Slashdot Mirror
U.S.Laws May Make Online Job Hunting Harder
j00bar writes "CNN/Fortune is reporting that applying for a job online is going to get harder. 'New federal guidelines meant to standardize how employers track data on the diversity of their job-applicant pool are taking effect starting today for jobs at federal contractors -- and similar rules will kick in later this year at U.S. companies with more than 50 employees. And resumes and search approaches that worked perfectly well before may no longer do the trick.'"
Sigs cause cancer.
So in order to get a more diverse and random selection of applicants, we're going to shrink the qualified applicant pool by making it more difficult to apply for a job? Can someone explain to me how this is supposed to increase diversity? I would think that if you want a more diverse selection, you would want to increase the qualified applicant pool so you have more people to choose from.
New federal guidelines meant to standardize how employers track data on the diversity of their job-applicant pool are taking effect starting today for jobs at federal contractors -- and similar rules will kick in later this year at U.S. companies with more than 50 employees.
Kind of makes you wonder why anyone bothers to vote for the GOP anymore. For all I can tell, the true Republicans have departed for the Grey Havens with Bilbo and the Elves.
I think we can all see from real-world examples such as Wal-mart how necessary this is. Corporations are out to make a dollar, the only reason they have in the current market to keep their workforce diversified is to avoid getting sued. Hopefully this will make sure that more subtle discrimination is kept in check.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
It is our place and decision to run online employment boards how we see fit and put up descriptions of our jobs and post our skills to our own likings. We are free to find the people who we think may be good at the job by looking at their resume
Plus, what the crap, if I "apply" for a job online they look at my resume and they talk to me, they setup and interview. Now if some @#*(%& employer hires an employee purely based off what is said of a bleeding website then they deserve a crappy employee.
IMHO, of course.
Menya zovut Shnur
Instead of online job applications remaining relatively unbiased by age, race, culture, or even gender in some cases, now US guidelines are going to require that you specify if your are a minority, culture preference, a woman, your age, and other statistics that will force employers not to hire the best candidates, but to fulfill diversity quotas.
Good one.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Searching and applying for jobs online is already difficult enough. With applicant pools numbering in the thousands for many jobs, it's already a royal pain in the ass to get in for an interview. Aside from that, even if you do get an interview it might be one of those "well, we know we won't hire this one but we need to interview X number of people" and you end up being asked such illustrious questions as "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound?" (yes, an actual interview question for a part-time job at $8.50/hr).
Keep your resume up-to-the-minute current. "The rules allow companies to pick a random pool of applicants by searching the job boards for 'most recent' qualified applicants," Crispin notes. "In those cases, no one will even look at a resume that is more than two or three weeks old." Yikes.
Oh whatever, if the company is looking for someone with experience that most don't have they are going to look closely at the resumes. If anyone can do the job in the applicant pool they aren't going to care one way or the other.
For the jobs that I have interviewed for through monster.com and careerbuilder.com applications, I have received a few offers -- none of which bettered my current job security and benefits (the pay was better).
We don't need laws to make it more difficult to find work -- we need laws that make the jobs we have better than they already are.
To totally hose a good system to make it "fair" to people. Sorry, applying for jobs is not a "random" process. Both the worker and the company want what is best for them. picking people at "random" hurts the applicant and the company by bad pairings. way to go dc, inefficency is key!
GEEZ...
8 .htm
This applies to contractors who are going to provide employees/contractors to FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JOBS. Not all business in the US. http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/esa/ESA2005195
This sounds like it was written specifically for lawyers to bring more Class Action lawsuits against companies and reap big rewards for themselves. Here is a noose, please put your neck in it.
How long after they require all this tracking till they specify how many of X applicants you must have to obtain a federal contract? I would figure only a few years.
The only reason to track diversity is to punish when it does not meet that requirement of the day.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
an applicant must "express interest" in the job
Surely you wouldnt work in a place you have no interest in!
Peace, Love, Unity, Respect
I wonder, though, if this isn't going to be a good thing for job applicants. Qualified applicants, anyway.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
This is a big deal and the only reference is this story. I could find nothing else. The story doesn't answer the diversity subject. BS I say.
It seems they are going to regulate this country to the point where it's impossible to find a job. When's the last time any of the people making all these stupid laws actually tried to get a job? In the olden days you could walk into a place with a help wanted sign and get a job that day and just work - maybe for just that day or maybe for twenty years. Now it's so expensive for companies to hire people and such a risk for them to give someone a try that they often don't fill vacancies for great periods of time and only then when they find an applicant that has exactly the needed skills and referenced. No more picking someone with some skills and the ability to learn and just training them. God no - they could turn out to be a moron or lazy and you can't fire them because it's such a nightmare to do so. The number of unemployed in this country is pretty huge and the time a lot of people can go unemployed can be many months and it all comes down to all the red-tape involved.
It's great to protect people from shitty employers but not a good idea to create so much red tape that you're keeping a significant number of your citizens from finding work. All this red tape is a good part of the reason temps and illegals are so popular as employees.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
There are a lot of scare phrases in that article which are typically used to drum up business for consultants. I would talk to your Legal Dept (for a bigger employer) or CPA (for a small employer) before trashing every resume in the Inbox.
sPh
...another excuse for businesses to outsource. I can see the comments now: "There aren't any qualified applicants out there, so we're forced to seek the expertise elsewhere".
