If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Bosses are more likely to hire someone they find attractive instead of your homely unemployed ass   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 67
    More: Obvious, American Sociological Review, socioeconomic status, job interviews  
•       •       •

5682 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Nov 2012 at 5:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



67 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-29 05:10:47 PM
No Kidding??? Really? I am *stunned* by this news.
 
2012-11-29 05:12:51 PM
Captain Obvious to the rescue!
 
2012-11-29 05:13:12 PM
I am a sexy beast. Very sexy.
 
2012-11-29 05:15:28 PM
I'm 6'4 and good looking. Merit Schmerit...
 
2012-11-29 05:16:23 PM
Done in one.
 
2012-11-29 05:16:45 PM
Wow, scooped by The Onion?

Duhhhhh
 
2012-11-29 05:17:23 PM
I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.
 
2012-11-29 05:18:25 PM
So that's why I'm employed!
 
2012-11-29 05:23:22 PM
yeah, no shiat. the last two people one of the department managers hired here were hot and sexy as hell. dumb as farking stumps, but extremely hot.
 
2012-11-29 05:23:44 PM
hollywooddame.com 

good help is hard to find
 
2012-11-29 05:24:44 PM
Not sure about the "attractiveness" clause but I never hired a tech person who still uses an AOL account.....
 
2012-11-29 05:25:44 PM

cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.


Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions
 
2012-11-29 05:27:55 PM
In organizational psychology this is known as the U-scale or U-factor. It measures the moving average of unattractiveness in an organization on a weekly basis and influences employee selection and cultural fit assessment. For example, a smaller company with a higher U-factor will not want to walk their candidates through the main part of the office to where they will conduct the interview. If they do, they are advised to provide distraction. Candidates can be shown various parts of the company that are only planned in advance. Exposure of candidates to personnel in a high U-factor organization can result in the company's inability to negotiate a lower offer if they really like the candidate.

The proper way to compute U-factor is

Men: personal U-factor = perceived unattractiveness rated 1-5 by 10 women / 10.
Women: personal U-factor = (perceived unattractiveness rated 5-10 by 10 women) - (proximity to menopause).

U-factor is linked to male employee tardiness, male employee performance and male employee attrition. Many organizations are now adding it to their human resources processes for both interviewing and performance reviews. One company in the mid-west is looking to provide a bonus plan for those who take it upon themselves to improve their personal U-factor to include a gym membership and makeovers.

The upside of having of an organization having a high U-factor is that the potential for romantic relationships among employees decreases for those with higher life expectations. The down side is an increase in gaming and Dungeons & Dragons tournaments in the break room.

Noe (2010). Organizational Behavior, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing.
 
2012-11-29 05:29:06 PM

Aar1012: cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions


been there, done that..

.. fired the guy who used car cleanliness as a hiring criteria once i was done defending the company to the EEOC
 
2012-11-29 05:30:29 PM
i50.tinypic.com.
 
2012-11-29 05:31:06 PM
This just in.. people usually eat more when they're hungry!

And Aar1012 - it makes more sense that it seems on the surface. It's just looking at a different metric as to how one lives their life, even if it would be presumptive and unfair if someone simply couldn't afford a better car. You can draw judgements like - if someone keeps their car in terrible shape, they're probably not the most responsible in general and thus might make an unreliable employee. If someone has a "Death to jews" bumper sticker, they're probably at risk for emotional issues. And a car full of mcdonalds wrappers might say someone's more interested in getting the job done quickly than getting it done right, or that they'll run late a portion of the time with poor time management skills.
 
2012-11-29 05:35:30 PM
I once had an interview in Switzerland where they insisted on flying me over for a face to face interview. I tried to talk them out of it as I figured it was wildly expensive - I said I'd gladly go to a teleconferencing center (this was before skype and such, get off my lawn). They insisted on the interview. So I went to Switzerland and shouted across the table at them as we ate at a cafe near a busy road. I was hired. I must be extremely good looking.

actually I know enough managers that, once the elimination of resumes finishes (those that don't meet the requirements), it's all 'gut feel'. Attractiveness and Socialization are all that matter at that point. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
 
2012-11-29 05:37:38 PM
Here's how we hire:

1. Are you qualified based on your education and experience?

2. Can you answer our technical interview questions thoroughly, showing that you not only know the material but you can also apply it as well?

