important to me. Because that's important to me, someone who facillitated massive fraud would at the very least be subject to a good, hard look. At least until the EEOC comes down with the No White Collar Criminal Left Behind recomendation.
I suppose I can only say that if you find yourself at an ethically challenged company now, with constraints (family, debt, whatever) that don't give you much room, the single best thing you can do for yourself is to find a local company that can use your skills, think about how you can add value to their company, and go talk to them about your situation, and how you can help their situation. Odds are many will turn you down, but you will find a job with a company that doesn't fuck people over, and still be able to feed your family. And remember, for every company that turns you down, you're learning a lot by thinking seriously about the business they do.
I forget what 8 was for.
While you can stretch the truth and obfuscate on a resume, its a really bad idea to lie. Generally you will get caught out and things can get really ugly.
Especially someone technical who had nothing to do with the decision processes that led to the Enron/Worldcom/Tyco/SCO type insanity should put an accurate employment history on their resume and be prepared to bring an interview back to the correct subject: their ability to perform the job they are applying for. It would be a good idea to have answers for "questions" like: "Why did you stay there?", "Convince me that you had nothing to do with their accounting practices.", etc. These will be issues for some people so be ready for them.
Be prepared to address someone who keeps drifting back to the company and its policies directly with a "I had nothing to do with the upper management who did this stuff." This is also a good place to brown-nose a little and say that one of the things that attracted you to the company you're interviewing with is their good repuatation, etc. since this also puts your role at Enron or whoever into perspective to the person interviewing you. It should bring up for the interviewer how little control they have over such things.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
In other words, they want to work for a company that provides them with the very best job that there is. And that might not be you, but they still have to pay the rent, right?
I bet you'd hire someone that didn't quite fit your needs knowing fully that you'd fire them later if a better suited individual came along if your company couldn't otherwise function without someone in the position.
So why is it o.k. for you to put your company's needs ahead of your employees and not o.k. for them to do the very same thing?
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
I am a former Anderson employee. Never had been interviewd by anyone stupid enough to think that I, in my position, had anything to do with the scandal. Unless your job is in accounting or you're the former CEO, no one is going to think you're the cause of the troubles. If they ask why you didn't immediately leave, just say that you were comited to the project you were working on and did not want to abandon your manager and team mates just because the company was going through hard times. Be sure to highlight the success of your team/division and shift the conversation from having to defend your former employer, and maybe make it sound like you have some commitment to your work in the process.
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business