Hey, lawmakers, how about similar restrictions on outsource criteria? Perhaps something along the lines of less than 10% of the workforce can be under the age of 10, half the workforce must be female, etc.
"With open markets and a level playing field, no one can out-produce or out-compete the American worker." - President Bush, Feb.1, 2006
It is also illegal to hire an illegal alien in the US. How many businesses got fined for doing that last year nation wide? The answer is somewhere between 1 and 0. This will be ignored.
But I have yet to find any government links to back up that assertation.
I'm not even aware of any CURRENT rules that state that HR departments have to keep applications stored for x amount of years to verify EEOC/Diversity requirements.
(Current employees yes... applications? No.)
I'm confused. In legal terms, what is the difference between a "rule" and a "law"? Is this a law or merely a guideline for selecting candidates? And does it only apply to government positions (through private or federal employees)? And, furthermore, can a company be legally liable for not following "rules" or guidelines? Perhaps this is meant to limit the number of companies or agencies that provide employees to the government?
"Beauty is the ultimate defense against complexity." - David Gelernter
What would happen, if I just tell them that my grand-grand-grand father came from Africa so deep down I feel like I am part of a minority?
Actually I never check the "White" or "Caucasian" box on the race section on the forms, because putting myself in a race category just reinforces the fact that there are race categories and people are somehow treated differently because of it. Actually the word "Caucasian" comes directly from studies of eugenics at the turn of the century and I consider using it just as offensive as someone using the "n"-word, because it implies endorsing the values and attitudes of the time.
So if your pal at Ostrich Corp. wants to refer you for a job, know what Ostrich's policy is...
Remember folks, Ostrich Corp's first policy is to get your head out of the sand and start winging it.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
My God folks, the article offers no clue whatsoever about where this supposed set of rules is coming from. No Legislative reference, no Government department - Nothing.
Then it spins into a collection of rather bizarre "tips" for job applicants, most of which don't really seem to have anything to do with the alleged changes in government hiring practices, or even reality.
Even for slashdot this is pretty weak.
Three Squirrels
You would think that putting "Always turn TPS reports in on time" on my resume would land me more interviews!
I don't see anywhere in that post where he claimed it was ONLY white christian males that founded the US.
So, what led you to believe that was what he meant?
PS, we all know what it was, but I'm interested to see if you'll admit it.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
In the new system, federal regulators will be checking to see that companies are keeping diversity data on all applicants, according to a new, more uniform definition of "applicant."
How is this going to effect the computer programmer/contracting positions. We are currently hiring and most of our applicants are of Asian decent. Does this mean that we are not picking "randomly" enough or that we are racist against white developers? I wonder if we hire a lot of Indians it will balance out all the white management we have. This is such a grey area and I'm really not sure what they expect to accomplish.
Back in 2000 I was searching for a job. I saw a listing. With all the other criteria there was one that said "7 years Windows 95 experience" WTF. That would mean someone would have to have been using Win95 since 1993. Now I know there were betas running around back then and I had one of them at the time but other than me and a few other techies would have actually have had that experience?
Also having to have exact skills to the job listing would increase the ammount of people lieing on their resumes which means that employers no long could trust that the resume was valid.
Support our Troops
Impeach our President
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF
So you're saying that because generations of EUROPEAN whites engaged in villainous acts, it's ok to punish their ancestors?
What's that saying about two wrongs...
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
I think we can all see from real-world examples such as Wal-mart how necessary this is. Corporations are out to make a dollar, the only reason they have in the current market to keep their workforce diversified is to avoid getting sued. Hopefully this will make sure that more subtle discrimination is kept in check.
What nonsense. If a corporation was only hiring people "to make a dollar," then they'd only hire the most effective, efficient people possible. You know, hiring people based on their actual merit. For that matter, if "making a dollar" is partly accomplished by lowering your overhead, then hiring the people willing to work for the least (in non-demanding retail positions, for example) would also be standard practice... and based on demographics, that would disporportionately result in the hiring of minorities and recent immigrants. So, no need to worry about quotas, right?
Or, am I confused about what you think is the "subtle discrimination" as it relates to how a corporation "makes a buck?" How, in your view, does discrimination help a large corporation actually make a buck? Or are you making a very sly, dubious, stealthy comment implying that minorities aren't as able to help an employer make a buck? Make some damn sense, or be more honest about your biases.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In many cases, government jobs are already required to be advertised widely, and candidates must be considered on the basis of their qualifications. This means, that if you have your golfing buddy in mind for the job, all you have to do is make sure the qualifications listed match his (and only his) profile. Now, if applicants have to conform to the qualifications 100% this is a much, much easier process. Imagine a wanted ad like "senior business consultant with 13 years experience in federal auditing blahblah and a minimum of 3, but no more that 4 weeks of experience in an abbatoir", or whatever crappy holiday job the schmuck had.
......"
Of course, if you do want to give a lot of people a shot, you just state "requirements: carbon based lifeform, literacy" and "the following are a plus:
So, really, this helps the government hiring cheats.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
The effect here will probably be to drive companies to third party recruiters, who will do the direct interaction with the applicant.
