You lied and you're proud of it. If you need to lie on your resume to get a job, then you clearly *don't* have the skills necessary.
Sometimes lying IS one of the necessary skills. But sometimes there are other considerations:
Right now, I am working temporarily in a supervisory position for a community college. I was hired as a temp worker because they needed somebody right away. Anyway, they advertised for the same position, except it was full time, and my boss told me to go apply for it right away. I did so, and waited to hear back.
HR responded saying that I wasn't qualified. My boss says, it's because I did not have a specific number of years of experience in a particular field, and HR won't let her change anything. Actually, it was because my application did not specifically say "three years work experience in _blank_".
Now, my BOSS thinks I'm good enough to do the job, but HR says no because of an arbitrary requirement. My boss is currently trying to create a job so that I can stay on in some capacity, if not in my current job.
Anyway, my point is, many times HR is not helping the company hire the best candidate - sometimes they actually do the opposite. As such, bypassing them is not morally wrong.
You have more faith in the legal system than I do, especially of late.
A few things:
Yes your honor I agreed to binding arbitration on a medical practice without an independent physical
I'm betting the court would find the lack of an independant physical irrelevant to the procedings.
without my attorney being present without having this clauses clear explained,
Generally doesn't matter. It's up to the parties of the contract to get their own legal counsel to explain the contract.
with no information provided about the arbitration proceedings
I'm sure the contract would have enough information to make it legal, yet completely incomprehensible.
with the arbitrator being an employee of the doctor...
Not actually the case. The arbitration company would be supposedly independent, and the client would be the insurance company. It still has a lot of incentive to favor the insurance company over the individual, as they are paid mostly by the ins. co., and they would see them far more often.
When we get a citizen-friendly Congress (fat chance), we need a law that states that individuals cannot give up their right to file a lawsuit - they can only dismiss a current case with prejudice (so settlements are still possible).
They've gone a different direction. Insurance companies are now requiring doctors to require patients to sign a piece of paper prior to any surgery. On this piece of paper, is an agreement to use binding arbitration and waiving the legal right to sue.
Of course, the arbitration company is chosen by the insurance company. Conflict of interest?
See, the insurance companies aren't just interested in keeping frivolous lawsuits to a minimum. They are trying to avoid any responsibility at all.
You could answer the phone that way whether you got a Ph.D. or not, and whether your name was Shajenko or not. Just as I can answer the phone "Hello, Grand Central Station" whether that is my actual location or not.
I thought we were talking about meaningful titles, not simply calling yourself whatever you want to call yourself.
The PhD means "Doctor of Philosophy", ergo you get to be called doctor. Simple, no?
You only get to be called "doctor" if you can convince other people to do so. If they think that you don't deserve it because you don't save lives, or because merely asking makes you a pretentious snob, you don't get to be called "doctor". Simple, no?
All this will accomplish is making sure that every single contract any company makes with an individual includes the right to do whatever the company wants with all of your personal information.
Well, even if the second was the case, longer life could influence that too. So what if you've dedicated 200 years of your life to something, if you have another 1000 years of healthy life ahead of you? Attribute it to a mislead youth.
Doubtful. China is far more willing to roll out tanks and murder its citizens than the US is. Which is what will happen the very first time workers try to strike against any important company.
How long is it going to take before we learn this?
And how long after that before we figure out what we can actually do to stop it?
If we go the libertarian route, as is so popular around here, and you'll simply get nongovernmental groups (ie, criminal organizations) collecting the power that the government used to have, and the government will be too weak to stop them. Go with a dictator and he'll almost certainly abuse his power in vast ways.
You can't simply get rid of power - someone will fill that vacuum.
Well, it would be a popular choice for libertarians, or other anti-government types. It would force Congress to try and raise taxes, making people angry, and maybe getting some incumbents tossed out of office. Or just maybe, some of the waste might get cut.
While it does say that the "IT employment market" is larger than it was in the dot com boom (maybe he means there are a lot more IT recruiters, who knows), it doesn't seem to take into account the population increase that has occurred since then.
Ardent Pro-Lifers and ardent Pro-Choicers can agree on one thing: in an ideal world, if no one involved wanted to raise the child, then no pregnancy would occur in the first place.
