booth@vax135.UUCP (David Booth) (01/01/70)
Quoting from zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks): > I wouldn't leave your religious convictions out of the picture. . . . . You are required by law to leave a job candidate's religious convictions out of the picture. You may consider the applicant's potential job performance, but you are prohibited from considering the applicant's religious convictions. > . . . . > > > Would you work in a nuclear power plant? > > Now that is a good interview question. It asks, in effect, if the > applicant is the type who has irrational fears. . . . . And it flushes > out the outright nut cases. . . . . You are implying that only persons with "irrational fears" and "outright nut cases" would refuse to work in a nuclear power plant. This is patently false, and the remark is offensive. David Booth Arpanet: booth@vax135.att.com UUCP: {harvard, seismo, ucbvax}!vax135!booth
chrisa@tekig5.TEK.COM (Chris Andersen/Omega) (08/27/87)
I was listening to the radio this morning when they summarized some
comments from a personnel director on how best to answer the most
common questions asked at an interview.
I can't remember them all, but one stood out:
Q: What would be your ideal job?
A: Describe the job you are interviewing for, even if you know that it
isn't ideal. If you don't really want to work there, you can always
turn down the offer.
I don't know about you but I would call this lieing.
Is it really necessary that we lie to get a job? It seems to me that an
employer should be appreciative of someone who is willing to admit their
feelings instead of trying to deceive the interviewer. Sure, hiring
someone who admits that the job is not their ideal one might be a risk,
but is it a worse risk then hiring a deceitful individual?
--
Chris Andersen (Omega)
UUCP: chrisa@tekadg or chrisa@tekig5masticol@topaz.rutgers.edu (Steve Masticola) (08/27/87)
In article <1839@tekig5.TEK.COM> chrisa@tekig5.TEK.COM (Chris Andersen/Omega) writes: > Q: What would be your ideal job? > > A: Describe the job you are interviewing for, even if you know that it > isn't ideal. If you don't really want to work there, you can always > turn down the offer. > > I don't know about you but I would call this lieing. I'd also call it a bad policy: it might turn out that the company has a more suitable job available than the one you're interviewing for. This happened to me in one case. Another type of lying to get a job (also heard on an NPR essay about a year back) is asking someone to falsify references. Specifically, the person in question was looking for a job as an editor, and asked the essayist to write her a recommendation saying (falsely) that she had worked with him in the past. He refused to do this; she didn't get the job. Personally, I think honesty is the best policy, though it may at times be a luxury. If you're not starving, tell the truth. - Steve
john@bc-cis.UUCP (08/27/87)
In article chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (Chris Andersen/Omega) writes: > > Q: What would be your ideal job? > > A: Describe the job you are interviewing for, even if you know that it > isn't ideal. If you don't really want to work there, you can always > turn down the offer. > >Is it really necessary that we lie to get a job? It seems to me that an >employer should be appreciative of someone who is willing to admit their >feelings instead of trying to deceive the interviewer. Sure, hiring >someone who admits that the job is not their ideal one might be a risk, >but is it a worse risk then hiring a deceitful individual? I too am uncomfortable with lying (or fibbing, or "little white lying"). I'd rather tell the truth, but the "whole truth," warts n all? I'm not sure describing the job as advertized (or researched) is the proper answer even if I felt it was the only way to get that job. On the other hand telling the "whole truth" is probably stupid. I'm willing to compromise and take what exists, I needn't tell them I want the Moon. I'd like to think there's a third choice. I'd tell them why I'd want their job. (I'd fear I was turning them off, by hinting I'm only seeing it as a stepping stone to another job.) -- John L. Wynstra US mail: Apt. 9G, 43-10 Kissena Blvd., Flushing, N.Y., 11355 UUCP: john@bc-cis.UUCP { eg, rutgers!cmcl2!phri!bc-cis!john }
mayerk@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Kenneth Mayer) (08/27/87)
When last we saw our hero, chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (Chris Andersen/Omega) ... >... >I don't know about you but I would call this lieing. > >Is it really necessary that we lie to get a job? The simple answer is "yes" but that's not fair. Sure, you should be honest, moral, and all the good things that make homo sapiens worth having around, but you have to keep in mind that you are selling a product, you, to a customer who is not interested in buying your brand until you show how good you really are. Generally, I have had 30 minutes to an hour to convince an interviewer that I am valuable enough to pass through to the next interview. Once upon a time I was honest. It wasted a lot of time on topics that didn't conern the interview or the job. He get turned off, so did I. If you hit your head against a brick wall long enough, sooner or later, you learn to stop doing it. Now, I tell the interviewer what he or she wants to hear. Not neccessarily lying, just showing your best side. It's up to the interviewer to dig for the negatives (if he desires). Would you expect a used car salesman to tell you what's wrong with that '67 Chevy? Kenneth Mayer | Teacher: "Two plus two equals..." mayerk@eniac.seas.upenn.edu | Student: "Four, but what's a two?"