Why? Because candidates are not going to reword their resume for every employer--that's tremendously expensive for the employee. Also, many qualified applicants probably won't have the skills to "search engine optimize" their resume to get noticed. And companies won't want to fall afoul of the law, so they're unlikely to relax rules and "read between the lines."
This will probably create a huge market opportunity for companies who will handle the minor changes from job to job--they will search the big job boards (like Monster), find jobs matching your profile, and send you a list. You tick off the ones you're interested in, and they will make the minor changes to your resume to make sure you line up properly.
Congress passes these ever more bigoted laws (in the name of diversity of course, gotta love NewSpeak) so they can feel good about having 'done something' about a problem that increasingly is made worse by more laws because it has been mostly solved. We long since passed the point where the negative impact of more laws were outweighed by the positive benefits. Thirty-forty years ago, yea, there were some serious problems still lingering in society. We talked a good "everybody is equal" but practice didn't match theory very well.
But these days we have, if anything, overshot equality and went to tribalism amok. These days it seems the only ones who quotes King's "I have a Dream" speech's line about judging everyone on their ideas instead of their skin is Jack Kemp and Newt Gingrich because the entire 'Civil Rights' establishment has invested all their political capital on maintaining quotas and pretending to be victims while having all the trappings (limo, jets, mistresses, etc) of the wealthy. Listen up folks, when (in theory if not in practice) the left, the right and just about everyone in between are in agreement on an issue it really isn't much of an issue anymore. The only reason it is still an issue is because too many people have made an industry out of "Oprah Nation" style victimhood as career.
Democrat delenda est
Hurrah - someone with research skills!
7 6.htm
7 .html
The actual rule:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/20050201
Obligation To Solicit Race and Gender Data for Agency Enforcement Purposes
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060207-612
Do you know what the OFCCP is? It is the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, and that little taste of bureaucratic alphabet soup is a part of the Department of Labor's Employment Standards Administration. The OFCCP's job is to ensure "that employers doing business with the Federal government comply with the laws and regulations requiring nondiscrimination." In essence, that makes the OFCCP one of the many departments that exist within the government to monitor activities and make sure things are done properly and fairly. A noble goal, to be sure, but the OFCCP has distinguished itself with a new rule going into effect this week regarding the tracking of those who apply for jobs on the Internet, and it may have repercussions for anyone using electronic means to search for a new career.
Three Squirrels
Sorry, but you do not have a RIGHT to a job. And especially to any PARTICULAR job. You only have the right to compete for the position. But what's REALLY boggling my mind is this is coming out of an administration that is supposedly so far in bed with business interests, that the resultant child is several weeks overdue. . . .
At the end of your resume cut and paste the job requirements. Of course this breaks Dice and other on-line places to search, but if you apply then all you do is list everything they've put.
It's hard enough to find clued people now. Thanks for making it harder, asshats.
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
From TFA: To comply with these new rules and get the most diversity, employers will have an incentive to keep the pool of applicants for each job relatively small and as random as possible.
Thank God we have the "Small Government" Republicans looking out for the American workers!
Increasing diversity by limiting the pool of applicants? I wonder who paid any number of *our* representatives to push this BS...
I've been in IT since '79 and *every* job I've had has been an inside referral. The great part about it is that it bypasses all the keyword loving HR drones. The first time the HR hears about me is when I show up to fill out my 401K paper work.
Diverse -that- gooberment.
No - not through pr0n, but by removing newsgroups from our subscription. It sucks - I had a cool tool to scan newsgroups - now I'm stuck using their "alternatives" such as yahoo groups or google.
Good luck!
Just yesterday I was officially informed of this. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1302977/000 110465906006216/a06-4351_1ex99d1.htm I guess I should ask what script to use to keep my posted resumes "up-to-the-minute" and to edit them on the fly to include the buzzwords they want.
zenray
...an overbearing, overweening, unresponsive , unaccountable government.
*You* elected 'em.
Think before voting, next time.
Try holding your fave politicians ACCOUNTABLE for once. Sure, career bureaucrats are responsible, but they are told what to do BY CONGRESS.
- A disgusted native-American male-lesbian libertarian activist
...description for your friendly Dept of Labor.
Perfect, actually.
In spite of:
.NET, VB, SQL Development
- 20 years professional experience.
- 7 years IT manager
- C, C++, C#,
- 10+ years project management
No interviews or contact whatsoever.
The only way to really get response is through personal and direct contacts with firm you are interested in.
If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
Good Morning Citizen!
Friend Computer has randomly chosen you! Yes, YOU CITIZEN! out of all the applicants for reactor-core cleaning duty!
Rules implement Laws.
here
This Annie person ought to be fired, IMO.
For the applicant we are saying "let us know if you have these things, but still apply if you don't."
The idea is that the more accurately the applicants understands the requirements, the more effective they can be at communicating their suitability.
I recommend this approach to everyone. Oh, and don't let human resources write, or even stongly edit, your ads for you. I'm not saying they're morons, you understand (heaven's no), but they'll put in crap like "We are looking for a self-motivated team player with excellent communication skills seeking a challenging position in a dynamic, cutting-edge company". Ack.