3. Can you travel?

If the answer is "yes" to all 3, you are hired.

The end. There is no talk of hobbies, interests, or anything else.

Of course, I work in a heavily male dominated industry (IT) and get virtually no female applicants, particularly on our side since we do field services which involves a huge amount of travel (we don't get many women at all interested in that, I'm not sure why).

Since I'm not gay or bi (not that there is anything wrong with that), I don't get much opportunity to see if I would throw all that out the window for an attractive female candidate with a nice rack.

/I probably would
 
2012-11-29 05:39:10 PM
I'll admit it - I once hired an intern because I thought she was cute. Not massively babeolicious or anything, but... cute.

It backfired on me when it turned out that she actually wanted to fark me, which I did not see coming. Even back then in my early 30s I wouldn't consider myself some kind of stud that the girls swoon for.

Anyway, I'm very glad I never gave in. It would've been so easy but it would have screwed up my job, my marriage, and probably my whole life.

I would say I learned my lesson but if I ever have the chance to hire another intern... I'll probably make the same stupid mistake. Good thing that's not likely to happen in my current job.
 
2012-11-29 05:40:26 PM

Aar1012: cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions


Car cleanliness I could see. Some people have disgusting car interiors. It's farking gross. I'm not a germophobe (I just peed and didn't wash my hands!) but I have serious questions about anyone who is willing to sit in filth every time they drive somewhere. OTOH, I was just in a co-worker's car at lunch whose work I admire, and it was farking nasty. So while I don't like it perhaps it's not a great hiring criterion.
 
ows
2012-11-29 05:43:21 PM
where do you think the term "dick-tation" came from?
 
2012-11-29 05:43:51 PM

trapped-in-CH: actually I know enough managers that, once the elimination of resumes finishes (those that don't meet the requirements), it's all 'gut feel'


Very much this.

By the time a resume has made it through the HR gates, I can assume that all realistic minimums for the job have been met. The only thing that actually matters assuming they can do the job is whether or not I want to tolerate them for 40-60 hours a week.

/I usually refer to it as the beer test if HR isn't around.
 
2012-11-29 05:46:38 PM

Warrener: trapped-in-CH: actually I know enough managers that, once the elimination of resumes finishes (those that don't meet the requirements), it's all 'gut feel'

Very much this.

By the time a resume has made it through the HR gates, I can assume that all realistic minimums for the job have been met. The only thing that actually matters assuming they can do the job is whether or not I want to tolerate them for 40-60 hours a week.

/I usually refer to it as the beer test if HR isn't around.


The Beer test?

Isn't that how we ended up with 8 years of George Bush?
 
2012-11-29 05:55:42 PM
phew...

thought i was going to have to get all qualified. thank you natural lottery.
 
2012-11-29 05:56:55 PM
My buddy is a manager at a local restaurant and he definitely does this. He searches job applicants names (women only, the men get instantly filed thirteened) on Facebook and only calls in the attractive single ones for interviews. He definitely has the hottest front of house staff in the neighborhood.
 
2012-11-29 05:57:15 PM

Tigger: The Beer test?

Isn't that how we ended up with 8 years of George Bush?


Yep.

And for a substantial percentage of Americans that was good enough to keep them happy for at least 4 of those years.

If I can stay happy with an employee for 4 years that's a win in my book.

/Only slightly trolling.
//IMO the vast majority of people can be trained to do the vast majority of jobs in a few months assuming they know enough to toss around the right buzz words for HR.
 
2012-11-29 06:04:59 PM
I remember a job that I lost to a less experienced worker because she was hot. It was a very small office, and I guess the guy decided he'd rather be bumping into her than into my beer gut. Can't say I blame him.
 