wagner@bnrmtv.UUCP (Mark Wagner) (08/28/87)
> > Q: What would be your ideal job? > > > > A: Describe the job you are interviewing for, even if you know that it > > isn't ideal. If you don't really want to work there, you can always > > turn down the offer. > > > > I don't know about you but I would call this lieing. > I think the that the main reason it's bad to lie is that it just puts added pressure on you if you end up taking the job. If you say you've done x and y and they hire you because of that then...at some point the rubber's got to meet the road. In the example above if you claim that your ideal job is the one you're applying for you're not going to have a leg to stand on when it comes time to negotiating changes in your tasks or responsibilites. Mark Wagner {amdahl, hplabs}!bnrmtv!wagner
trb@ima.ISC.COM (Andrew Tannenbaum) (08/29/87)
If a candidate regurgitated my questions as answers in an interview, I'd dismiss her as a fool. If I want my questions reworded as answers, I can run the program DOCTOR, which was old hat when I was in knee pants. I don't have to pay someone to do it. Of course, there are employers who do want their charges to echo the company line. Would you like to work for such employers? Andrew Tannenbaum Interactive Boston, MA +1 617 247 1155 (Where I probably don't echo the company line, whatever it is.)
shor@sphinx.uchicago.edu (Melinda Shore) (08/29/87)
In article <2452@bnrmtv.UUCP> wagner@bnrmtv.UUCP (Mark Wagner) writes: >I think the that the main reason it's bad to lie is that it >just puts added pressure on you if you end up taking the job. Really? It seems to me that the main reason it's bad to lie is that it's dishonest. Or is it okay to lie as long as it doesn't backfire? Sheesh. -- Melinda Shore ..!hao!oddjob!sphinx!shor Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center shore@morgul.psc.edu
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (08/31/87)
In article <2254@sphinx.uchicago.edu>, shor@sphinx.uchicago.edu (Melinda Shore) writes: > In article <2452@bnrmtv.UUCP> wagner@bnrmtv.UUCP (Mark Wagner) writes: > >I think the that the main reason it's bad to lie is that it > >just puts added pressure on you if you end up taking the job. > > Really? It seems to me that the main reason it's bad to lie is > that it's dishonest. Or is it okay to lie as long as it doesn't > backfire? Sheesh. Now that honesty has been mentioned, you might note that the original question ("What would be your ideal job?") is dishonest. It is not a question of fact, because the answer is not verifiable. It is an invitation to be creative. It is also ambiguous. It's not clear whether the answer should be the unrestricted ideal, or the ideal within some limitations of reality (such as the current job market, your training, or the ad you answered). And it is basically dishonest because the use to be made of the answer is concealed. The question could mean "What do you want most, we'll get as close as we can," or it could mean "What do you want most, if we don't have it we don't want you." If you knew they were asking the first form, you could honestly describe the job you really wanted;. If you knew they were asking the second form, you could honestly say that your idea of an ideal job was the best job they could give you. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
rlw@philabs.Philips.Com (Richard Wexelblat) (08/31/87)
There's lying and there's lying. Once I answered the "What would your ideal
job be?" question completely honestly. Never again.
Thereafter I interpreted the question as "What would your ideal job be within
the constraints of the technology you and we are interested in and within the
bounds of what you understand our business to be?"
On the other hand, twice I caught candidates in outright lies. Once with
regard to grades, once with regard to publications. Instant permanent shit
list.