Ok...so first you have to meet the exact requested skills...I think we all know how insane most places are about that. Typically the idea on the company end is to list a ton of stuff they have, so they can just grab the folks that meet as many as possible and use them in multifaceted positions (see reduce cost by paying 1 guy to do 4 jobs). The other part I am really confused about, is that generally speaking isn't the internet a fairly raceless place when it comes to this sort of thing? I mean unless you are putting "Black" or "Hispanic" or other minority group under your qualifications on your resume, they are all pretty faceless, raceless submissions. Couldn't this open the door to a string of discrimination suits against affirmative action types? It seems like this could expose the problems of the most qualified applicants losing jobs because they aren't a minority and the company needs another minority group hired to keep in regulations. My impression has always been the online job searching sort of removed the racism factor, and it seems like this nonsense is putting it back in.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
I read the article and didn't see how this is anything new.
I loved the tips section about using correct spelling! If your resume doesn't have the correct spelling then you may not be found during a search....Duh!!!!
Guess it's time to add the old "P.S. I'm deaf" to my applications? I've noticed in the past whenever I mention my hearing I get ZERO responses... when I leave it out I often get interviews or an email asking for more info. Regardless, once they find out I never hear back from them. I even had a friend who was a (non-tech) recruiter and showed it to someone at their office who covered the tech jobs. "Wow! Great stuff, can't wait to meet him!" then he HAD to say "Oh, but there is one little thing"... I never heard from them. Now he knows never to mention it either. So what shall I do? If diversity is required why aren't they all over me? Anybody with more experience on this kind of thing have some advice for me? How do you tell them?
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
That if you are a "minority" your rates have just gone up?
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Will companies still be able to google for various keywords and contact the people whose resumes show up in the search results? I am getting a lot of calls from companies that found my resume on my homepage, by googling. I would hate that to change.
BTW, I never got a call from someone who found me on Monster. Go figure.
then they'd only hire the most effective, efficient people possible
This is some kind of philisophical ideal that has no analog in the real world.
In the real world, the task definition (work) can be reasonably performed by children at the lowest possible dollar per hour. (MCSE?)
and based on demographics, that would disporportionately result in the hiring of minorities and recent immigrants.
The social implications of what you advocate results in a slave-labor class. Below managerial staff, my Walmart store is the picture of diversity. Once across some salaried threshold though, the ethnic composition changes radically. This is intentional. In the real world, the owners of any amount of wealth discourage competition and social mobility.
How, in your view, does discrimination help a large corporation actually make a buck?
Hire women because I can consistently pay them less for similar work. Keep my workers poor so they can't ejudicate my labor wrong-doings. Better still, outsource labor (and indemnify the company!) to the lowest bidder and let the lowest bidder be the one who is prosecuted for labor regs infractions. There's millions of ways to exploit the system to improve a profit scenario.
Child labor and slavery are active global markets (with people buying and selling other people) with many consumers for this reason. While this is easy an easy example that provokes outrage, the mechanism is the same. Implement some policy backed up by some legislation to encourage "better" practices.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Here's one where if you fit the bill, they might let you live with them: http://portland.craigslist.org/cpg/125260914.html
If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
Trust your government they know what is in your best interest.
for injustice, for body counts based on superficial appearances. Gotta love tolerance and liberalism.
I always thought the US was a free country, at least when hiring and firing was concerned. Since when did the US turn to mandating how job applications are written? Is this aprils fool early or is it real? I can't believe what I read right now - federal regulators checking all employers with more than 40 employees for compliance with THAT law? So I need to conform to a federal standard when *trying* to hire workers? I just wait for the Supreme Court to kill that one off, since when is posting a job offer a lawsuit-loaded tripmine?
Contrary to others experience, seldom have I had to resort to referrals over the years. What usually happens is that I finish up one gig, hit dice.com, and I have another gig all set to go by the time I'm finished with the first one.
Perhaps it's how your Resume is written, perhaps it's the job boards that you use, or perhaps there are enough full-time managers out there. I can't say. But I can say that what you're claiming just isn't true. At least not for contractors.
For God sakes calm down!
All the rule is doing is defining what an applicant is. For years now companies have had to report diversity stats on all applicants that they have. This rule is defining which people that the company has to keep track of. This is actually lossening the restrictions because the company only has to keep track of a smaller amount of people.
My ancestors were European peasants as far back as we can trace it (the 30 years war, around the time of the Mayflower). They did not enslave or harm anybody, they were mostly trying to scrape together a living while armies marauded through Europe, and I would say that that's the typical European ancestry. You can't blame your troubles on me or my ancestors.
But many of those "white Europeans" that you are so fond of complaining about didn't come to the US to rape and pillage, they were facing starvation or execution (often for petty offenses) in Europe and were effectively also slaves in the US; when they finally managed to free themselves, of course, they did whatever it took to survive. Likewise, many (most?) of those Africans that were sent to the US as slaves weren't captured and transported by white Europeans, they were enslaved and shipped over to the US by other Africans.
Finally, I ask you: what notions of human rights and liberty have non-Europeans produced? Prior to the age of European empires, much of the world consisted of traditional tribal cultures, and the few big cultures like India and China were ossified, stratified, and had made racism and classism an integral part of their culture. If you view Islam as a non-European culture, then it has perhaps the closest claim of any of the other cultures to recognizing human rights and liberty, but that's a distant second to what European philosophers and humanists produced.
