Transgender person wins compo for job interview

One eyed Jack

bucketybuck wrote: »

The resources involved in throwing a name into Google and seeing what comes up on the front page?

If I throw my name into google, I don’t come up on the first page (there are 98 results for my name on LinkedIn). Why you imagine an employer would waste resources on such a time consuming endeavour to profile candidates is beyond me tbh. There would only be a small number of employers would have the resources to do it, and an even smaller number of employers again who would consider it an effective use of their time, and an even smaller number again who would simply outsource background checks on potential candidates to a company which provide that service specifically.

In this particular circumstance, you’re having a laugh if you think any employer searches on google as a means of doing a background check on candidates looking for seasonal employment in the retail sector. That’s not to dismiss the possibility of course of some entry level jumped up jobsworth taking it upon themselves to manually sift through application forms and peruse the usual social media channels in the hopes of a juicy tidbit of information.

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I throw my name into google, I don’t come up on the first page (there are 98 results for my name on LinkedIn). Why you imagine an employer would waste resources on such a time consuming endeavour to profile candidates is beyond me tbh. There would only be a small number of employers would have the resources to do it, and an even smaller number of employers again who would consider it an effective use of their time, and an even smaller number again who would simply outsource background checks on potential candidates to a company which provide that service specifically.

In this particular circumstance, you’re having a laugh if you think any employer searches on google as a means of doing a background check on candidates looking for seasonal employment in the retail sector. That’s not to dismiss the possibility of course of some entry level jumped up jobsworth taking it upon themselves to manually sift through application forms and peruse the usual social media channels in the hopes of a juicy tidbit of information.

what do you think interns are for?

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I throw my name into google, I don’t come up on the first page (there are 98 results for my name on LinkedIn). Why you imagine an employer would waste resources on such a time consuming endeavour to profile candidates is beyond me tbh. There would only be a small number of employers would have the resources to do it, and an even smaller number of employers again who would consider it an effective use of their time, and an even smaller number again who would simply outsource background checks on potential candidates to a company which provide that service specifically.

In this particular circumstance, you’re having a laugh if you think any employer searches on google as a means of doing a background check on candidates looking for seasonal employment in the retail sector. That’s not to dismiss the possibility of course of some entry level jumped up jobsworth taking it upon themselves to manually sift through application forms and peruse the usual social media channels in the hopes of a juicy tidbit of information.

If you had a conviction that made the national news it would show up on page 1 more than likely.

One eyed Jack

suicide_circus wrote: »

what do you think interns are for?

Doing actual work, as opposed to doing background checks on their potential replacements :pac:

suicide_circus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Doing actual work, as opposed to doing background checks on their potential replacements :pac:

there's only so much tea they can make

Ironicname

suicide_circus wrote:

what do you think interns are for?

Ask bill clinton

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

If you had a conviction that made the national news it would show up on page 1 more than likely.

That’s certainly a possibility alright, but the point I’m making is that it’s not a practice that anything even close to the majority of employers engage in. Employers generally don’t have any reason to look for reasons not to employ candidates who apply for a role. It’s an incredibly time consuming process and most employers simply don’t have those kinds of resources to dedicate to looking for reasons not to hire a person.

In any case the person we’re talking about here has already secured alternative employment -


Ms Moore has since found another job outside of retail.

Their current employer must have been remiss in allocating funds to the jobsworth department to do google searches on their employees.

AndrewJRenko

Ironicname wrote: »

So we should discount the opinions of people who disagree with discrimination being as prevalent as is reported because they aren't discriminated against in general.

Sounds a little discriminatory...

So should we discount the opinions of people who haven't had cancer who disagree with cancer being as prevalent as reported?

Augme

Eric Cartman wrote: »

+1 , in this case most employers are sick of this kind of 'woke' thinking. I can't think of a faster way to get your cv binned these days than doing a gender studies masters or similar, in terms of background checks, multiple recruiters and employers have illustrated to me cases where having your twitter account bio state pronouns or retweeting any of this faux outrage / woke culture crap will have you at the bottom of the interview list .

most employers are not recruiting politicians, they do not want 'culture shift' , they don't want HR's job made harder, they want a good fit to their existing culture which doesn't have these hangups.

If they are recruiting lads for building sites, this is probably true. But most highly desired office based jobs, the above is complete bollocks.

suicide_circus

Augme wrote: »

If they are recruiting lads for building sites, this is probably true. But most highly desired office based jobs, the above is complete bollocks.

the person this thread is about was going for menial work but yes for high flyers people with an ability to change a culture would be more desirable

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

bucketybuck wrote: »

The resources involved in throwing a name into Google and seeing what comes up on the front page?

suicide_circus wrote: »

that is literally all that's involved. why people find this outlandish is beyond me.