--
--Dick Wexelblat {uunet|ihnp4|decvax}!philabs!rlw
rlw@philabs.philips.comrupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (09/01/87)
I have invented a term which, shall we say, treats gently the age-old practice of plumping up your resume to make you appear to be more qualified than you are. I call it "enhanced representation." Now, enhanced representation (e.r. for short) can range from a slight exageration of the facts to downright lying (Sir Winston called that "terminalogical inexactitude"). Presenting your background in the most favorable light does not require enhanced representation, and should not be considered immoral. Indeed, experts say that many people do not do themselves justice when they write their resumes. The line between honest but self-serving accounts of your qualifications and enhanced representation is not easy to define. Certainly, it would be an outright lie to say that you were involved in corporate level management in the transportation industry when you just drove a delivery truck. A lie, and probably not very smart. What if the potential employer believes you and asks you to perform the tasks you incorrectly claim to be capable of? Honesty is objectively the best policy here. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = My comments are purely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or any other group. ...... how's that, Gary? = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
roy@tlxprs.UUCP (09/01/87)
In article <2254@sphinx.uchicago.edu> shor@sphinx.UUCP (Melinda Shore) writes: >In article <2452@bnrmtv.UUCP> wagner@bnrmtv.UUCP (Mark Wagner) writes: >Really? It seems to me that the main reason it's bad to lie is >that it's dishonest. Or is it okay to lie as long as it doesn't >backfire? Sheesh. >-- >Melinda Shore ..!hao!oddjob!sphinx!shor >Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center shore@morgul.psc.edu I reallyu don't understand. Is it lie or lie as in lay. Or then again it might be lye. It might be ok to lie to get a job but how about to lie to get to the top as is lie(lay) or to lye to get the job (as in acid throwing). I am very confused. Someone let me out of here. Roy from SMUT (Sick Minds United Together)
richardl@cognos.uucp (Richard Linnett) (09/01/87)
>>Is it really necessary that we lie to get a job?
All of this discussion about not telling the truth reminds me of a time
way back when I was a consultant (we were honest enough to call them
contract programmers then).
My interview went something like:
Them: Do you know CICS
Me: NO
Them: Do you know Adabas
Me: NO
Them: Do you know PL/1
Me: NO
Them:
You're the first honest guy we have interviewed - when can you start
so we can arrange the courses!
What is more I kept that contract for over three years.
So the moral of this anecdote
don't lie to get a job
--
Richard Linnett Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707
Voice: (613) 738-1440 3755 Riverside Drive
FAX: (613) 738-0002 Ottawa, Ontario
uucp: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!richardl CANADA K1G 3Z4rjd@tiger.UUCP (09/02/87)
> I have invented a term which, shall we say, treats gently the age-old > practice of plumping up your resume to make you appear to be more > qualified than you are. I call it "enhanced representation." Now, > enhanced representation (e.r. for short) can range from a slight > exageration of the facts to downright lying (Sir Winston called that > "terminalogical inexactitude"). Presenting your background in the most > favorable light does not require enhanced representation, and should not > be considered immoral. Indeed, experts say that many people do not do > themselves justice when they write their resumes. Agreed. In your resume, you should tell all of the good about yourself that a potential employer might be interested in and possibly sway him toward giving you the job. Not lie. Not tell him about the bad things. Some may say that this is lying by omission, but this is what the interview is for, for the potential employer to ask about his concerns and inform you of the potential job so that YOU may be the judge of whether you are able to perform it. If not, you should not accept should you be offered it. You should not be required to put on your resume that all of your coworkers hated to work with you, etc... or that your boss hated you (thats what references are for). Your qualifications stated in the resume had better be accurate, as you will be expected to be able to live up to them or be put in the embarassing position of being fired, with the associated bad reference. Just my $.02 worth (or less). Randy
jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) (09/04/87)