So would you like to explain just how this huge liberal conspiracy made it past a neo-conservative kool-aide-drinking administration and didn't get stomped by the Republican controlled house and senate? I'm thinking that it was either a very weak attempt at sarcasm on your part, or the sky in your world is a different color than it is in mine.
Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
Anyone notice all those job kiosks in department and grocery stores? It looks like you type a mini-application into them (typing filters a certain education level) and they call back later. The low-end jobs in some of these stores turns over so much they solicit a continuous supply of application.
It has been estimated that 1/8 of the world's population is a decendant of Ghengis Khan.
I always run into this problem. I try to get a job that wants me to have certain training. Yay, I have that. Now it wants x years of experience. Um, I'm trying to get that experience. So now, I just claim I'm trained in kung fu and advanced lovemaking techniques and I have 10 years experience as President of the United States.
Besides, one of my German great-grandparents was a Jew, and one half of my Dad's Italian ancestry is Black African in origin.. Should I then claim Asian or Black?
Heck, my wife is a Black Angolan immigrant. Our son is technically "African-American" since his mother is African and his father American... but he's not really an "African-American" as that term is usually understood... so where does this madness stop?
This helps racist hiring managers and places non-racist hiring managers under suspicion of being racist when they are not. Now hiring managers can intentionally or be accused of browsing and selecting only online applicants of preferred ethnicity. Just another example of well intentioned people making a mess of something that should be left alone.
I have been there before with this idiotic diversity policies. I made an offer to a minority candidate that failed to list his race on our application. I did not have a problem with it but our HR department says by law you cannot hire someone without resolving that issue. This placed me in the akward position of asking the candidate who refused despite the offer of employment and that I told him I was required by law. After some discussion the candidate finally listed his race so I could hire him however I feel that I nor the candidate should have been placed in that situation.
It also defines an applicant as someone who meets ALL the qualifications listed. This has the implication that if you miss on just one, an HR department can't consider you.
Drop out of college in the '70s just short of a degree to pursue your consulting practice or carreer (when a 4-year degree was considered a handicap) and work yourself up into a 6-figure income and a position in the top of your field by hopping between consulting and salaried positions for 30 years as you became one of the people that invented the technologies the colleges are just now trying to figure out how to teach? You better have a rep good enough to support yourself as a consultant or in startups from now on. Because starting in a few months you won't be considered for a salaried position at ANY company of over 50 (unless your contacts there can hammer the HR department to put "or equivalent experience" after the masters degree requirement.)
The one good thing that MIGHT come out of this is that it will force HR departments of large companies to cut back on the practice of over-demanding.
This is university-educated drone's welfare and hi-tek job export program.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
In the real world, the task definition (work) can be reasonably performed by children at the lowest possible dollar per hour.
But for the vast majority of jobs in developed nations, not even close to the most output per dollar.
Once across some salaried threshold though, the ethnic composition changes radically. This is intentional. In the real world, the owners of any amount of wealth discourage competition and social mobility.
Assuming for the moment that your last sentence is true, it still wouldn't lead to discrimination. It implies that the rich would want to keep *everyone* who isn't already rich down, regardless of race or sex.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
"I definitely cannot express how hurtful it is to see that word spelled out in all caps in your previous post of blatent disrespect."
I definitely cannot express in words how little I'm interested in what you CHOOSE to be offended by.
But, because I'm in the mood to spread the love, I'll do this.
YOU ARE A FILTHY, STINKING, LAZY-ASS N-WORD.
Yeah, I can see how that's so much better.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
I once went for an interview. At the time, I was a professional with about 12 years experience.
I took the day off of work, drove down the the interviewer's site for the interview. I thought it went well, they seemed interested. I left at about 1PM.
I received a rejection letter THE VERY NEXT DAY via US Snail Mail. This was a major defense contractor. The rejection letter had to go through internal mail, out to the US Mail mail, through the US Mail and be delivered the next day. The postmark on the letter was the day of my interview. I wish they had just called me and cancelled the interview. They had obviously already decided that they weren't going to hire me. It was a waste of my time and theirs as well. I considered it highly unprofessional.
On the other hand, sometimes headhunters have sent me to a job I'm grossly unqualified for. One time this happened, I was sent to interview for what turned out to be a DB Admin position. I know nothing about this. As soon as I found out, before the interview got really under way, I apologized to the interviewer for the waste of his time as I was unqualified for the position, and thanked him. When I got home, I sent him a nice letter afterwards anyways. I also called the headhunter and told him he was no longer authorized to send my resume to anyone (essentially firing him), and I told him why.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
an applicant must "express interest" in the job...
Does this apply to government jobs as well? Or do I still have to be dangerously underqualified?
No one cares what your captcha was
Houston TX, USA
Race:
1. Decline to state.
2. European American
3. American
4. Texas-American
5. Brownish-Beige
6. Other
Sex:
1. Decline to state
2. Sometimes
3. Other
Are they looking for a Time Machine Operator as well?
While I don't mind your freedom to declare "Support our Troops Impeach our President" at all, it is only a legitimate statement if that is what our "our Troops" are asking for. Otherwise you are just imposing your opinion on those who may not really care for it all that much.
This is backdoor way to hit Google and level the playing field so that Microsoft can have a chance at hiring halfway decent people, randomly.