Yeah, I’m quite amused at the naivety of a few forum members on this score. It doesn’t take up much time or resources at all. Very little, in fact. The closest person to me to employ this tactic is my husband and the things he has described finding on google before about prospective candidates would have not even taken five minutes to find. They were probably idle tea-break searches half the time too.

But, sure, look, if people don’t want to believe us, let them off.

Ironicname

AndrewJRenko wrote:

So should we discount the opinions of people who haven't had cancer who disagree with cancer being as prevalent as reported?

Erm.... What? Of course we shouldn't. That's my point.

bucketybuck

Do people really think we mean a 2 hour detective session searching for every possible reference to the candidate?

For gods sake, all you do is throw the name into Google, maybe the address or something else from the cv as well to narrow the search, then see what comes up on the front page. If you spot the person straight away, grand, have a look at the LinkedIn or Facebook page and form an impression. If nothing jumps out straight away then fine, spend no more time on it.

That's literally it. Its ridiculous that some people cant wrap their heads around how uncomplicated it all is, why on earth does it even need to be explained?

One eyed Jack

bucketybuck wrote: »

Do people really think we mean a 2 hour detective session searching for every possible reference to the candidate?

For gods sake, all you do is throw the name into Google, maybe the address or something else from the cv as well to narrow the search, then see what comes up on the front page. If you spot the person straight away, grand, have a look at the LinkedIn or Facebook page and form an impression. If nothing jumps out straight away then fine, spend no more time on it.

That's literally it. Its ridiculous that some people cant wrap their heads around how uncomplicated it all is, why on earth does it even need to be explained?

No I’m prepared to accept that the idea is generally nothing more than a two minute tea-break effort with a handful of candidates as ODB appears to be suggesting. What I’m not prepared to accept is the notion that “most employers” do any such thing, and “my husband does it” is called anecdotal evidence, hardly sufficient evidence to support the claim that most employers do it.

It’s not naive to question that claim, I have no doubt that there are a minority of employers who do it, and it’s far more likely that by employers I mean some as I said entry level jumped up jobsworth, or even as another poster suggested earlier - some employers have interns do it, but, questioning the claim that most employers engage in that sort of nonsense when screening potential candidates is hardly naive.

Believing such a claim when there isn’t any credible evidence there to support it, is what is naive, and I have no doubt there will be some people who make the claim head straight for google to search for evidence to support their claim (no doubt their google skills are better than mine), without the slightest hint of irony or acknowledgement that what they are doing is commonly known as confirmation bias.

Present independent evidence to support the claim, otherwise it would be just as naive as those people who expect people to believe that discrimination is more prevalent than it is in reality, because they say so, and they expect that’s sufficient evidence to convince anyone but themselves. I wouldn’t be surprised if it were sufficient to convince someone who already believed it to be true. I would be surprised if it were sufficient to convince anyone who questioned the claim based upon the lack of sufficient and credible independent supporting evidence.

It’s not that I don’t want to believe, it’s that I require evidence before I am convinced that the claim is believable. “My husband does it” is hardly credible and sufficient evidence to support the claim that most employers do it. I take it that’s not a difficult concept to wrap your head around either.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I’m prepared to accept that the idea is generally nothing more than a two minute tea-break effort with a handful of candidates as ODB appears to be suggesting. What I’m not prepared to accept is the notion that “most employers” do any such thing, and “my husband does it” is called anecdotal evidence, hardly sufficient evidence to support the claim that most employers do it.

Ah, Jack, in my second post on the topic, I acknowledged that I was telling anecdotes.

Anyhoo, believe what you like. People will continue checking up on prospective candidates either way.

Benoconnor80

Bit of intellectual fascism on this thread. If I speak I'll get in trouble.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

bucketybuck wrote: »

Do people really think we mean a 2 hour detective session searching for every possible reference to the candidate?

For gods sake, all you do is throw the name into Google, maybe the address or something else from the cv as well to narrow the search, then see what comes up on the front page. If you spot the person straight away, grand, have a look at the LinkedIn or Facebook page and form an impression. If nothing jumps out straight away then fine, spend no more time on it.

That's literally it. Its ridiculous that some people cant wrap their heads around how uncomplicated it all is, why on earth does it even need to be explained?

Buckety, the two main doubters are two of the biggest wafflers on this website. It doesn’t really matter what the topic is, they won’t back down. So it’s not worth wasting much energy on.

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Ah, Jack, in my second post on the topic, I acknowledged that I was telling anecdotes.

Anyhoo, believe what you like. People will continue checking up on prospective candidates either way.