> My interview went something like: > Them: Do you know CICS > Me: NO > Them: Do you know Adabas > Me: NO > Them: Do you know PL/1 > Me: NO > Them: > You're the first honest guy we have interviewed - when can you start > so we can arrange the courses! It sure would be nice if more interviewers would take this approach. Unfortunately, the usual response is to observe that you don't have the right background, and dismiss you. I've seen this a lot. For instance, I've worked on the innards of a bunch of operating systems, including writing device drivers for some pretty funny devices with some even funnier system interfaces. I even had one case where I wrote a couple-thousand-line driver, in assembly language, and when the device was rolled in, we just plugged it in and my driver worked the first time. You'd think this might qualify me as a kernel hacker in just about anyone's mind. Lately I've been to a lot of interviews where they ask me if I've ever written any device drivers for Unix. I've answered honestly: I've tweaked a bunch of existing drivers, and sometimes made some major additions; I've cloned drivers and modified them for devices that weren't quite the same; but, no, I haven't written a whole Unix device driver myself. After all, with the existing drivers lying about, it's pretty unlikely that you'll ever need to do a whole one; you'd have to have a rather unusual device to need a driver radically different from all those in the library. The response? I clearly don't have enough Unix kernel background for their job. Good-bye; we'll talk to you again when you learn something about Unix. Even an honest fellow like me (:-) is sorely tempted to at least stretch the fact just a wee bit.... -- John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)
pjs269@tijc02.UUCP (Paul Schmidt ) (09/04/87)
> > Is it really necessary that we lie to get a job? It seems to me that an > employer should be appreciative of someone who is willing to admit their > feelings instead of trying to deceive the interviewer. Sure, hiring > someone who admits that the job is not their ideal one might be a risk, > but is it a worse risk then hiring a deceitful individual? > When I was interviewing for a job for a large company with diverse interests, I was asked to fill out an application. One of the questions on the application was (paraphrased): Would you be willing to work on a defense contract? I answered this question honestly as "no". During the interview the interviewer spent five minutes asking me why. I tried to explain my reasoning, but this is not a question anyone would be able to answer in five minutes (along with not being prepared to answer the question.) Soon after the interview I got a rejection letter which I attributed entirely to that specific question. (My guess is that the interviewer had been in the service, also.) Luckily, I was never asked this question again, so I never had to lie. But if I had been asked the question, again, I may have answered it differently, since I don't think it was a fair question. I also believe in retrospect that I was discriminated on because of my religious beliefs. (At the time I wouldn't have claimed them as "religious", they were just my beliefs.) In the book "Lying" one of the observations was made: Given enough time you can answer any questions without lying that will give the questioner the impression that you answered the question the way he wanted to hear it answered. Therefore lying may be defensible by saying. If I had enough time in an interview I would be able to show the interviewer I was not a communist and could be a benefit to their company. But the question "why" is impossible to answer in a thirty minute interview.
dhd@mtx5a.ATT.COM (d.h.dawdy) (09/08/87)
> >Is it really necessary that we lie to get a job? It seems to me that an > >employer should be appreciative of someone who is willing to admit their > >feelings instead of trying to deceive the interviewer. Too bad it's not always so. Like other respondants have already noted, the audience you have to deal with often sets the tone for how your responses are received. At an interview some time ago, I responded honestly to questions I was being asked and got into a dispute with the interviewer; she emphatically told me I was giving HER the run-around (based on what other applicants had been feeding her before I got there). Apparently, EVERYONE else was lying and I couldn't convince her that she'd been getting colossal exaggerations from other people; but, she was more inclined to believe their lies than my truth because they were all in tune. I left the interview VERY shortly afterwards with my peace of mind and conscience well intact but with no job offer. I'd do it again. I think a potential employer who can't differentiate between relevant fact and fiction is one not worth working for.