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
Whoever modded as overrated is obviously someone that's underqualified and taking my future jobs anyway.
This just says the employer has to keep records of every person that applies for employment in a way that fits within the specified guidelines listed.
It doesn't mean said employer will not consider me if I *didn't* follow those guidelines.
For the love of Mike, people, READ THE FRICKIN' PDF!
7 6.htm
http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/fedreg/final/20050201
The rule is for FEDERAL CONTRACTORS!!! Hello, can anyone read around here. This does not apply to NON-FEDERAL CONTRACTORS. Again, READ THE PDF. It's prefereable to having morons posting comments.
... and employ no more than 48 people. Yay! I always liked small classes!
I always claim my race is "Human" and when they also ask for ethnicity, I claim "Texan".
Both are true and accurate, but those answers always piss someone off.
The federal government is threatening to cut off funding for
Pennsylvania if it does not accept the new replacement touch screen Vote-a-tons from Diabold
(and no paper trail allowed).
From the same company that delivered the 'correct' results for the state of Ohio,
they are now targeting Pennsylvania:
VoteFixing
If I remember correctly, the vote totals can be editied for 'correctness' using MS Access?
Pennsylvania:
The state where Judges get payoffs
from Legislators to approve double digit pay increases
with secret midnight voting sessions:
Payoffs
The results of secret government:
GoldDiggaz
So, Lawmakers Threaten reporters for telling the truth:
"Screw them!"
Can we please call on the U.N. to police our local state government with independent observers?
If you can tell the race of an applicant based on their online job application alone without asking it directly, then any racism you actually do harbor is accurate.
Like most federal regulations - a department proposes them, publishes it in the Federal Register, might have a hearing or two, and eventually it gets published in the Federal Register as a regulation.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
For someone who throws around a lot of pointed rhetoric, you might consider learning a bit about how the government works.
What is a black man born Japan called?
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
That's because web DESIGNERS (they LIKE to be called "programmers" but come on, who are they kidding?) are one step up from TRAINED MONKEYS.
What do I have to do, start specifying ranges as 0 to infinity?
Just because I ideally require 3 years of experience with something, it doesn't mean I won't settle for less with the right candidate.
Try hiring someone as an in-house consultant who will be working with all of these technologies.
This will be fun, especially with specifying requirements for similar technologies that are sufficiently different yet complementary. Case in point - someone who works with Windows Server since Windows 2000 can logically claim 5 years of experience with Windows Server 2003, even though that is technically impossible. Someone who has been a Java expert for a while can apply the skill to C#. What about Solaris vs. Linux?
I'd have to define range values and use conditionals to specify a requirement.
My suggestion? Remove the requirement from positions classified as Exempt under the overtime law.
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
Lets see here...
... $70k/year!
$15/hr at 90hrs/week
sweet! Sign me up.
Why is this a problem? The federal law specifies which resumes they must track for diversity tracking. Companies can always hire whom they choose and since most hires are through networking and not through HR, probably no candidate hired actually meets the posted job requirements. If anything, this is going to put the companies in an awkward position if they have to justify hiring a "underqualified" candidate over a "qualified" one. HR might have to learn how to read resumes.
They're not talking about guaranteeing a certain percentage of jobs to any minority group. They're only trying to make sure that there isn't a systemic problem with discrimination in hiring of federal contractors. That's a good thing. I'm a middle-class, middle-aged white man, and I don't want to work somewhere with discriminatory hiring practices. I want to be sure that my colleagues and I were hired based on our merits, so that I can have the best possible work environment.
Their more specific definition of applicant makes sense anyway, and I don't think it will really change things. The article gave tips that I was taught in career counseling in high school and college -- nothing new. In the dozen or so jobs I have held since my paper route at age 12, I have never gotten a job that I didn't specifically apply for at a specific company. Does the generic resumé flood technique really work out that often for an applicant or an employer? That's not my experience.
This space intentionally left blank.
The link to washington.com is a much much clearer discussion of this new rule. Again: http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol2/a008Stre ge.html
The submitted article is extremely poor at discussing the background and motivation.
Apparently, this rule boils down to the technicalities of who is considered an "Applicant" for a job.
1) Just because a company searches a database of resumes does not make the returned resumes "Applicants". So the company doesn't have to track all the resumes to report to the gov't. If you post a job and people respond, then those have to be tracked.
2) If you apply through some non-standard means, e.g. email instead of website, then companies don't have to retain your resume. This allows companies to rely on an automated process for reporting purposes. If I send my resume by homing pigeon on a napkin, then they don't have to track that.
3) Simply posting your resume online doesn't qualify you as an "Applicant" to the thousands of jobs out there. Clearly this makes sense. You must show active interest IN A PARTICULAR JOB, not just general interest in all available jobs.
HR people actually want even tighter restrictions on who is considered an "Applicant" because they don't want to track all of this spurious information. Less tracking, the easier their lives. Of course, they would prefer that no internet resumes would be considered "Applicants", but that's precisely the problem this rule is meant to address.
So clearly, this is just a rule to help reduce record keeping when the EEOC tries to enforce its broader record keeping mandate. Not a rule that makes it that much harder to apply for a job.
I didn't see any mention of the "Must meet all requirements" paranoia.
passetspike!