I doubt it. Some of the crazier ones see getting pregnant as a justified punishment for being a slut. Maybe they just don't think about it enough to realize that that means a baby is going to be born, unwanted.
Slashdot Mirror
Right now, I am working temporarily in a supervisory position for a community college. I was hired as a temp worker because they needed somebody right away. Anyway, they advertised for the same position, except it was full time, and my boss told me to go apply for it right away. I did so, and waited to hear back.
HR responded saying that I wasn't qualified. My boss says, it's because I did not have a specific number of years of experience in a particular field, and HR won't let her change anything. Actually, it was because my application did not specifically say "three years work experience in _blank_".
Now, my BOSS thinks I'm good enough to do the job, but HR says no because of an arbitrary requirement. My boss is currently trying to create a job so that I can stay on in some capacity, if not in my current job.
Anyway, my point is, many times HR is not helping the company hire the best candidate - sometimes they actually do the opposite. As such, bypassing them is not morally wrong.
A few things:
I'm betting the court would find the lack of an independant physical irrelevant to the procedings.
Generally doesn't matter. It's up to the parties of the contract to get their own legal counsel to explain the contract.
I'm sure the contract would have enough information to make it legal, yet completely incomprehensible.
Not actually the case. The arbitration company would be supposedly independent, and the client would be the insurance company. It still has a lot of incentive to favor the insurance company over the individual, as they are paid mostly by the ins. co., and they would see them far more often.
When we get a citizen-friendly Congress (fat chance), we need a law that states that individuals cannot give up their right to file a lawsuit - they can only dismiss a current case with prejudice (so settlements are still possible).
They've gone a different direction. Insurance companies are now requiring doctors to require patients to sign a piece of paper prior to any surgery. On this piece of paper, is an agreement to use binding arbitration and waiving the legal right to sue.
Of course, the arbitration company is chosen by the insurance company. Conflict of interest?
See, the insurance companies aren't just interested in keeping frivolous lawsuits to a minimum. They are trying to avoid any responsibility at all.
You could answer the phone that way whether you got a Ph.D. or not, and whether your name was Shajenko or not. Just as I can answer the phone "Hello, Grand Central Station" whether that is my actual location or not.
I thought we were talking about meaningful titles, not simply calling yourself whatever you want to call yourself.
Which is the main argument against plea bargaining, but that's another argument.
All this will accomplish is making sure that every single contract any company makes with an individual includes the right to do whatever the company wants with all of your personal information.
You're seriously referencing the Heritage Foundation? What's next, a cite from Pravda?
Here's a hint - there's no such thing as a job Americans don't want to do - but there are jobs companies don't want to pay a living wage for.
Well, even if the second was the case, longer life could influence that too. So what if you've dedicated 200 years of your life to something, if you have another 1000 years of healthy life ahead of you? Attribute it to a mislead youth.
Prenups are always disputed, and quite often overturned.
I just tried Googling myself. I got a LOT of listings for people who are not me, and my name isn't especially common.
I'd hate to have the task of searching for information online on a Mr. John Smith...
You can still win a hand with awful cards. Just convince the other guy that you have great cards.
Yes, but you forget he also says you must be feared in such a way that you are not also hated. That's what most people forget.
For instance, the mafia. Of course, they're just another kind of "government", in the absence of a force powerful enough to oppose them.
Doubtful. China is far more willing to roll out tanks and murder its citizens than the US is. Which is what will happen the very first time workers try to strike against any important company.
Either way, the person getting the new job is getting screwed.
If we go the libertarian route, as is so popular around here, and you'll simply get nongovernmental groups (ie, criminal organizations) collecting the power that the government used to have, and the government will be too weak to stop them. Go with a dictator and he'll almost certainly abuse his power in vast ways.
You can't simply get rid of power - someone will fill that vacuum.
Well, it would be a popular choice for libertarians, or other anti-government types. It would force Congress to try and raise taxes, making people angry, and maybe getting some incumbents tossed out of office. Or just maybe, some of the waste might get cut.
As far as I can tell, nearly all employers think that no previous paid programming experience = no hire.
While it does say that the "IT employment market" is larger than it was in the dot com boom (maybe he means there are a lot more IT recruiters, who knows), it doesn't seem to take into account the population increase that has occurred since then.