lgold@csib.UUCP (Lynn Gold) (09/09/87)
In article <1839@tekig5.TEK.COM> chrisa@tekig5.UUCP (Chris Andersen/Omega) writes: > Q: What would be your ideal job? > > A: Describe the job you are interviewing for, even if you know that it > isn't ideal. If you don't really want to work there, you can always > turn down the offer. > >Is it really necessary that we lie to get a job? It seems to me that an >employer should be appreciative of someone who is willing to admit their >feelings instead of trying to deceive the interviewer. Sure, hiring >someone who admits that the job is not their ideal one might be a risk, >but is it a worse risk then hiring a deceitful individual? I once followed the advice that this personnel director gave. I was stuck in a job which I was unqualified for and which I loathed for two years. In my next job interview, I did something similar. I only lasted three months at a job where I was "the wrong person at the wrong time." This time around, I told the person interviewing me what I really was looking for -- what I liked, what I disliked -- whether he wanted to hear those particular responses or not. I got the job, and I'm still here after 5 months and don't appear to be going away. I'm also happy with the work I'm doing, and my employer appears to be happy with my work. --Lynn UUCP: ...csi!csib!lgold "So many parties... ARPA: csi!csib!lgold@SPAM.ISTC.SRI.COM ...so little time." ************************************************************ * Opinions expressed in this posting are not necessarily * * those of staff and management of CSI or myself. * ************************************************************
czei@osupyr.UUCP (Michael S Czeiszperger) (09/09/87)
In article <1995@mtx5a.ATT.COM> dhd@mtx5a.ATT.COM (d.h.dawdy) writes: > >I'd do it again. >I think a potential employer who can't differentiate between >relevant fact and fiction is one not worth working for. You are assuming that the interviewer has the same mentality and intelligence as the company. This is not always the case. If you are interviewed by an employee who normally does something else, (like programming), then you could get a better point of view. If, however, you are interviewed by a professional interviewer, who has no contact with the real world, then the situation you described could easily take place. Michael S. Czeiszperger | Disclaimer: "Sorry, I'm all out of pith" Sound Synthesis Studios | Snail: Room 406 Baker Phone: (614) College of the Arts Computer Lab | 1971 Neil Avenue 292- The Ohio State University | Columbus, OH 43210 0895 UUCP : {decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!osupyr!czei
mlinar@poisson.usc.edu (Mitch Mlinar) (09/18/87)
In article <1995@mtx5a.ATT.COM> dhd@mtx5a.ATT.COM (d.h.dawdy) writes: >> >Is it really necessary that we lie to get a job? It seems to me that an >> >employer should be appreciative of someone who is willing to admit their >> >feelings instead of trying to deceive the interviewer. > >Too bad it's not always so. >Like other respondants have already noted, the audience you have to deal >with often sets the tone for how your responses are received. > >At an interview some time ago, I responded honestly to questions I was >being asked and got into a dispute with the interviewer; >she emphatically told me I was giving HER the run-around >(based on what other applicants had been feeding her before I got >there). Apparently, EVERYONE else was lying and I couldn't convince > [ ... more ... ] >I think a potential employer who can't differentiate between >relevant fact and fiction is one not worth working for. Being on both sides of the fence, I will put in my two cents worth: (1) NEVER lie. "Selling" yourself is acceptable (shows self-confidence) but NEVER lie. I have had that situation occur once as an interviewer: a subtle lie, but detectable. I have to admit, I enjoyed digging into the questionable answer until the interviewee was clearing squirming. I concluded on a friendlier note by describing what they did wrong and how I knew it and letting him know that "if we cannot trust you even during an interview, how could we trust him as an employee". I hope the lesson did not fall on deaf ears. (2) Get some answers from the interviewer about his/her job with the company. My personal opinion is that a "professional interviewer" is not even worth feeding EXCEPT to train people technically QUALIFIED in the area. Thus, people who lie, and this is nearly always on a "technical" basis, are much easier to detect. I bet I can snow ANY professional interviewer if they have only a vague idea about what I do. The ONE case (unfortunately) where I ran across an "interviewer weenie" (campus interview), I made it quite clear that *I* could not form any opinion about the company if I could not talk technically with the manager(s) who were looking for applicants. I *tried* doing this without implying the interviewee was an unqualified; however, this made the interview very short! Despite this poor showing on their part (and my not so gracious response), I was later invited to the plant to talk to the two managers who had openings. DON'T SETTLE for someone who is NOT qualified (or at least understands at SOME technical level) the job in YOUR area. The interviewer will spend more time trying to understand your answers rather than watching HOW you respond. -Mitch
marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) (09/22/87)
In article <158@tijc02.UUCP>, pjs269@tijc02.UUCP writes: > When I was interviewing for a job ... > One of the questions on the application was (paraphrased): > > Would you be willing to work on a defense contract? > > I answered this question honestly as "no". During the interview the > interviewer spent five minutes asking me why..... > .... If I had enough time in > an interview I would be able to show the interviewer I was not a > communist and could be a benefit to their company. But the question > "why" is impossible to answer in a thirty minute interview. The interviewer's real question was not "why?" but "is your answer an evasion to hide something that would prevent you from getting DOD clearance, and might interfere with your job?" To be successful in any negotiation, you have to figure out what the other person's real problem is, and answer that. Of course, if your answer to the real question is a lie, you will have more problems later. Example: apparent question is "do you have experience in X?" If the real question was "can you solve our problems with X?" you will have no trouble if you lie to the apparent question. But if your answer is checked with your references, there was another real question you didn't know about. You can't tell for sure. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858 Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houdi!marty1
wcs@ho95e.UUCP (09/25/87)
:In article <158@tijc02.UUCP>, pjs269@tijc02.UUCP writes:
:> When I was interviewing for a job ...