2012-11-29 06:10:18 PM

Chigau: Aar1012: cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions

been there, done that..

.. fired the guy who used car cleanliness as a hiring criteria once i was done defending the company to the EEOC


I wasn't aware that "condition of car" was a protected class. Why would the EEOC care about that?
 
2012-11-29 06:14:00 PM

Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: My buddy is a manager at a local restaurant and he definitely does this. He searches job applicants names (women only, the men get instantly filed thirteened) on Facebook and only calls in the attractive single ones for interviews. He definitely has the hottest front of house staff in the neighborhood.


Only the good managers put a little side note on their applications to indicate how hot they are, so if the other foh managers aren't there they'll know when they look at them.
 
2012-11-29 06:18:15 PM
It would be easy enough to use a person's car as a hiring criterion.

If an applicant drives anything more expensive than average, especially an SUV, that person does not get hired. A good company does not need to employ people who think it's worth paying an extra $10,000 for a car just to be able to say that the car is expensive. Not when cheaper cars are just as good.

This hiring philosophy would be really ironic at Apple.
 
2012-11-29 06:20:58 PM

DickDarlington: Not sure about the "attractiveness" clause but I never hired a tech person who still uses an AOL account.....


Not even if it was Giselle, the French beeetsh?
 
2012-11-29 06:21:12 PM

Warrener: Tigger: The Beer test?

Isn't that how we ended up with 8 years of George Bush?

Yep.

And for a substantial percentage of Americans that was good enough to keep them happy for at least 4 of those years.

If I can stay happy with an employee for 4 years that's a win in my book.

/Only slightly trolling.
//IMO the vast majority of people can be trained to do the vast majority of jobs in a few months assuming they know enough to toss around the right buzz words for HR.


I guess i've never worked for a large enough company or something, but what does HR have to do with you once you have the job? but for to talk about health insurance of something...

I still don't think i've ever talked to someone in HR in over 15 years in the job world. well, i've met a million of them in public, but never once at work... it's like, they don't actually have jobs themselves... they just tell people they do.
 
2012-11-29 06:22:36 PM

Aar1012: cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions


I suppose if someone is too lazy to keep their car washed and free of litter then they may be lazy in other aspects of their life as well.
 
2012-11-29 06:23:47 PM
In other news: Water is wet.
 
2012-11-29 06:29:12 PM

kg2095: Aar1012: cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions

I suppose if someone is too lazy to keep their car washed and free of litter then they may be lazy in other aspects of their life as well.


Wrong. My car is a mess because I don't care. My desk is neat and my work is accurate, because you pay me to care about that.
 
2012-11-29 06:31:50 PM
The rule, as I have observed, is that people will only hire you if you are the same race as the managers.

I've gotten jobs because I'm white, never because I'm qualified. And it pisses me off.


//I've worked places where every. Single. Person. Employed. Was Polish.
///I worked another place where everyone but me was Korean. There aren't even that many Koreans in this city. It was weird.
 
2012-11-29 06:34:03 PM
Don't be unattractive.
 
2012-11-29 06:38:40 PM
i'm attractive, i'm just fat
 
2012-11-29 06:44:55 PM
People more likely to [virtually any positive activity anyone ever does throughout their lives] with someone they find attractive.

That's just the way it is.
 
2012-11-29 06:49:04 PM
bingethinker
Wrong. My car is a mess because I don't care. My desk is neat and my work is accurate, because you pay me to care about that.


I hope someone pays you to care to wipe your ass.
 
2012-11-29 06:51:46 PM
Well I am boned.
 
2012-11-29 06:52:22 PM
I guess I should start applying in person then, because my resume is not attractive enough to get an interview alone. Too bad most employers around here want you to apply online...
 
2012-11-29 06:55:08 PM
Hey! I resemble that remark!!!
 
2012-11-29 07:07:26 PM
Is Drew still running this site on a Mac IIci? Amazing that the outage page still appears.

