ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, November 02, 2015

Mailvox: Keeping out SJWs

An email from a member of the Ilk who not only grasps the key concepts, but is putting them into practice in her HR department:
We [are a sizable] company.  I consider myself part of the “Ilk” and have been following your discussion of SJW’s for several years, including reading SJW’s Always Lie. As a result, we have become more proactive during the interview process for new employees, trying to discover if they harbor or are amenable to SJW ideas.

I thought an example of a recent interview would be of value to others in business as a model for modifying their hiring process.

Like many applicants, today’s had recently left a job.  We have always asked, “Why did you leave your last job?”, listened to the various responses, like: “the company downsized”, “change in management”, etc.  However, other common responses now require further questioning.  Responses such as, “I didn’t get along with my boss”, “I had an issue with a company policy”, or other answers that indicate some level of dissatisfaction with the previous employer require more in depth questioning.

When asked why they left the last company, one applicant said, “I just didn’t like some parts of the environment and am looking for a better place to work.”  Years ago, that innocent-sounding response would not have drawn any attention.  Not any more.

The manager immediately picked up on the “problem with previous employer” tone underlying the answer.  So, further questioning was required.

Manager: “Really.  What was part of the environment you didn’t like?”

Applicant: “Some of the employee interaction just wasn’t for me.  It wasn’t professional enough.”

Manager: “That makes sense.  I wouldn’t like that either.  What was an example of unprofessional behavior?”

Applicant: “It was really just the way one of the manager’s treated some of the people.”

Manager: “Oh.  That can be frustrating.  What did the manager do?”

Applicant: “He treated some of the people in the call center unprofessionally.”

Manager: “Ok, but what do you mean by treating them unprofessionally?”

Applicant: “Well, he acted inappropriately around them.”

Manager: “When you say “inappropriately", what do you mean?”

Applicant: “Well, we all thought it was harassment.”

Manager: “What kind of harassment, like yelling at people?”

Applicant: “No. Some of it was sexual harassment.”

Manager: “Oh no.  That’s not good at all.  So, you just left and didn’t do anything about that kind of harassment?”

Applicant: “No.  I spoke to lots of the other phone reps and we all agreed it was harassment.”

Manager: “So, after you spoke to the other reps, did you file a complaint?”

Applicant: “We tried.”

Manager: “So, when that didn’t work, did you file a lawsuit or do anything?”

Applicant: “That’s what we ended up having to do.  It was just that bad.”

Everything past this point was just the formalities of ending the interview without making the applicant feel like they were just arbitrarily eliminated from consideration.

The point I’m trying to share is the amount of effort, time and question asking skills it took to finally dig down to the real issue.  Most small and medium businesses are not used to “digging” during their interviews.  I know, having been guilty myself and many other business owners I know admit they do not “dig”.  If the person looks good, i.e. like they can do the job, they get hired.  That mindset used to work, but in today’s PC environment is too dangerous to the business’ survival, so it must be changed.

When a person finally admits to being the instigator of some type of action against the company and involving other employees in their “dissatisfaction”, then that seems to be a good example of an SJW.

I can hear the “moderates” saying something like, “But maybe they were sexually harassed.  It’s not fair to disqualify them when they were the victim of harassment.  They weren’t the problem.”  Conceptually, I agree.  However, the distinction seems to be the involvement of others or engaging in activities to “punish” the perceived offender; these are SJW characteristics.  A conservative person would simply have left the job if the environment was that uncomfortable.

So, hopefully this is of some value to others as they learn to keep SJW’s out, but I also hope you’ll comment on how you see the interview process being better utilized to screen SJW’s.  Also, how do you respond to the “moderate” mindset described above when it comes to hiring people?
I think questions such as "have you ever lodged a complaint against your superior" or "have you ever been party to a lawsuit against your employer" (prohibited by Federal law) should probably be added to the standard interview repertoire. A better approach would involve asking "have you ever been the victim of harassment", as the average SJW is going to assume you are on her side and be eager to tell you all about how everyone from her kindergarten teacher to her previous boss treated her shabbily.

After which you smile, thank her for her time, and circular file the application. Unless, of course, you're looking to be hit by complaints of one sort or another within weeks of her first day. SJWs Always Lie.

Labels: ,

106 Comments:

Blogger Dexter November 02, 2015 3:15 PM  

Short version: round-file the female applicants. =)

Blogger VD November 02, 2015 3:18 PM  

Short version: round-file the female applicants.

Not a legal option. That sort of talk is literally worse than useless in the office. And it's also misguided; there are many jobs for which you would prefer a female employee. The salient point is that neither being a pain in the ass nor being an SJW are protected employment classes.

Blogger Josh November 02, 2015 3:20 PM  

And it's also misguided; there are many jobs for which you would prefer a female employee.

For example anything involving regulatory compliance.

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 November 02, 2015 3:21 PM  

Well, the above manager seems to have learned his lessons well. I like the rule-of-thumb point that class-action lawsuits are more likely to be SJW-based than individual lawsuits, because the rabbits fear to act alone even when the grievance is real.

Blogger Josh November 02, 2015 3:21 PM  

You might also consider asking "have you ever been the victim of harassment", as the average SJW is going to assume you are on her side and be eager to tell you all about how everyone from her kindergarten teacher to her previous boss treated her shabbily.

That is an excellent trap.

OpenID paworldandtimes November 02, 2015 3:26 PM  

Are such frank SJWs common today? I'm just surprised that a presumably literate applicant wouldn't... well... lie. The "don't complain about your old boss" rule is part of Interviewing 101 that I thought every white collar job seeker knows.

Maybe the poz runs so deep that the applicant simply expects the hiring manager to think more favorably of her for having demonstrated speech-policing behavior. That would, after all, go with "SJWs always project."