:> One of the questions on the application was (paraphrased):
:> Would you be willing to work on a defense contract?
:> I answered this question honestly as "no". During the interview the
:> interviewer spent five minutes asking me why.....
:> [interviewer's prejudices caused rejection]
An answer that would have avoided this problem is
"No, my religious beliefs wouldn't permit me to do that kind of
work."
This is a valid answer even if you don't belong to a traditionally
anti-war religious group (e.g. Quakers). You still may not get the job,
if it really *is* a defense job, but it's a non-arguable point, even if the
interviewer is anti-anti-war and believes war is a Good Thing.
Assuming that the question meant
"we have a military department and a non-military department, and
have to decide where we can use you"
it leaves you and the interviewer in a position where you can explore the
non-military job options. Dealing with the more specific issues can get you
into an argument, which is not productive for either side.
--
# Thanks;
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcsrlw@philabs.Philips.Com (Richard Wexelblat) (09/29/87)
Years and years and years ago, I interviewed at Bell Labs. I told them
frankly that I wasn't interested in any defense-related work. They asked why
and we discussed it for a while. The interviewer was clearly ticked off -- as
if I had sanctimoniously rejected something he had a personal interest in. I
thought that BTL was off my list.
But they made me an offer at Holmdel and, for a couple of years I think I may
have been the only MTS at BTL sans clearance.
--
--Dick Wexelblat {uunet|ihnp4|decvax}!philabs!rlw
rlw@philabs.philips.comzrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (10/03/87)
In article <1319@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >In article <158@tijc02.UUCP>, pjs269@tijc02.UUCP writes: >> When I was interviewing for a job ... >> One of the questions on the application was (paraphrased): >> >> Would you be willing to work on a defense contract? >> >> I answered this question honestly as "no". During the interview the >> interviewer spent five minutes asking me why..... A job is not a right. If I flushed a prospective employee because he doesn't like country music, it would be my perogative. Because of the hostile and litigous atmostphere where every yahoo who gets jilted by a big company runs for the ACLU, employers keep their reasons for rejection close to the vest. If the author of the above dosn't want to work on defense contracts, he has to accept that any defense contractor with a whit of sense won't hire him. In today's economy, where any college educated person can get a good job, whining about your political preference keeping you from working for a defence contractor sounds like you want to bite the hand that feeds you and keep doing so with impunity, not just basic constitutional protection. If you want to lie in order to get a job, you have to weigh the following: If you lie to someone like me, and I find out, there will be hell to pay. Most employment contracts specify severe consequesces for such deception, and I would follow up to the harshest extent. If you lie to some soft headed type who doesn't really care, you have to consider that you have just sold your personal political views for the difference between the salary you have, and the salary you would have in a job that wasn't sensitive to your views. You will have sold out cheaply. -Zigurd
drw@culdev1.UUCP (Dale Worley) (10/05/87)
wcs@ho95e.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart) writes: > :In article <158@tijc02.UUCP>, pjs269@tijc02.UUCP writes: > :> When I was interviewing for a job ... > :> One of the questions on the application was (paraphrased): > :> Would you be willing to work on a defense contract? > :> I answered this question honestly as "no". During the interview the > :> interviewer spent five minutes asking me why..... > :> [interviewer's prejudices caused rejection] You might try a "baffle them with bullshit" approach: Many (if not most) "defense contracts" aren't things that directly kill people. (Ahhh! The efficiency of the US Gov't in action.) Even a lot of pure mathematics research is funded through the "Office of Naval Research". So, if you (1) aren't fundamentally pacifist, but rather are squeamish about making nuclear missiles, and (2) aren't so offended by DoD that you won't touch their money for anything, you can make this distinction clear to the interviewer. That way you can avoid things you don't like, but not get branded as a "pacifist troublemaker". Dale -- Dale Worley Cullinet Software ARPA: culdev1!drw@eddie.mit.edu UUCP: ...!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!culdev1!drw "Thank you for your cooperation. Goodnight." -- Robocop "Don't f--k with the babysitter." -- Adventures in Babysitting
pjs269@tijc02.UUCP (Paul Schmidt ) (10/06/87)