/theadjack
//but if you're reading this, count yourself lucky and have a beer
 
2012-11-29 07:08:46 PM

pute kisses like a man: I guess i've never worked for a large enough company or something, but what does HR have to do with you once you have the job? but for to talk about health insurance of something...


Worked for (or around) three big corporations so far. IIRC, I think HR's real job is to protect the company from lawsuits, at least it seemed that way to me. They (may) provide input to management about who to lay off...
 
2012-11-29 07:23:25 PM

Forbidden Doughnut: Worked for (or around) three big corporations so far. IIRC, I think HR's real job is to protect the company from lawsuits, at least it seemed that way to me. They (may) provide input to management about who to lay off...


That's pretty much it.

HR proper's main job is to make sure the company has plenty of CYA in case of law suit. So they do things like keep track of who's been through Sexual Harassment training in the last year and make sure the hiring managers know how to keep a proper paper trail when getting ready to fire someone. If they have any input at all into who gets laid off, it's purely from a metrics side (person X has been here for Y years and typically spends Z number of hours per day on Fark.) They also manage and organize employee benefits. Typically one of the HR managers is literally the only person in the entire company that knows all of the details of the companies medical and retirement plans.

HR Recruiting does what it can to get qualified applicants in for interviews with hiring managers. Considering that the people in those jobs know effectively nothing at all about the jobs they are hiring people for, the only tools they have to work with are buzzwords and years experience listed on the resume. By definition this limits their effectiveness.

I personally have a deep hatred for HR, since it typically hires really nice, personable people and turns them into cynical soul sucked jerks. They have essentially no power and despite their best intentions get to do nothing but find less crappy ways of passing shiatty news along to people they like.
 
2012-11-29 07:26:12 PM
i suppose should consider putting tint on my car windows and start working out.
 
2012-11-29 07:28:32 PM

Isitoveryet: i suppose should consider putting tint on my car windows and start working out.


We'll get back to you
 
2012-11-29 07:38:32 PM

Onkel Buck: Don't be unattractive.


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-29 07:53:56 PM
img7.joyreactor.com
 
2012-11-29 08:38:41 PM

occamswrist: bingethinker
Wrong. My car is a mess because I don't care. My desk is neat and my work is accurate, because you pay me to care about that.

I hope someone pays you to care to wipe your ass.


The car is about two weeks away from being towed to a crusher. I'm not putting in any effort there.

My ass has another 30 years or so to go, so I keep it nice and clean.
 
2012-11-29 09:17:37 PM

BeowulfSmith: I work in a heavily male dominated industry (IT) and get virtually no female applicants, particularly on our side since we do field services which involves a huge amount of travel (we don't get many women at all interested in that, I'm not sure why).


Possibly societal expectations for women to keep the home fires burning and the children fed/washed/alive.

I know, men can do all that too, but our society still expect women to do it.
 
2012-11-29 09:18:56 PM
Car cleanliness I could see. Some people have disgusting car interiors. It's farking gross. I'm not a germophobe (I just peed and didn't wash my hands!) but I have serious questions about anyone who is willing to sit in filth every time they drive somewhere.


My car is filled with paperwork, but not food, dirt or any other filth. Nevertheless, the hiring manager who looks at cars probably would hire you over me. I imagine after he/she hired you they would shake your hand then later he/she would start bite their nails as "the Circle of Life" song plays.

Somaticasual: This just in.. people usually eat more when they're hungry!

And Aar1012 - it makes more sense that it seems on the surface. It's just looking at a different metric as to how one lives their life, even if it would be presumptive and unfair if someone simply couldn't afford a better car. You can draw judgements like - if someone keeps their car in terrible shape, they're probably not the most responsible in general and thus might make an unreliable employee. If someone has a "Death to jews" bumper sticker, they're probably at risk for emotional issues. And a car full of mcdonalds wrappers might say someone's more interested in getting the job done quickly than getting it done right, or that they'll run late a portion of the time with poor time management skills.


And a boss that goes out into the parking lot to look for food wrappers, bumper stickers and how pretty a car looks of potential employees is probably an finite asshole who uses irrational sweeping generalizations.
 