The law deals with the definition of "applicant", but only in data tracking. By requiring so much data to express the interest needed to be an "applicant", it seems like companies get to essentially prescreen who they want to be applicants for their diversity numbers by choosing who to ask for the required information. This definition of applicant need not be the same as the companies internal definition of applicant and seems more than a bit artificial to those of us in the tech world. Overall this article seems to be an excuse to spew the same old tips (online and off) for applying for a job.
Do the diversity forms for "race" on these rules say "pick only one"?
I have a close friend who loaths the "pick only one" census and diversity forms because a) they force her to lie, since to tell the truth she'd need to pick at least three, probably four and b) the decision of how to lie is charged, both politically and emotionally. She usually ends up choosing a different "race" each time she fills out one of those forms, because it feels more honest that way.
You can't create five or six broad categories of anything and expect that everyone will fit into exactly one category.
Federal contractors are still required to have an affirmitive action program. http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.ht m
This general means these companies have had to prove compliance and keep track of this data.
Err...what kind of jobs do you get?
Anyone out there have actual data on the diversity stats of qualified applicants for a specific job relative to the diversity stats of people actually in that job?
Get your tagline off my lawn.
So in the future all companies with 50+ employees will have to (be able to) report on all people who were 'interested' in a position and their race/ethnic background.
Does this strike anyone else as a really bad freaking idea? How long before someone tells the NSA to find all people of Middle Eastern decent who were interested in jobs in the air line industry? Or what jobs Middle Easterns are looking into... It seems like this informatio's only purpose is racial profiling. Whether under the guise of affirmative action, national security, or the war on terror, it still amounts to making a person's race and ethnicity more important then their skills and abilities.
As much as I hate AA (I'm a best person for the position backer, the free market makes race and ethnicity irrelivant), I think this is 10 times worse.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
This is not coming from this administration. This is just another step in the long journey of racial profiling the liberal left calls affirmative action. You see, liberal politicians have this strange idea that just because you have a certain percentage of a given race in a region, state, etc. that percentage of the given race needs to be reflected in the "diversity" of a given company. There are always exceptions, and this has an exception too. The exceptions comes in the form of those people who may be white. To the liberals, there idea doesn't effect white people unless it is in a negative way to positively affect another race.
This has been happening for a long time. I am surprised they didn't try this sooner. Unfortunately, these ussumptions about percentages don't take into account the backgrounds, and culture, people come from no matter what race they are. In a land of free choice, you will rarely get "equal distribution" of the percentages of races for any given job. The idea runs contrary to the human nature of free choice.
People should be free to persue the job they want regardless of their race. Race should never be a consideration for a job period. The person for the job should get the job.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Some links that shed additional light on the topic as applicable:
0 04.htm#APPLICANT
_ 37232
t .htm
Notice info on numbers of electronic resumes coming in and imagine the burden this placed on companies required to comply with the old guidelines
http://www.management-advantage.com/newsletr/apr2
Clearly written, broad discussion of new guidelines
http://www.mondaq.com/i_article.asp_Q_articleid_E
A Historical View (may be biased)
http://www.adversity.net/UniformGuidelines/defaul
Cheers.
It implies that the rich would want to keep *everyone* who isn't already rich down, regardless of race or sex.
Correct. I would say that race/gender biases are a kind of collateral damage to more powerful class issues.
Despite the painfully obvious, Americans are taught to view their society as classless and reinforce that by selling the "land of opportunity through your own hard work."
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
if all they really want is an "H1B". Sounds a lot like an ad placed so they can say "We did look for Americans to fill the job!"
If you want to win, you hire the most talented workers, period. Google would not be on top if it only hired old white males. They hire the best.
Affirmative Action is one thing, Diversity on the other hand is just good for business. I don't think anyone can deny that it is better for business to hire the best, if you were in the record industry, you'd hire Sean Combs, his race wouldnt matter. If you were running a movie studio, you might want to hire Spike Lee, his movies sell out in the box office. If you want to have cheap programmers you hire a team in India. If you want cheap programmers in America, you hire minorities. Lets face it, minorities will do the same job for less money. Females will do the same job as men for less money. I think removing affirmative action and quotas in the long term could actually hurt white males more than anyone else.
The average working class white male programmer is going to be out of a job, because the chinese, indian, black, latino, female, all will do the same job for a cheaper price. Talent is not race based, and this is why in the long term, getting rid of affirmative action and quotas actually helps minorities find jobs and prevents white males from finding jobs. Why does this make perfect sense from a political point of view? When white males lose their jobs to the minorities and females, and can't blame quotas and affirmative action, these white males will instead begin to blame minorities and females in the same way illegal immigrants are "stealing" all the jobs. Now, the white male working class will either have to blame their boss for hiring the cheapest labor, or blame the minority for taking the labor and working for cheaper. In the end, the CEO's win, because now they wont have to hire over priced white males anymore and can hire evem more immigrants and minorities to write the next Microsoft Windows, or work on the new Google code. There can only be so many bosses, but there can be plenty of workerslaves.
The group who will hurt most from this is the white male working class. This actually helps minorities because businesses will hire whoever will work cheapest. If we lower the wages and salaries, it benefits people who will accept lower salaries, which just happen to be minorities and women. So I guess this is a new type of affirmative action.