- PA

Blogger Stilicho #0066 November 02, 2015 3:26 PM  

Also look at "interests" listed on resume and linkedin. Anyone who claims interest in "human rights", "social justice/responsibility", "diversity", etc. doesn't even get interview. Similarly, extracurricular activities in college or "charities" they support can be a giveaway too. The fact that SJW'S are feeling invulnerable in their faux victimhood makes them easy to spot much of the time.

Anonymous bgs November 02, 2015 3:32 PM  

I would certainly not mention reporting places for healthcare fraud, the nurse with a heplock in her leg that had gone through the junkie nurse program before ect.... Even though ethically appropriate.

OT:College dean not smart enough to use sidewalk, walk against traffic or wear cloths that would show up at night while walking on the road cries racism.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/10/29/college-dean-accuses-texas-officers-of-stopping-her-for-walking-while-black-police-claim-dashcam-video-tells-a-different-story/

Some places give out psych meds like candy. http://nypost.com/2015/11/01/pharmacy-accidentally-gave-kids-bipolar-pills-instead-of-candy/

Blogger hightecrebel November 02, 2015 3:32 PM  

@3 Josh

Why would they be preferred for something related to regulatory compliance?

Anonymous Soga November 02, 2015 3:33 PM  

Tell the moderate you're not interested in risking the loss or ruin of your company because of faux-victimhood abuse.

If he doesn't like it, he can join us in fighting faux-victimhood (SJWs) or sit down and shut the fuck up because he has no principles.

Moderates are lucky we don't tar and feather people anymore.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 02, 2015 3:35 PM  

Last time I talked to my old boss, he mentioned that of the ~20 HR complaints they had ongoing, every single one had been initiated by a woman. At that time they had about 200 employees with 25% female staff.

Blogger GreenEyedJinn November 02, 2015 3:36 PM  

Uh for all those wanting 'round file' the female applicants, check the lead sentence on the post. "Her HR department." The email Vox posted is a prime example of somebody who gets it and is willing to fight back.
Get real. One of the best bosses I ever worked for was a female, Army LTC...she didn't take any prisoners or suffer fools. Literally. Pure bad ass. I'd follow her to the sound of the guns in a heartbeat - make whatever you like of that, but unless you're Tom Kratman, I'll leave any dissent to that as "prove it to me" before I'll take you seriously.
Fighting SJWs isn't a question of plumbing. It's an effort of will.

Blogger Anchorman November 02, 2015 3:36 PM  

When they walk in, say, "Nice tits!"

It will work for women or men. Root em out early. If they laugh, they made the cut. If they're angry, you dodged a bullet. If they flash, they're hired.

Blogger Josh November 02, 2015 3:38 PM  

Why would they be preferred for something related to regulatory compliance?

Because they are sticklers for following the rules to the letter.

OpenID paworldandtimes November 02, 2015 3:38 PM  

What many people don't realize is that the purpose of HR, especially at the bigger corps, is NOT to promote social justice or any such nonsense. It's to protect the company from internal lawsuits related to equal opportunity non-compliance.

- PA

Anonymous Giuseppe The Kurgan November 02, 2015 3:40 PM  

I actually make it a point at interviews to specify I am NOT politically correct and that my honesty invariably WILL cause a problem.
The fools assume I am humble-bragging. More than once I reminded them of this shortly before the end of our working relationship.

OpenID paworldandtimes November 02, 2015 3:42 PM  

Internal lawsuits and external audits.

Anonymous Soga November 02, 2015 3:43 PM  

PA: That is the ostensible reason for HR departments, but you are confusing the company's purpose for them with the purpose for which they are being used.

If your HR department is staffed by SJWs, your company won't be protected from internal lawsuits related to EEO noncompliance. Quite the opposite, actually. They will use your HR department to aggressively promote SJW nonsense under a thin veneer of EEO compliance.

Hire sane people in the first place, and you won't have that problem.

Anonymous Fran November 02, 2015 3:48 PM  

I just hope they(SJWs) don't see this post.

Blogger Jourdan November 02, 2015 3:51 PM  

This HR officer should consult her company counsel if she wants to double-check my take: shut up.

What she says here is legally actionable itself. (I disagree with the law strongly on point, but there is no question about it).

Blogger Josh November 02, 2015 3:56 PM  

What she says here is legally actionable itself. (I disagree with the law strongly on point, but there is no question about it).

What's legally actionable about it?

Blogger RobertT November 02, 2015 3:58 PM  

Regarding your suggestions at the end: Although they're great suggestions and I intend to include them in the future, my own experience is these people don't tell the truth. I'm surprised the gal in the story offered that information. That made me wonder If you ask the question and are lied to, and she brings suit against your company, what recourse do you have?

Anonymous Soga November 02, 2015 4:03 PM  

How is it legally actionable to not hire someone because "while your qualifications were admirable, they were not quite what we were looking for in meeting the needs of the position"?

If the person you hired was objectively less qualified (read: less credentialed), you just say the SJW was overqualified. Otherwise, they're underqualified. If equal, "we selected an applicant that we believed was a better fit for fulfilling the job."

Blogger Rye Bread November 02, 2015 4:03 PM  

Another short list rule I have developed is do not hire individuals straight out of college, even for entry level positions.

I developed this rule after a run in with a co-op who did not get along with her older co-workers. HR and our HR manager came to the determination that we cannot afford to hire college indoctrinated staff without a determination of how they will react with the existing workforce.

Thus we want to see at least 2 years on a resume, as this will give a better indication on if the individual in question will cause problems. Unfortunately this hits both men and women, even though women have been the primary issue.

Blogger Rye Bread November 02, 2015 4:04 PM  

Off topic and stupid question, but how do I bold text?

Anonymous Soga November 02, 2015 4:05 PM  

It's always, ALWAYS possible to coach these things in performance-related terms.

What would the lawsuit be over anyway - asking about prior employment history? I mean, how is that illegal?

Blogger Josh November 02, 2015 4:07 PM  

Off topic and stupid question, but how do I bold text?