2012-11-29 09:27:53 PM

bingethinker: I suppose if someone is too lazy to keep their car washed and free of litter then they may be lazy in other aspects of their life as well.


Fear not, I was just supposing the assumptions of the quoted manager. If I was hiring someone I couldn't give a rat's about their car. Their ability to do the job and fit in with the rest of the team are all that matters.
 
2012-11-29 09:47:26 PM

PyroStock: Car cleanliness I could see. Some people have disgusting car interiors. It's farking gross. I'm not a germophobe (I just peed and didn't wash my hands!) but I have serious questions about anyone who is willing to sit in filth every time they drive somewhere.

My car is filled with paperwork, but not food, dirt or any other filth. Nevertheless, the hiring manager who looks at cars probably would hire you over me. I imagine after he/she hired you they would shake your hand then later he/she would start bite their nails as "the Circle of Life" song plays.

Somaticasual: This just in.. people usually eat more when they're hungry!

And Aar1012 - it makes more sense that it seems on the surface. It's just looking at a different metric as to how one lives their life, even if it would be presumptive and unfair if someone simply couldn't afford a better car. You can draw judgements like - if someone keeps their car in terrible shape, they're probably not the most responsible in general and thus might make an unreliable employee. If someone has a "Death to jews" bumper sticker, they're probably at risk for emotional issues. And a car full of mcdonalds wrappers might say someone's more interested in getting the job done quickly than getting it done right, or that they'll run late a portion of the time with poor time management skills.

And a boss that goes out into the parking lot to look for food wrappers, bumper stickers and how pretty a car looks of potential employees is probably an finite asshole who uses irrational sweeping generalizations.


Ignoring that being a sweeping generalization in and of itself, they can still be rational even if you don't personally understand them or agree with them. You'll get no argument it's an unprofessional tactic for employers to use on prospective hires. It's just not baseless like the poster suggested.

Unless you're doing a favor for the boss's kid, when faced with hiring one of two competent employees - one of whom is more clean-cut and professional outside of work, vs. the messy guy in a car who might have other personal problems (assuming it's the same car make and model to eliminate other factors)..Who would you most likely pick in reality vs. who you'd pick to support your argument for this thread?
 
2012-11-29 10:15:14 PM
Somaticasual:Ignoring that being a sweeping generalization in and of itself,

That was the point of that statement.... it cuts both ways.

they can still be rational


But they *might* not be (oh noes!) ... just like the guy with the unclean car *might* be xyz.

even if you don't personally understand them or agree with them. You'll get no argument it's an unprofessional tactic for employers to use on prospective hires. It's just not baseless like the poster suggested.


Maybe the guy with the unclean car had to use his wife car or a friend's car that day? There could be any number of reasons. Why make up some fabricated "what if" story? And if car inspection is such a valuable tool then why stop there? Why not start following them around for a week without them knowing?

Unless you're doing a favor for the boss's kid, when faced with hiring one of two competent employees - one of whom is more clean-cut and professional outside of work, vs. the messy guy in a car who might have other personal problems (assuming it's the same car make and model to eliminate other factors)..Who would you most likely pick in reality vs. who you'd pick to support your argument for this thread?

You assume the one who is clean-cut and professional outside of work is also the one with the clean car.

If by some stroke of luck 2 individuals are *exactly* the same and everyone in the hiring process found both equally likable, qualified, experienced, and fit then you would really let your support for a candidate be based on a car inspection rather than say one more interview or anything else?? That just sounds lazy... at best.
 
2012-11-29 10:20:08 PM

Somaticasual: Who would you most likely pick in reality vs. who you'd pick to support your argument for this thread?


I'd pick the guy who refused to show his car to me; it shows good judgement and a bit of spine. Asking a candidate's mother's favorite color for drapes gives you more information, but just like the car type/cleanliness/etc. evaluation, it doesn't provide any relevant information, just noise. If it does anything it's likely to contribute to illegal discrimination, which is bad for everyone.