Kawolski: Compensation: $15/hr
mwheeler01: From the original posting:
Compensation: $15/hr for first 2 - 4 weeks: Likely leads to $30K - $35K annual compensation + benefits and 401K
While not great, the job isn't quite as bad as misquoting by ommision.
Uhhh: Let's assume 50 weeks a year, 5 days a week, 8 hours a day.
Hence:
So who's supposed to be the moron: The employer who posted the ad, or the job seekers who thought that it was some kind of a deal?
Or maybe somebody at Slashdot who can't do 15 X 2K in his head?
Take a 1 mile walk from a primarily black and latino flatlands Oakland Ca school, where the average school size is 600 -700 kids in a K-5 elementary school and where the average teacher at some schools has LESS THAN TWO FRICKIN YEARS of teaching experience and where some 5th grade kids I know have had first year teachers every day they have been in school, to a primarily white and asian hills school where average school size is 350 kids and average teacher experience is upwards of 15 years, and where the teacher salary differential means the average DISTRICT spending is over $1,000 per year per kid more and outside funding is also nearly $1,000 per student per year greater, and then tell me about institutional racism. Get as outraged about that as you are about 'institutional racism aagaisnt whites', and I may believe you actually care about institutional racism, and are not just whining about a minor bit of personal barrier you marginally encounter after being given a massive advantage agaisnt many, many potentially competitive kids who get destroyed in those institutionally disadvantaged schools. Until then (and yes, I'm being disruptively rude here; live with it. This kind of shit pissed me off.) just f*ck off.
When is it my turn to cash in on the affirmitive action jackpot?
Why do employers demand you tell them your gender and race, but the employers are forbiden to even ask for your age?
In IT especially, age discrimination is far more prevelent than gender or race discrimination.
these companies aren't that stupid. They know that no one credible either has those skill sets due to calendaring issues, nor would they take a job that cheap. It is so they can meet the fed requirements for using H1B's. The fed doofuses looking at it don't know, that's all they have to fake out, not any legit job applicant who would know those are BS requirements. They can say they made due dilligence to try and find a legal resident to take their job and were "forced" to import half a dozen foreign imports who they put up in a cheap apartment someplace for cheap bucks.
What if claim that I am a African American, but I am actually white.
Then you're claiming to be an immigrant from South Africa or thereabouts.
The problem with "the c-word" is that there's already an unmentionably dirty word that starts with "c". ;)
You mean this one? (Rated NSFW for language)
The law uses the term "basic qualifications" as those needed to apply: "advertised, basic qualifications". Many job postings contain a wishlist for all qualifications they would like, but few actually "spell out" what the minimum essential qualifications are.
From experience, the posted qualification list is often != to those qualifications that are mandatory and essential for the job.
Unless a job posting specifies that all "wishlist" items are "basic" qualifications, it's not clear how this will affect actual interviews.
Furthermore, questions of race, age and other discriminatory factors are usually prohibited during or before an offer of employment. Standard take has been that asking for such information, as a precondition of employment, _may_ be grounds for a discriminatory hiring lawsuit.
Forced "labeling" is discriminatory. I'd be surprised if such rules don't cause a flood of lawsuits.
This will be fun, especially with specifying requirements for similar technologies that are sufficiently different yet complementary. Case in point - someone who works with Windows Server since Windows 2000 can logically claim 5 years of experience with Windows Server 2003, even though that is technically impossible.
Would "5 years Windows Server, incl. 2003" or "5 years Visual Basic, incl. VB.NET" work?
They do generally *think* they're hiring the most effective, efficient people. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of people out there who believe that a woman is not going to be a good engineer. Or that even if she is, she's probably going to want a bunch of vacation time for a honeymoon, then maternity leave, then she'll be asking for personal days all over the place to stay home with sick kids--very inefficient! That a black person is not going to be able to handle a job where they need to communicate well with others, because she obviously just speaks 'Ebonics' if her name is Sheniqua. Or that a black man can't deal with customers in a sales position because they'll feel threatened by him. All of which lead directly to a hiring manager choosing a nice, safe white male, because he'll obviously be better at the job.
Not that this happens a lot--most younger people don't have the same level of bias that was rampant twenty years ago. It's fading. But it does still exist, and even a relatively young, enlightened HR person may still need encouraging to hire someone of a different cultural background than their own.
Denesoline Env. L.P is hiring for our Janitorial division on Suncor Site. We offer C0-paid benefits and above average wage. No experience necessary, willing to train. Starting wage $15.50/hr. Please fax Resume attn: Joy Warren @791-8355.i d=260
http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/classifieds.php?
You are not funny or intimidating.
Not for long. Before they cross the border, all illegal aliens are rounded up by Mexican government representatives and instructed on watching less TV so they reproduce faster than the Anglos, and so eventually outnumber you...
"but you have to admit it's rather heavily implied."
I read what they write, not what I THINK they MEAN in their writing. You should try it.
The only thing implied is that straight white cristian males were invovled. Anything else is YOUR bias coming to light.
Stop assuming that how you interpret something is the truth. You were wrong here, and instead of doing the adult thing, and admitting you jumped the gun because of your prejudice, you blame the poster because YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HIM.
That's what 5 year olds do. Take some responsibility for yourself, and just admit you opened your mouth without knowing what you were talking about.
But you won't. You kind never does.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?