[b] and [/b], replace [ ] with < >

Blogger YIH November 02, 2015 4:09 PM  

If they list a Faceberg account, look at the pics.
Red flags include this (scroll down) or this or more than two (non-meme) cats.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 02, 2015 4:09 PM  

"What's legally actionable about it?"

Job interview question rape

Blogger jdwalker November 02, 2015 4:09 PM  

Josh: What's legally actionable about it?

I would say that everything is legally actionable. The ease of stating a claim that would at least get the summary judgment stage (e.g., "disparate impact" litigation, "pretext", etc.) is the problem. Even the employers who are completely in the SJW camp and looking to hire SJWs get targeted this way, and it is often easier and cheaper to settle than to try to dismiss a lawsuit. It is why I would say there is risk of adding Vox's questions to the interview format or asking too many questions of SJWs that might tip them off that they were disqualified because they are SJWs. But as with most things I advise on, the risks are sometimes worth it. I think this is the point that if you prevent entryism from the beginning, hire primarily off of references as opposed to general advertising your positions, etc., you stand a better chance of protecting the business and avoiding unnecessary litigation.

Blogger Rye Bread November 02, 2015 4:09 PM  

Thank you!

Blogger Dave November 02, 2015 4:13 PM  

My congratulations to the emailer who is shining her Ilk beacon of light upon her HR department. The HR dept. attracts SJWs like moths to a light as pointed out in SJWAL and many times in this blog.

I must admit I was anticipating in this email that the applicant would proudly confess to being a SJW and regale the interviewer with tales about codes of conduct and diversity training and genderless bathrooms. Sexual harassment lawsuits are so passe nowadays.

Blogger Jourdan November 02, 2015 4:16 PM  

The actionable quality is raised by the legal concept of retaliation, which, keep in mind, does not have to be by the same employer, only *an* employer, and, further, that the EEOC has jurisdiction over *all* aspects of the employment process, including application.

The EEOC's general information page speaks to this very situation, and note this is simply Federal law: many states, such as California, have state laws that are more restrictive of what may be asked and taken into consideration during interview.

All of the laws we enforce make it illegal to fire, demote, harass, or otherwise "retaliate" against people (applicants or employees) because they filed a charge of discrimination, because they complained to their employer or other covered entity about discrimination on the job, or because they participated in an employment discrimination proceeding (such as an investigation or lawsuit).

Blogger Lovekraft November 02, 2015 4:17 PM  

but for those who's workplace is already infested, it is a minefield. Very prudent to take mental notes on the mood, general disposition, comments of co-workers so you can develop your own persona.

My reputation is one of 'don't mess with this guy, he'll tear you a new a$$hole' so I'm left alone, but this took a long time and many battles to establish. But every now and then the libtardedness has to seep out and look for either confirmation or a new target.

This site, among others, is a valuable resource in those occasions. It is actually going to be used as a requirement before I engage someone in debate: whether they can recite the first 3 laws of SJWs, among other 'tests.'

Blogger Rye Bread November 02, 2015 4:23 PM  

genderless bathrooms

Here in Houston they are trying to push that garbage. If it passes I have resigned myself to a course of "biological vandalism".

The game plan is to stop by the local taco truck (which always does a number on my gut), goto the "bathroom formerly known as the womens room", and do my business. I wont be flushing and I will do what I can to miss the target within reason.

I might even combine it with talk like a pirate day. Arrrgggg!

Blogger Josh November 02, 2015 4:26 PM  

Here in Houston they are trying to push that garbage. If it passes I have resigned myself to a course of "biological vandalism".

You are the hero Houston needs.

Blogger Dexter November 02, 2015 4:29 PM  

Uh for all those wanting 'round file' the female applicants, check the lead sentence on the post.

Uh for all those incapable of understanding that I was KIDDING, note the smiley after I said that.

Blogger Dexter November 02, 2015 4:30 PM  

The game plan is to stop by the local taco truck (which always does a number on my gut), goto the "bathroom formerly known as the womens room", and do my business. I wont be flushing and I will do what I can to miss the target within reason.

Also, the no-squatting-on-the-seat rule is suspended in this case.

Blogger SirHamster November 02, 2015 4:32 PM  

The actionable quality is raised by the legal concept of retaliation, which, keep in mind, does not have to be by the same employer, only *an* employer, and, further, that the EEOC has jurisdiction over *all* aspects of the employment process, including application.


So don't leave a trail. Your point is that this email is a trail that can be traced, right?

Anonymous Soga November 02, 2015 4:34 PM  

How do they prove that it was a retaliatory action?

The practice being advised here is not retaliatory in any sense of the word; at worst, it is precautionary.

Or is it retaliation if you hire non-felons over felons?

Blogger Cail Corishev November 02, 2015 4:35 PM  

I'm no expert, but I have a feeling Jourdan is right: asking directly whether they've ever filed anything against a previous employer could be cited as a type of discrimination (though legally actionable doesn't necessarily mean "likely to get me sued"). Better to ask the vague questions this lady did, and let the SJW dance up to it herself. They love both to complain and to talk about how they shafted someone, but you have to give them the opportunity, which she did admirably here.

I too thought it was understood that you never say anything negative about a previous employer, just like you don't say anything negative about a previous lover when you're on a first date. Once again, I overestimate people's common sense.

Anonymous Soga November 02, 2015 4:36 PM  

Also, the no-squatting-on-the-seat rule is suspended in this case.

Muy auténtico.

Blogger Guitar Man November 02, 2015 4:39 PM  

Rule number one when discussing previous employers: Don't disparage them. Employers want employees who are loyal and willing to work. That's all.

Blogger Daniel November 02, 2015 4:41 PM  

If everything is actionable, who cares. Black Knight the hell out of the law.

Also, how do you respond to the “moderate” mindset described above when it comes to hiring people?

"The interview process is a disqualification process. For every opening, we have four most-qualified interchangable candidates. We interview eight and are looking to eliminate, not qualify. It is just how it works. If someone with mild cerebral palsy staggers a bit when he leaves, and I think he's drunk instead, he's disqualified; not because he has CP, and not because of my mistake - but because I need to knock him out over something. Same thing with a mistaken SJW.