In article <7067@eddie.MIT.EDU> zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU >In article <1319@houdi.UUCP> marty1@houdi.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes: >>In article <158@tijc02.UUCP>, pjs269@tijc02.UUCP writes: >>> When I was interviewing for a job ... >>> One of the questions on the application was (paraphrased): >>> >>> Would you be willing to work on a defense contract? >>> >>> I answered this question honestly as "no". During the interview the >>> interviewer spent five minutes asking me why..... > >A job is not a right. Agreed. But equal oppurtunity is. > ... If I flushed a prospective employee because he doesn't >like country music, it would be my perogative. I certainly hope not! > ... Because of the hostile and >litigous atmostphere where every yahoo who gets jilted by a big company runs >for the ACLU, employers keep their reasons for rejection close to the vest. I never went to the ACLU. > >If the author of the above dosn't want to work on defense contracts, he >has to accept that any defense contractor with a whit of sense won't >hire him. I am currently working for a major defense contractor in there non-defense related Industrial Systems Division. The company that would not hire me is now a direct competitor in the EXACT same field. So how could I be whining? > ... In today's economy, where any college educated person can >get a good job, whining about your political preference keeping you >from working for a defence contractor sounds like you want to bite the >hand that feeds you and keep doing so with impunity, not just basic >constitutional protection. Zigurd misrepresented what I said. I said "I also believe in retrospect that I was discriminated on because of my religious beliefs." In my article I was not whining about not working for a defense contractor or biting the hand that feeds me and keep doing so with inpunity. My article was NOT whining and I NEVER thought about bringing any legal action against the company. The reason I never mentioned the name of the company in my article is because I am NOT out for vengence. > >If you want to lie in order to get a job, you have to weigh the >following: If you lie to someone like me, and I find out, there will >be hell to pay. Most employment contracts specify severe consequesces >for such deception, and I would follow up to the harshest extent. If >you lie to some soft headed type who doesn't really care, you have to >consider that you have just sold your personal political views for the >difference between the salary you have, and the salary you would have >in a job that wasn't sensitive to your views. You will have sold out >cheaply. > >-Zigurd I would like to state my case again so that no one is misled into thinking that I was whining about not getting a job with a defense contractor. The purpose of my article was to add to the discussion of whether lying in an interview may be defensible. I personally could never lie in an interview. And in my article, although I never said I wouldn't, I also never said I would. I feel that all interviewers are human and have prejudices and may not represent their company in all details. It is not fair that a person not get a job because of a personal interviewer prejudice, and it is shocking that Zigurd says that it is their perogative! Since all interviewers have prejudices I said: "lying may be defensible". The reason being that a 30 minute initial interview is not enough time to overcome some of these prejudices to show how one "could be a benefit to their company." I was not saying I would lie. That is why I used the word "may". To continue my story from the previous article: When I told the head of the Placement Office what happened, her advice was "LIE!". It would be interesting to know if MIT's placement office might suggest the same thing. Zigurd article proves my point. Some interviewers believe that it is there perogative to hire or not hire on the basis of prejudice. Zigurd states: "If I flushed a prospective employee because he doesn't like country music, it would be my perogative." If an interviewer asks a non-work related question, like "Do you like country music?" and know that he will hire you depending on your answer, it may be justifiable to lie. I still would not lie in my case, though. The company that had lots of defense contracts may want to reserve the right to move their employees to any job they choose, without any concern for the employees. I wouldn't want to work for this company because it appeared from the interview to have no concern for the individuality of it's employees. This company was diverse enough that had the interviewer gotten past that one question I could have benefited the company. (As I am it's competitor.) Zigurd only quoted a few lines from the article I wrote, and I am wondering if he, too, could not get past the answer to my question. By the way; there was another question on the application: Would you work in a nuclear power plant?
zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks) (10/08/87)
> >Zigurd misrepresented what I said. I said "I also believe in retrospect >that I was discriminated on because of my religious beliefs." In my I wouldn't leave your religious convictions out of the picture. The point is that you may hold whatever convictions you like as long as they do not affect job performance. An employer has to be careful about religious convictions because some religions do not encourage their adherents to give caesar his due, but rather to carry their religious beliefs to every corner of thier lives, even if it means sabotaging a project at work. Or, on a lighter note, Home Shopping Club might not hire you because they might feel that you are too honest to hawk cubic zircona earrings, which may or may not be a result of your religious convictions. If a hawkish Quaker applied for a job, I might check him out thoroughly, but I would hire him. If no such person exists, it is not my problem. > >I feel that all interviewers are human and have prejudices and may not >represent their company in all details. It is not fair that a person >not get a job because of a personal interviewer prejudice, and it is >shocking that Zigurd says that it is their perogative! I knew I could get a rise out of that line about country music. But it shouldn't really shock you. If, in a half hour interview, I have to make a hiring decision, I will take into account everything: how the applicant is dressed, i.e. do his clothes express a disregard for the importance of the interview; His grooming, i.e. is that punk-tail a sign that the applicant holds political views that may be incompatible with his duties; His language, i.e. does it sound influenced more by Utne Reader or the American Spectator -- and what was his reaction to that copy of the Spectator on my credenza. I don't have to ask an applicant "job unrelated questions." If I take him to lunch and come away with no clue as to his personality, I won't hire him. >Since all interviewers have prejudices I said: "lying may be defensible". And, as I pointed out, it may have dire consequences to your career. >...interesting to know if MIT's placement office might suggest the same >thing. I don't think it would need to. > > Would you work in a nuclear power plant? Now that is a good interview question. It asks, in effect, if the applicant is the type who has irrational fears. It asks if the applicant can conquer his fears if the job requires it. And it flushes out the outright nut cases. The fact that it shocks you means that it works. As for religous toleration, is it absolute on my part. You can have a closet full of saffron robes. You may privately plan for jihad, if you like. You can also be assured that I wouldn't make a hiring decision on that basis or any other irrelevent personal fact, such as the color of your skin. But if I so much as had a bad feeling about your attitude, no offer, no recourse, and no right to compel me to change my mind. -Zigurd
langz@athena.mit.edu (Lang Zerner) (10/09/87)
In article <1898@vax135.UUCP> booth@vax135.UUCP (David Booth) writes: >Quoting from zrm@eddie.MIT.EDU (Zigurd R. Mednieks): >> I wouldn't leave your religious convictions out of the picture... > >You are required by law to leave a job candidate's religious >convictions out of the picture. You may consider the applicant's >potential job performance, but you are prohibited from considering the >applicant's religious convictions... > >> > Would you work in a nuclear power plant? >> Now that is a good interview question. It asks, in effect, if the >> applicant is the type who has irrational fears...And it flushes >> out the outright nut cases... > >You are implying that only persons with "irrational fears" and "outright >nut cases" would refuse to work in a nuclear power plant. This is >patently false, and the remark is offensive. Mssrs. Booth and Mednieks-- Since you guys are obviously starting a round of spontaneous human combustion, would you mind adding alt.flame to your distribution list? The more the merrier I always, say. Fellow alt.flamers, to be doubly sure you don't miss out on the fun, check in to misc.jobs.misc or comp.misc to watch this potential inferno develop, and enjoy! This one has a lot of promise. Be seing you... --Lang -- Lang Zerner ARPA: langz@athena.mit.edu UUCP: mit-eddie!mit-athena!langz "No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the only misfortune is to do it solemnly" --Michel de Montaigne -- Phone: 617/666-9341 P.O. Box 247, M.I.T. Branch, Cambridge, MA 02139