Unless you are aware of some actual relationship between "keeps car clean" and "performance in this job" you have no business even considering such an evaluation as part of a job interview.
 
2012-11-29 11:22:40 PM

kg2095

Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-29 06:20:58 PM
DickDarlington: Not sure about the "attractiveness" clause but I never hired a tech person who still uses an AOL account.....

Not even if it was Giselle, the French beeetsh?


Susan????
 
2012-11-29 11:23:41 PM
This is why I will not hesitate to seek plastic surgery should the need arise.
 
2012-11-29 11:30:34 PM

PyroStock: Somaticasual:Ignoring that being a sweeping generalization in and of itself,

That was the point of that statement.... it cuts both ways.

they can still be rational

But they *might* not be (oh noes!) ... just like the guy with the unclean car *might* be xyz.

even if you don't personally understand them or agree with them. You'll get no argument it's an unprofessional tactic for employers to use on prospective hires. It's just not baseless like the poster suggested.

Maybe the guy with the unclean car had to use his wife car or a friend's car that day? There could be any number of reasons. Why make up some fabricated "what if" story? And if car inspection is such a valuable tool then why stop there? Why not start following them around for a week without them knowing?

Unless you're doing a favor for the boss's kid, when faced with hiring one of two competent employees - one of whom is more clean-cut and professional outside of work, vs. the messy guy in a car who might have other personal problems (assuming it's the same car make and model to eliminate other factors)..Who would you most likely pick in reality vs. who you'd pick to support your argument for this thread?

You assume the one who is clean-cut and professional outside of work is also the one with the clean car.

If by some stroke of luck 2 individuals are *exactly* the same and everyone in the hiring process found both equally likable, qualified, experienced, and fit then you would really let your support for a candidate be based on a car inspection rather than say one more interview or anything else?? That just sounds lazy... at best.


While I respect your candor, I've already noted that would be ruling out the other factors entirely and purely split on the messy car - therefore, your hypothetical variables wouldn't influence that decision. I'm not saying it's ethical or professional (in fact, completely unprofessional as my Boobies noted), I'm saying that's the world we live in and the exact focus of the article you're commenting on. Again, I just said it wasn't baseless in hiring logic.

Funny how you never directly answered the question, too. I'll take that as an answer in and of itself..

And to ProfPlump - Transportation type and cleanliness is not a protected class. Past that, see the "unprofessional" part of my original reply, and the wiki page for "protected classes" respectively.
 
2012-11-29 11:31:15 PM

Soymilk: BeowulfSmith: I work in a heavily male dominated industry (IT) and get virtually no female applicants, particularly on our side since we do field services which involves a huge amount of travel (we don't get many women at all interested in that, I'm not sure why).

Possibly societal expectations for women to keep the home fires burning and the children fed/washed/alive.

I know, men can do all that too, but our society still expect women to do it.


Or if the woman has a husband or partner who already does a lot of traveling (and if they have children together), it might not be possible for her to travel for work, too. Someone has to stay home and feed Froot Loops to the mucous-crusted, lice-infested crotch droppings.
 
2012-11-30 12:02:18 AM

Somaticasual: (in fact, completely unprofessional as my Boobies noted)


I do, however, have to cop to the epically-current filter pwnage..
 
2012-11-30 03:20:54 AM

Somaticasual: PyroStock: Car cleanliness I could see. Some people have disgusting car interiors. It's farking gross. I'm not a germophobe (I just peed and didn't wash my hands!) but I have serious questions about anyone who is willing to sit in filth every time they drive somewhere.

My car is filled with paperwork, but not food, dirt or any other filth. Nevertheless, the hiring manager who looks at cars probably would hire you over me. I imagine after he/she hired you they would shake your hand then later he/she would start bite their nails as "the Circle of Life" song plays.

Somaticasual: This just in.. people usually eat more when they're hungry!