It is strictly business."

That's the logic, for the rare moderate who wants it.

The real answer is: "Because I dodge bullets first and find out if they are blanks later, at my convenience."

Blogger Dave November 02, 2015 4:43 PM  

Also, the no-squatting-on-the-seat rule is suspended in this case.

Muy auténtico.


Oh sh*t was afraid it would veer off in that direction

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 02, 2015 4:44 PM  

Ask them how they defused some situation at their previous employment or how they handle co workers in difficult situations.

Blogger JDC November 02, 2015 4:46 PM  

I think the dialogue with the interviewee was beautifully orchestrated. "That makes sense," and "That's not good at all." I have also found it helpful to actually call their references, and even people they didn't list as references. It's easy enough to find out who their supervisor was at their previous employment. Often they will not say anything except to confirm the dates of service, but if you are bold and polite, they will share important SJW information with you.

Great post. This should be an appendix in your next book, "How to field dress an SJW."

Blogger Red Jack November 02, 2015 4:47 PM  

If asked "Did you every complain about your former boss?:" My answer" YES. To his face."

He was a madman. Literally. Told one of my crew to do an unsafe act (boss wasn't aware of the conditions at the time). I told the boss to either tell me, or get the frack out of my plant as he was putting my life in danger. Scared the heck out of the shiny hat engineer with me. Made my old boss laugh.

He was a mad man, but fun to work with. Never a dull moment. Trick was to realize that he was nuts, but very smart. So if you figured out what he was trying to tell you, he was typically right. The 10% he was wrong had to be met with brute force.

Happier days. Don't miss the plant, but do miss that boss.

Blogger Daniel November 02, 2015 4:49 PM  

Rule number one when discussing previous employers: Don't disparage them. Employers want employees who are loyal and willing to work. That's all.

Rule number one about SJWs: they always lie. Even if she didn't participate in a lawsuit, even if she didn't suffer faux harrassment...she is going to say something like that in an interview because these bastards bend toward the dramatic.

They want confirmation of their status-by-feelings, even in job interviews, even if it costs them the job. Guess what story the SJW got to tell after not getting a call back?

"Oh my GOD! Did you hear that I have been BLACKBALLED BY THE INDUSTRY for being a prior victim of harrassment?"

There is this rumor going around that in addition to lying, SJWs always project...

Blogger Dave November 02, 2015 4:51 PM  

how they handle co workers in difficult situations.

I guess if they tell you they went postal that's probably a negative.

Anonymous LLC November 02, 2015 4:54 PM  

I don't want to go into specifics, but sometimes you get the necessary information by asking very standard questions. In my case, I asked an applicant the standard, "Describe a challenge you faced at your last job, and how you addressed it" type question.

After the interview, I asked my boss (who sat in on all my interviews), "How did she possibly think that answer would help her?"

Blogger Salt November 02, 2015 4:56 PM  

It's easy enough as an interviewer to employ triggers, done as offhand chatty statements and not formal questions.

"Our tech people are tough and think our labs are great to work in, though we've had a few who cry rather easily. They generally don't last long."
"One guy once said we need a code of conduct. Not the kind of code we write. He didn't make it through the day."
Wear an SJW triggering shirt.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop November 02, 2015 5:01 PM  

It's so convenient to have the SJWAL Attack Survival Guide right next to this post. Open pdf in a new window and run the checklist.

1. Locate or Create a Violation of the Narrative.
Applicant: “He treated some of the people in the call center unprofessionally.”

2. Point and Shriek.
Applicant: “Well, we all thought it was harassment.”

3. Isolate and Swarm.
Applicant: “No. I spoke to lots of the other phone reps and we all agreed it was harassment.”

4. Reject and Transform.
5. Press for Surrender.
Manager: “So, after you spoke to the other reps, did you file a complaint?”
Applicant: “We tried.”


6. Appeal to Amenable Authority.
7. Show Trial.
Manager: “So, when that didn’t work, did you file a lawsuit or do anything?”
Applicant: “That’s what we ended up having to do. It was just that bad.”


8. Victory Parade.
(unstated)

Anonymous TechnicalRecruiter November 02, 2015 5:02 PM  

This is an important post - but I'd offer some different suggestions for interviewing.

A) Any hard line of questioning, any criteria, any process that you use on one candidate has to be used on all candidates. This involves more discrimination law than anything else, but don't think you can pick and choose questions to throw a person out. You need standardization. The good news, is that the old questions are the best.

1) What was your role in that project? What did you deliver/do/complete?
2) What is your ideal work situation? Have you worked in this before? What was lacking in your other positions?
3) How do you work with your fellow employees? Vendors? Customers? How do you correct them when they make a mistake? Can you give me an example of when you [repeat their answer back to them].
4) What do you want to see from your company? Can you give me an example of a company [or organization] that does that?

These questions get to the heart of the matter - do you work or do you talk? How do you deal with conflict? They also have wide open invitations the SJW's can't help pouncing on. That [or organization] is a beauty. You're going to hear why they love Planned Parenthood or Obama for America or HSUS.

B) SJW's are herd animals.

1) SJW's know their views aren't popular, and they won't dare bring them up unless they think it's useful. Once they think you're with them, they will open the floodgates with information.
2) To get them to think you agree - you need to say things like, "that's terrible - was it one of those situations?" Or "I used to work in a company that had problems like that - followed by headshake.

C) Learn to end every interview the same way. "Thank you for your time. We have a number of applicants to go through but will respond once we've completed this round of interviews." Memorize that and repeat it at the end of every interview and every email. It has just enough ambiguity to be a dismissal but also an opportunity. It's also excellent to have a track record of repeating this if you are ever questioned or forced to testify.