Erm, thanks, I don’t think it’s unusual that anyone believes what they like and casts doubt upon what they don’t like and aren’t prepared to accept, like the idea that a person can change their sex - the people who already believe that are entitled to believe what they like too, but when they attempt to convince other people that it’s possible, the bar for evidence goes up exponentially :pac:

Just like you point out that people will of course continue to check on prospective candidates either way, it’s similar to sufficiently muddying the waters as claiming that people will continue to change their sex. I’m not questioning that. I’m questioning whether it’s something which most employers do, in the same way as I would find anyone’s claim that humans had developed the ability to change their sex incredible.

Is anyone who doesn’t believe that being naive too, in your opinion?

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Buckety, the two main doubters are two of the biggest wafflers on this website. It doesn’t really matter what the topic is, they won’t back down. So it’s not worth wasting much energy on.

And yet it was you who pointed out to someone else earlier that people are still entitled to question things.

Double standard how are ya?

Benoconnor80

So whats the difference between a transvestite and transsexual?

Ironicname

One dresses as the opposite sex, the other one believes they are the opposite sex

One eyed Jack

Benoconnor80 wrote: »

So whats the difference between a transvestite and transsexual?

There are a few differences. Wikipedia provides a fairly sufficient description for both that demonstrates the differences -

Transvestite

Transvestism is the practice of dressing and acting in a style or manner traditionally associated with the opposite sex. In some cultures, transvestism is practiced for religious, traditional, or ceremonial reasons. The term is rarely applied to women.

Transsexual

Transsexual people experience a gender identity that is inconsistent with, or not culturally associated with, their assigned sex and desire to permanently transition to the gender with which they identify, usually seeking medical assistance (including hormone replacement therapy and other sex reassignment therapies) to help them align their body with their identified sex or gender.

Eric Cartman

Augme wrote: »

If they are recruiting lads for building sites, this is probably true. But most highly desired office based jobs, the above is complete bollocks.

Highly desired office based jobs usually dont get those kind of candidates. The pronoun gender studies brigade cv’s only show up in the 20-40k income bracket with a slight caveat of software development in multinational tech companies also, but multinational tech love that kind of quirkiness.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And yet it was you who pointed out to someone else earlier that people are still entitled to question things.

Double standard how are ya?

You’re welcome to highlight the part of my post that you quoted where I said that you couldn’t question things. Question away. Nobody is obliged to answer. Telling somebody that you’re a dog with a bone is a separate thing. Don’t bother with an essay-length reply. I won’t bother reading it.

One eyed Jack

Threads gone dead ODB, let it go ffs.

AndrewJRenko

Ironicname wrote: »

Erm.... What? Of course we shouldn't. That's my point.

The point is that personal experience doesn't count for a lot when it comes to assessing the prevalence of cancer, or the prevalence of discrimination.

Ironicname

AndrewJRenko wrote:

The point is that personal experience doesn't count for a lot when it comes to assessing the prevalence of cancer, or the prevalence of discrimination.

Exactly...

Thank you for reaffirming my point.

AndrewJRenko

Ironicname wrote: »

Exactly...

Thank you for reaffirming my point.

It's exactly the opposite of your point.

Ironicname

AndrewJRenko wrote:

It's exactly the opposite of your point.

It's really not

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

Do people really think we mean a 2 hour detective session searching for every possible reference to the candidate?

For gods sake, all you do is throw the name into Google, maybe the address or something else from the cv as well to narrow the search, then see what comes up on the front page. If you spot the person straight away, grand, have a look at the LinkedIn or Facebook page and form an impression. If nothing jumps out straight away then fine, spend no more time on it.

That's literally it. Its ridiculous that some people cant wrap their heads around how uncomplicated it all is, why on earth does it even need to be explained?

I don't think they realise that anyone who is working at above a base salary position will have an internet presence, and should monitor that presence. Social media changed the perception of employers to the internet, because while accounts can be deactivated, or photos removed, most entries are archived somewhere.

I have a website solely for my two primary resumes (Management & Teaching). My facebook account is extremely limited because I don't want anything negative showing up in searches. Same with a variety of other sites which I'm a member of because using google or a few other search engines, can bring back all manner of information. Whereas I know people who put everything on their facebook or other sm account regardless of how it might appear to an employer.

The other posters are thinking in simplistic terms. When you receive a resume, often there will be contact information. Most people reuse their email or phone details for other accounts. Searching for an email address or cellphone number, can connect you with social media accounts or other internet activities. A persons name isn't terrible useful but an email address is far more informative.

CtevenSrowder

Ironicname wrote: »

It's really not

Not often you see someone totally disprove their own point!