And Aar1012 - it makes more sense that it seems on the surface. It's just looking at a different metric as to how one lives their life, even if it would be presumptive and unfair if someone simply couldn't afford a better car. You can draw judgements like - if someone keeps their car in terrible shape, they're probably not the most responsible in general and thus might make an unreliable employee. If someone has a "Death to jews" bumper sticker, they're probably at risk for emotional issues. And a car full of mcdonalds wrappers might say someone's more interested in getting the job done quickly than getting it done right, or that they'll run late a portion of the time with poor time management skills.

And a boss that goes out into the parking lot to look for food wrappers, bumper stickers and how pretty a car looks of potential employees is probably an finite asshole who uses irrational sweeping generalizations.

Ignoring that being a sweeping generalization in and of itself, they can still be rational even if you don't personally understand them or agree with them. You'll get no argument it's an unprofessional tactic for employers to use on prospective hires. It's just not baseless like the poster suggested.

Unless you're doing a favor for the boss's kid, when faced with hiring one of two competent employees - one of whom is more clean-cut and professional outside of work, vs. the messy guy in a car who might have other personal problems (assuming it's the same car make and model to eliminate other factors)..Who would you most likely pick in reality vs. who you'd pick to support your argument for this thread?


It sounds like the manager may think that the condition of the car is a godd way of knowing how attractive and successful the candidate is.
 
2012-11-30 03:46:32 AM

Jon iz teh kewl: i'm attractive, i'm just fat


You and me both, pal.

Seriously. There are those that don't think the combination possible, but I'm disgusted by my own body and get plenty of attention (from both sexes, but I'm only interested in the females). A cute face, nice ass and great personality has gotten me far.

Okay, now someone say something snarky about how I'm deluding myself. It's unhealthy to feel this confident.
 
2012-11-30 10:43:08 AM
4.bp.blogspot.com

Bladder control is also important.
 
2012-11-30 10:49:52 AM

Somaticasual: While I respect your candor, I've already noted that would be ruling out the other factors entirely and purely split on the messy car - therefore, your hypothetical variables wouldn't influence that decision. I'm not saying it's ethical or professional (in fact, completely unprofessional as my Boobies noted), I'm saying that's the world we live in and the exact focus of the article you're commenting on.


There is no logical reason to rule out the other factors entirely and choose a car inspection. As I stated, a more intense look at the other factors is the right answer.

Again, I just said it wasn't baseless in hiring logic.

Funny how you never directly answered the question, too. I'll take that as an answer in and of itself..


Funny how you never directly answered the questions I posted in my last post either. Like you, I'll also make my own assumptions on your non-responses as answers in and of themself because that's such sound reasoning.

The problem is your question was illogical to even ask (even if you wish to ignore the unprofessional/unethical aspect and the deeper implications of that). Your question assumes we must rule out all other factors and if that wasn't enough we now must select a candidate based on a surprise car inspection... that's absurd (unless maybe you are a pizza delivery driver or such?). It is not logical to rule out all the other factors and make candidate choice on something like a surprise car inspection or their knowledge of their grandmother's favorite color of drapes. It's lazy and careless... at best and not sound hiring logic. If a hiring manager decides to be lazy then he/she should pick the candidate with the shortest name because it will save on company ink and they won't have to walk out to the parking lot thereby making the hiring manager more productive that day.

i.dailymail.co.uk
Look at this loser with his messy desk... pffft, clearly he's not very productive.
 
2012-11-30 10:56:50 AM

FizixJunkee: Soymilk: BeowulfSmith: I work in a heavily male dominated industry (IT) and get virtually no female applicants, particularly on our side since we do field services which involves a huge amount of travel (we don't get many women at all interested in that, I'm not sure why).

Possibly societal expectations for women to keep the home fires burning and the children fed/washed/alive.

I know, men can do all that too, but our society still expect women to do it.

Or if the woman has a husband or partner who already does a lot of traveling (and if they have children together), it might not be possible for her to travel for work, too. Someone has to stay home and feed Froot Loops to the mucous-crusted, lice-infested crotch droppings.



True. It takes times and effort to keep the crust and lice down to a minimum.
 
Displayed 67 of 67 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report