Finally - remember to trust your intuition. Your intuition isn't good at picking people, but it is good and rejecting them. If there's something wrong and you can't put your finger on it, you need to reject the candidate. The other side of that is if you're excited about the candidate, that isn't an automatic yes, but that's advice for a different time.

Blogger Daniel November 02, 2015 5:02 PM  

You can also ask seemingly frivolous questions like a brief word association:

"Give me a one word reply to these common words:

poor
rich
female
male
trump
rainbow"

Here's the answer key for the SJWs:

poor - VICTIM
rich - THIEF
female - BRAVE
male - PRIVILEGE
trump - YUCK
rainbow - SQUEE

Anonymous Forrest Bishop November 02, 2015 5:14 PM  

@55. Daniel
Give me a one word reply to these common words:

poor - taste
rich - worthy
female - protect
male - strong
trump - president
rainbow - refraction

Blogger Dave November 02, 2015 5:19 PM  

Works for other groups too:

poor - ghetto
rich - bitch
female - ho
male - pimp
trump - Donald
rainbow - gay

Anonymous BGS November 02, 2015 5:27 PM  

It just had to be 2 faggots from Chicongo that made the paintball pepper spray gun.
http://fox2now.com/2015/10/28/startup-selling-gun-that-incapacitates-rather-than-kills/

Did you guys see this? http://qz.com/532580/scientists-have-found-a-way-to-make-light-waves-travel-infinitely-fast/

Blogger Dave November 02, 2015 5:32 PM  

Terribly sexist how everyone presumes the applicant in this anecdote is female. For shame!

Blogger Arborist (#0232) November 02, 2015 5:32 PM  

Prescient. I'm interviewing for a job on Wednesday, and the CEO is flying me out to corporate for two days to check me out in person. I like this company because they are traditional, anti-SJW and family owned. I believe I know why they want to spend some time with me. They will not be disappointed.

Blogger Karl November 02, 2015 5:39 PM  

Add some pre-interview screening. Put a marshmallow on the table, and say that no-one has been able today to resist it, but if they don't eat it, they'll get 2 at the end of the interview. Leave room for a phone call.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

Anonymous Bobby Trosclair November 02, 2015 5:45 PM  

I would recommend:

Q: Which do you regard as a more valuable trait in an employee? Assimilation into the existing business culture, or working from within to change that culture to a broader, more inclusive ethic?

Q: Here at YourCompany, we place great value on a corporate ethic that values diversity and community outreach and inclusion. Described 3 initiatives you took at your last place of employment that reflects your personal commitment to those goals.

In the first instance, even a straight-up Taqqiya lie will be difficult to manage for the SJW _ the first answer (which is the only correct one) will be so difficult to manage that the facial microindicators will be enormous...also, the way it is phrased, the SJW applicant will be unsure what the desired response is and is likely to feel that termiting a company is actually seen as beneficial in your company.

The second question expands on the ambiguity of the first question, and encourages the SJW to provide a full CV of her SJW activities at her last employment.

Blogger JCclimber November 02, 2015 5:48 PM  

As has been pointed out, you should have standard questions. And it should be standard that you explore based on the answers to those questions.

You are not legally liable for information that the interviewee voluntarily provides to your standard, open ended and innocuous questions. You just need to spend a couple hours crafting the questions and script.

Those couple hours will pay off 100X over the next few years in time saved in responding to complaints, dealing with drama, and increased employee productivity from not having to dance around the easily offended.

Also, having that ending script is absolutely vital. Memorize it. You NEVER want to reveal to a rejected candidate that they just failed the interview. You can immediately follow up with those who DID do a good job in the interview to let them know that they are still in the running.

Blogger JCclimber November 02, 2015 5:53 PM  

@62. Bobby, neither of those questions passes the smell test.
Do you seriously want to defend those questions in a court deposition?

If any person dropped one of those questions on me, I'd politely smile at them, and conclude the interview, and they would have lost a top notch candidate.

Your best candidates are interviewing YOUR company, because they have other options. And in today's environment, you better be asking the same questions of every single candidate.

Blogger Danby November 02, 2015 5:58 PM  

One question,
"At you last employer (school, org) what did you do to make it a better place to work?"
That will work like a suitcase full of cocaine works on Charlie Sheen.

Blogger JartStar November 02, 2015 5:59 PM  

Voight-Kampff machine for SJWs.

You see a microaggression against a person in the office, but the the victim just laughs it off. The aggressor turns to you and smiles.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop November 02, 2015 6:03 PM  

@58. BGS November 02, 2015 5:27 PM

Did you guys see this? http://qz.com/532580/scientists-have-found-a-way-to-make-light-waves-travel-infinitely-fast/

An example of science-by-press-release. The science writer doesn't know what he's talking about. Consider a wave breaking on a beach at an angle. We see a line of foam that appears to move rapidly along, parallel to the shore. But the wave is coming in nearly perpendicular. The motion of the incoming wave is real (group velocity), the motion of the foam breaking is an illusion, a phase 'velocity'. Nothing is actually moving parallel to the beach. No energy is being transmitted that way. That's what phase velocity is (except when it is used different like...). Another example is the wave guide- the RF bounces back and forth as it moves down the tube, giving the appearance of a group velocity slower than light, but the phase velocity, measured where the wave bounces off the metal, is faster than light, similar to the foam breaking on the beach, giving the illusion of superluminal charge distributions.

Anonymous fish November 02, 2015 6:08 PM  

WHAT CRAZY LOOKS LIKE IN MY NECK O THE WOODS....

George, 02 November 2015 at 01:57 PM

Glad to see that you understand there is a difference between men and women. Also that it could be a breath of fresh air for BoS. Right on cue you misrepresent a progressive point of view and position. You really do not understand progressives at all.

When it comes to politics women are no better than men but will bring the perspective of 50% of the population to the table, which is absent at the moment. White males are dramatically over represented in our state and federal governments. Why? All the laws up until the the mid 20th century were based on the perception of how white males experienced and viewed our nation and society. So all this privilege is no surprise.

In 2015, over 200 years later, our federal government still has 80% white male perception on our nation and society. Does this mean all white males agree? Not even close. No matter how much I can sympathize with women or people of color there is no possible way I can every understand what it means to live in our community, state, nation, or world as anything other than a white male. The same is true for women or people of color. They have no idea of the pressures and responsibilities that comes with that privilege.

Over my lifetime I have only been able to explain it one way that most people can understand. I have chosen not to take advantage of many of the privileges because I truly believe that is the wrong direction the human race needs to go. Here is the point, as a white male I had the privilege or luxury of having a choice in the matter. That is the difference. It is getting better for more people but it is not even close to being just and equitable, which means equal access not mandated equal portions.

Posted by: Ben Emery | 02 November 2015 at 02:50 PM


Honest, heartfelt, earnest........and full on SJW crazy!

Anonymous Forrest Bishop November 02, 2015 6:12 PM  

@66. JartStar
Voight-Kampff machine for SJWs.
You see a microaggression against a person in the office, but the the victim just laughs it off. The aggressor turns to you and smiles.


You’re watching a stage play, a banquet is in progress, the guests are enjoying an appetizer of raw oysters. The entree consists of boiled SJW.

Anonymous Trimegistus November 02, 2015 6:23 PM  

Some of the suggestions here are the legal equivalent of dousing yourself in kerosene and lighting a cigarette.

I think a simpler, vaguer, more open-ended approach is best: "tell me about your last place of work." Just the things they think are important to describe will reveal an awful lot.

And of course end each interview with a boilerplate ending. Surely you're not making hiring decisions on the spot.

Blogger Dave November 02, 2015 6:30 PM  

@Arborist - I'm interviewing for a job on Wednesday, and the CEO is flying me out to corporate for two days to check me out in person.

That's a very good sign they want to extend an offer and the CEO is taking your measure to confirm it's the right move. Good luck.

Blogger VD November 02, 2015 6:33 PM  

4) What do you want to see from your company? Can you give me an example of a company [or organization] that does that?

That is fantastic. Perfect and legally impeccable.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 02, 2015 6:36 PM  

@67

Nice explanation on group vs. phase velocity.

Blogger IM2L844 November 02, 2015 6:37 PM  

Define freedom. Give me some examples.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop November 02, 2015 6:44 PM  

@70. Trimegistus
Some of the suggestions here are the legal equivalent of dousing yourself in kerosene and lighting a cigarette.

Which is highly entertaining, you must admit. The "Manager" character in the post played it perfect.

Applicant: “Some of the employee interaction just wasn’t for me. It wasn’t professional enough.”

Manager: “That makes sense. I wouldn’t like that either. What was an example of unprofessional behavior?”


Agrees and shows empathy, establishes rapport. Subtext says "we're on the same team", "trust me". This guy or gal could be a 'good cop' police interrogator.
...

Applicant: “No. Some of it was sexual harassment.”

Manager: “Oh no. That’s not good at all. So, you just left and didn’t do anything about that kind of harassment?”


Masterful.

Blogger Noah B #120 November 02, 2015 6:51 PM  

It seems like a good headhunter/talent scout could be of great use in a gatekeeping role. Best to keep SJWs from ever making it to a formal interview.

Anonymous elmer t. jones November 02, 2015 6:53 PM  

The problem with the applicants is that they had no "employment game", which they could have learned by reading my 60 page primer that can be downloaded free from my blog :

https://employmentgame.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/employment-game-preview-download

Blogger James Sullivan November 02, 2015 6:57 PM  

I think that the interviewer did a terrific job. I also think that prospective employee revealed themselves as undesirable by their second response (Just answer the stupid question!)

SJWs always lie. But not all liars are SJWs.

The interviewee's answers oozed a certain type of slippery passive-aggression that wouldn't be desirable, SJW or not.

Blogger Lisa Merkel November 02, 2015 7:00 PM  

My own experience is that when people suffer harassment they are pretty quick to provide specific examples. This includes those who are normally shy and don't like to talk about such things because they avoid conflict. I could have been sympathetic to the applicant in the original post, but it went from "inappropriate" to "we all thought..." as opposed to "excessive touching"

Anonymous A Visitor November 02, 2015 7:11 PM  

"have you ever been party to a lawsuit against your employer" (prohibited by Federal law)

That's a shame that can't be asked. A company I worked for in 2013 found itself on the end of an employee lawsuit that ended up being one of six federal investigations into the company (feds took'em down last year). Granted, they were screwing us out of pay. I ended up getting $76 in back pay and I hadn't even filed, heh!

Also, how do you respond to the “moderate” mindset described above when it comes to hiring people?

My 2¢ for what it's worth: since most positions nowadays (hell, even when I was in high school just a decade ago some required them) background investigations carried out by a 3rd party entity, try and see (if you're on the fence about it or think there may be some merit, as in REAL sexual harassment) if you can't find people from their former employer that would corroborate it (pick people off in the parking lot (do not let them give names for you)). For those on your panel that are of the moderate mindset when you know said allegation is bs simply point out how most of it really isn't real. I wouldn't know how to operationalize that though.

Also look at "interests" listed on resume and linkedin. Anyone who claims interest in "human rights", "social justice/responsibility", "diversity", etc. doesn't even get interview.

Reminds me of a recent job interview I had, "Have you ever been a member of an animal rights' group? How do you feel about experimentation on animals?" No and (a diplomatic version) of screw'em, we're top dog on the food chain, lol.

@19 (Fran) If they do, adapt new tactics. Evolve. Over come!

To back up @22 RobertT's point, watch their body language. As he said, they lie (one of Vox's rules about SJWs after all). Perhaps turning up the temperature...wait no, that'd just make them tweak out. Scratch that.

@23 How is it legally actionable to not hire someone because "while your qualifications were admirable, they were not quite what we were looking for in meeting the needs of the position"? Well, a recent fed position I applied to I exceed all of their qualifications but there were preference eligible vets in line too. They got the nod.

@28 Wonderful idea! To further that, check out if they have a a) LinkedIn profile b) Instagram account c) Twitter account, etc.

Here in Houston they are trying to push that garbage. If it passes I have resigned myself to a course of "biological vandalism". What is "biological vandalism" Also, stay strong. Between all the illegals, legals, and California dweebs moving to Texas, she needs all the help she can get.

So don't leave a trail. Your point is that this email is a trail that can be traced, right? We have a winner, Johnny! As we used to say in my old profession, "If it's not written down, it didn't happen."

@55

Black - white, bean-pod, negro? Whitey

Anonymous Forrest Bishop November 02, 2015 7:20 PM  

@78. James Sullivan
that prospective employee revealed themselves as undesirable by their second response (Just answer the stupid question!)

You're right. It took me a second read to key in on that, but the Manager probably picked up on it immediately. That was in the movie too, before he caught her out with the boiled SJW-

"You're reading a magazine, you come across a full-page nude photo of a girl-"
"Is this testing whether I'm replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?"
"Just answer the question, please."

Blogger Doom November 02, 2015 7:33 PM  

For those in hr, it might behoove you to begin screening for these types. As budgets tighten, and the economy continues to be brutal and very possibly (probably if you ask me) get worse, companies are going to begin to be proactive themselves. One SJW, or worse a small gang of them, once nested, will be very difficult to be extracted. So, the companies will begin not only looking at ways of getting rid of these people, but looking at who let them in. The first thing they will scrub, before even bothering to get rid of a nest of harpies is getting rid of the way those were let in. Sometimes they will simply retrain you. But if they think you don't get it, or can't, or worse are on that side of things, they will scrub you.

Look, they are in it for money. They want it all to work simply and easily. Either you are in on that enough, and your check covers little emotional inconveniences, or you are a pariah and will be wherever you work. In which case, not only they but everyone in your industry, will soon learn that you are one of those people who are too sensitive to make a living working for a living. You will be let go.

Simply ask yourself, is how you feel worth more than a job? Is what you think more important than playing a part in building an maintaining a profitable situation for your employer, your coworkers, and yourself? It's come to this and you aren't welcome. We can't afford you anymore.

Blogger JCclimber November 02, 2015 7:36 PM  

"Everything past this point was just the formalities of ending the interview without making the applicant feel like they were just arbitrarily eliminated from consideration."

I recommend using the remaining time to build your case of why you won't be choosing to hire this person. You want iron clad reasons, don't leave it to a vague hope that the SJW won't pursue the matter legally. It's the same amount of time, because the interview is already on your schedule.

Blogger SciVo November 02, 2015 8:26 PM  

bgs @8: OT:College dean not smart enough to use sidewalk, walk against traffic or wear cloths that would show up at night while walking on the road cries racism.

From the link, it was a Saturday morning; but still, I correctly predicted that it was in the Dallas area. I haven't been there in over 15 years, but back then, they had such a big problem of blacks walking on the street -- while dressed in dark clothing from head to toe -- that more than one person warned me to be careful driving at night.

OpenID crash November 02, 2015 8:36 PM  

FWIW it's worth the best interviewing technique I know of is to have a list of important points you want and can ask information about and ask them many different ways.

Liars in general, will in general have a hard time keeping their story straight, especially if you disguise up the questions.

Anonymous NateM November 02, 2015 8:39 PM  

SJW or no, who admits in an interview that they've sued their employer. No interviewer wants to hear that. I've been on that side of the table and that's still the stupidest thing someone's said. and that includes the girl who told me she left Arby's over "creative differences"

Blogger rrm1 November 02, 2015 8:42 PM  

Marshmallow exeroment--32 participants. How is it possible to draw valid conclusions from 32 kids? Behavioral science=pseudoscience.

Blogger IsMishe November 02, 2015 9:39 PM  

Note the years worked at the last job. Less than 1-2 years is pretty much the grounds to start asking why "those people" were so mean. You can learn a lot from a dummy.

Blogger Brad Andrews November 02, 2015 9:44 PM  

Getting 2 days to fly out to a company is quite tough if you only have 2 or maybe 3 weeks vacation a year.

Anonymous ThirdMonkey VFM #337 November 02, 2015 10:05 PM  

I still think Nate's idea a few weeks ago is the best. Dig a hole that is as deep as the shovel handle and big enough to spin the shovel in the center. If he digs it himself, give him the job. If he recruits his friends to help, put him in sales. If he rents a backhoe, make him a project manager. SJWs are allergic to actual work and accomplishment.

Blogger Thucydides November 02, 2015 10:21 PM  

One thing I am finding astounding is how even a good hard dose of reality isn't penetrating the thin skins of these people anymore. Reading Instapundit and seeing stories of "Progressives" who were victims of armed holdups apologizing, or one person in San Fransisco (go figure) who wants us to stop calling people who steal "criminals".

Firing or proactively not hiring SJW's is a good first step (insulate yourself), but more and more it seems like whatever is infecting these people and damaging their brains is spreading. (Maybe I should send Castalia an outline...). Regardless, it is harder and harder to carve out a true safe space (in the sense that you will be safe from SJW's) and work peacefully and productively. Best luck to all of you out there.

Blogger byronfrombyron November 02, 2015 10:45 PM  

Vox,
Any advice on those that have lost employment to the wonders of Code of Conduct and holistic disciplinary policies? I'm currently not in need, but others are, and ammo for such questions would be helpful. I usually speak of the changes in company culture, but name none.

Blogger IM2L844 November 02, 2015 10:56 PM  

Liars in general, will in general have a hard time keeping their story straight, especially if you disguise up the questions.

It might be quicker to take the direct route and simply ask them if truth is relative to the observer. If they don't know what that means, they're too stupid to hire. If they give a direct answer, it will be revealing.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother November 02, 2015 11:28 PM  

My CEO doesn't hire anyone who doesn't fit into our culture of white Christian men.

Blogger CM November 03, 2015 2:03 AM  

Ugh. I'd fail these questions. No job for me! Luckily I have 5 more years before I can start applying...

I wanted to sue my doctor for incompetence and my (female) hr rep & functional for harrassment.

I am easily manipulated. A woman used me to retaliate against a male coworker. I was 22.

4) What do you want to see from your company? Can you give me an example of a company [or organization] that does that?

More compliance to procedural policies (requirements, design, and testing documents)... and believes the best way to raise the bottom line is to treat your customer well. No clue on a company that does that in practice.

I hated my last boss because he made a bad design choice that gouged our customer and ultimately cost our program..

I'm a winner. Hire me.

Anonymous Opus November 03, 2015 3:14 AM  

None of this would happen if there were more Nepotism, by which I mean one should work with people to whom one is related.

In my experience people are hired because and only because you are liked by the interviewer.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop November 03, 2015 3:34 AM  

@80. A Visitor

My 2¢ for what it's worth: since most positions nowadays (hell, even when I was in high school just a decade ago some required them) background investigations carried out by a 3rd party entity, try and see (if you're on the fence about it or think there may be some merit, as in REAL sexual harassment) if you can't find people from their former employer that would corroborate it (pick people off in the parking lot (do not let them give names for you)). For those on your panel that are of the moderate mindset when you know said allegation is bs simply point out how most of it really isn't real. I wouldn't know how to operationalize that though.

I don't even know what you just said.

Reminds me of a recent job interview I had, "Have you ever been a member of an animal rights' group? How do you feel about experimentation on animals?" No and (a diplomatic version) of screw'em, we're top dog on the food chain

That's better. Sounds like "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?" Some comedian (Carlin? Bill Hicks?) has a routine about that one, something about "A cure for cancer? Just slap those paddles on the monkey and shoot the juice in. Better him than me". I could be misquoting.

Anonymous Bz November 03, 2015 4:06 AM  

I see that Ellen Pao already has used this approach, so don't feel bad. It's just best practices.

Outraged? Don’t speak up. Another of Pao’s acts was to ask job candidates their views on diversity. Be careful not to tell the truth. As Pao told NPR, the company “did weed people out because of that.”

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/10/28/quotas-are-coming-to-silicon-valley/

And of course, it's long been accepted in Silicon Valley to reject an applicant for not being a 'cultural fit'. So weed out the SJWs with a happy, unconflicted heart.

Anonymous Tears in my eyes November 03, 2015 4:23 AM  




Terrible, terrible....

OpenID basementhomebrewer November 03, 2015 7:01 AM  

@ 88 Ishme This could be a way to spot an SJW but you could actually be weeding out ambitious individuals as well. I spent ~2 years at my last two jobs. I also increased my salary 100% over those 4 years by leaving those two jobs. Some candidates have rare skills/ experience and are willing to take better offers when they pop up.

I don't doubt for a minute that any company I worked for would have dumped me to the street if they could have hired someone with the same abilities for ~50% of my pay. Why should I not take the reverse attitude?

Anonymous BGS November 03, 2015 9:55 AM  

Bath HOuse Barry went after Bass Pro Shops for not hiring felons, they said they couldn't hire any because they sell ammo/guns/knives/traps that felons can not touch under federal law. I guess they didn't know that any blacks they hired wouldn't actually work. http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-09-22/business/sfl-bass-pro-discrimination-lawsuit_1_ethnic-discrimination-federal-lawsuit-retail-positions

If a rapist knows how important it is to clean up a scene he would make a good janitor. Bath House Barry went after Dollar General and BMW this year.

“Employers still have the ultimate discretion to choose the best candidate for the job,” bill sponsor Sen. Sandra Cunningham, D-Hudson, said, according to AP. “But these decisions should be based on skills and qualifications, rather than past convictions.”

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/jobs/INQ_Jobbing_Update-Ban-the-box-and-criminal-background-checks.html

Blogger Sevron November 03, 2015 10:59 AM  

I asked this question awhile back to the general ilk. My favorite answer was:

"We're thinking of starting a company program to offer new hires a $200 allowance towards the purchase of a firearm. What caliber would you be interested in?"

Anonymous not sure November 03, 2015 9:34 PM  

Another problem with the OP's questions is that they could just as easily identify anti-SJWs as SJWs. At many SJW-infested companies, straight white males and social justice skeptics are deliberately (and illegally) targeted. Sometimes fighting fire with fire is our best survival option.

Also note that while SJWs routinely throw around loaded terms such as "harassment" and "hostile work environment," they're referring to microaggressions and other perceived (read: imagined) slights. When they appeal to [b]amenable[/b] authority in the HR harem they can punish their enemies for these things, but if they ever tried to file a real lawsuit they'd be laughed out of court.

Blogger Dirk Manly November 03, 2015 11:08 PM  

Personally, I think most of the HR harangues about x-harassment, etc., with their tone that "if you're a straight white male, you'd better watch your step" constitutes harassment and creating "a hostile work environment" by stigmatizing me and others without cause. How much of a chance do you think a case like that would have in a court as a civil lawsuit?

Blogger Sevron November 04, 2015 10:05 AM  

@Dirk

Zero. Those laws are intended to stigmatize you. Don't confuse the letter of the law with the intent.

Anonymous sickoflibs November 04, 2015 10:38 AM  

@Dirk

I think you may have a chance if they're overtly targeting one group, but you'll have a hard time just proving "tone." So-called reverse discrimination cases are winnable:

https://www.doi.gov/pmb/eeo/cases/reverse
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/initiatives/e-race/caselist.cfm#reverse

Document everything, learn the laws, and report anything that looks illegal so the company cannot claim ignorance.

Typical corporate harassment training courses are usually pretty neutral. As the workforce becomes more diverse, fewer and fewer perpetrators are straight white males; and some female managers can be incredibly capricious.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts