5 ms·

I'm currently supervising an 37year old rookie. He had some absence issues, so I confronted him. Tuns out he is an ex-addict (that's why he's rookie at 37). I

I'm currently supervising an 37year old rookie. He had some absence issues, so I confronted him. Tuns out he is an ex-addict (that's why he's rookie at 37). I don't have a problem with people trying to straighten themselves out. He doesn't get any preferential treatment from me - because it won't do him any good. As long as he does the expected work of expected quality he is fine with me. Knowing that he is an ex addict is valuable to me so I can put our relationship in right context.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>He doesn't get any preferential treatment from me [...] [knowing about his past] is valuable to me so I can put our relationship in right context. I don't understand how knowing about his past should matter if you're not going to behave differently towards him? That's like asking someone’s sex on an application form - if you're not going to discriminate why do you need to know.
- sophacles 16y ago
  He is differentiating that the past was a problem rather than the present. See, if the guy was a 37yo rookie because of current, actively on-going problems, then the past would still not matter, but there would be good reason to be wary. So finding out that the thing is in the past is an exercise in finding out enough to dismiss qualms. You are being disingenuous btw -- this is not like the gender question at all.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    >You are being disingenuous btw -- this is not like the gender question at all. I beg to differ. Could you provide some reasoning? >but there would be good reason to be wary If you're not discriminating then it doesn't matter if they're a current drug addict, a past drug addict, partner of a drug addict - you judge them solely on their performance at work. I say discriminate.
    - sophacles 16y ago
      You are disingenuous because you are trying to change the discussion from "does not get preferential treatment" to "is not the subject of discrimination". You realize these are different right? (First clue: there are different words with different definitions and connotations involved). As for why it is not like the gender question: asking why a 37yo is doing entry level work is asking about things which it can reasonably assumed to be direct consequences of the applicants choices in life. Preselecting on gender is selection based on something the applicant has almost no control over (excluding the extremely tiny portion of post-op transgenders). Edit: also I'm not blanket saying discrimination is bad, some types of discrimination are OK some aren't. For instance, discriminating based on "this applicant doesn't have the required skills" is perfectly reasonable. Any attempt to claim an all or nothing approach on a vague notion such as discrimination is nearly the definition of disingenuous, so please don't try and play stupid games with that either.
      - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
        >(First clue: there are different words with different definitions and connotations involved). Haha, condescending ever. The connotations are different, that's the slant someone is trying to put on whether their discrimination is good or bad. We change how we act towards one person such that they benefit relative to another's detriment. Whether it be preferential treatment by omission of detriment or preferential treatment by application of benefit if the treatment alters according to the characteristics of the subject then we have discriminated. discrimination - "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit" (Random House Dictionary) preference - "a practical advantage given to one over others" (ibid) >As for why it is not like the gender question: asking why a 37yo is doing entry level work is asking about things which it can reasonably assumed to be direct consequences of the applicants choices in life. Preselecting on gender is selection based on something the applicant has almost no control over (excluding the extremely tiny portion of post-op transgenders). The question doesn't bother me. I don't think your assumption stands to much inspection - I'm sure you can imagine many scenarios that would leave someone in an "entry level" position against their will. Why does it matter how old the person is, can they do the job, will they do the job? One can change one's age no more easily than one can change one's sex. >Any attempt to claim an all or nothing approach on a vague notion such as discrimination is nearly the definition of disingenuous, so please don't try and play stupid games with that either. I love these sorts of closing statements, they must be the thinking man's ad hominem "anything that disagrees with my stated position would be idiocy", that's almost the definition of tiny-minded simpleton. </sarc>
- DuncanIdaho 16y ago
  To give you more detail. Addict is never really cured. Once you're through with addiction, the cravings are there for life. Whenever you need to release your steam the craving for drug kicks back in. My mentee is coping with that through writing, so sometimes he will not come to work on time - because he's setting his mind straight. So our agreement is that I don't care about his schedule - as long as his work is done according to specified parameters. I didn't say I don't act differently towards him. I said he doesn't get preferential treatment in a sense that I won't be commiserating him for being an ex-addict. Instead I raised his tempo of learning while gently guiding him through the finer intricacies. But I demand highest quality of him. I also look out that nobody (especially superiors) will pick on him since he is pretty introvert - and I don't want him to slip back due to some extrovert having a bad day. This guy needs to build character, courage and ultimately self-confidence. And not making it hard for him, plus helping along the way if possible is one of my goals.
  - DuncanIdaho 16y ago
    Why the downvote?
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    I'm 100% with you on your goal, it's a noble act to mentor someone with the spirit that you appear to be applying. However, it sounds like you are giving them preferential treatment. You say it's just different, but then if those differences aren't available to others they might also advantage it is a preferential treatment. I guess one could argue it's not preferential in that you'd give the same assistance to another ex-addict. Personally I don't think you have to help everyone just because you're helping someone, ie preferential treatment doesn't seem wrong to me a priori.
    - TheSOB88 16y ago
      Will you quit arguing over such petty differences?! Jesus Christ! People view the world differently, so of course they'll apply different meanings to the same words, and even to the same concepts. You said he's not wrong, and you're just arguing over semantics. Why argue? Why? Sorry for not keeping my post cold and logical and HNish, but that's the problem: you're being robotic here and arguing just to argue.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

>He doesn't get any preferential treatment from me [...] [knowing about his past] is valuable to me so I can put our relationship in right context. I don't understand how knowing about his past should matter if you're not going to behave differently towards him? That's like asking someone’s sex on an application form - if you're not going to discriminate why do you need to know.

sophacles 16y ago
He is differentiating that the past was a problem rather than the present. See, if the guy was a 37yo rookie because of current, actively on-going problems, then the past would still not matter, but there would be good reason to be wary. So finding out that the thing is in the past is an exercise in finding out enough to dismiss qualms. You are being disingenuous btw -- this is not like the gender question at all.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >You are being disingenuous btw -- this is not like the gender question at all. I beg to differ. Could you provide some reasoning? >but there would be good reason to be wary If you're not discriminating then it doesn't matter if they're a current drug addict, a past drug addict, partner of a drug addict - you judge them solely on their performance at work. I say discriminate.
  - sophacles 16y ago
    You are disingenuous because you are trying to change the discussion from "does not get preferential treatment" to "is not the subject of discrimination". You realize these are different right? (First clue: there are different words with different definitions and connotations involved). As for why it is not like the gender question: asking why a 37yo is doing entry level work is asking about things which it can reasonably assumed to be direct consequences of the applicants choices in life. Preselecting on gender is selection based on something the applicant has almost no control over (excluding the extremely tiny portion of post-op transgenders). Edit: also I'm not blanket saying discrimination is bad, some types of discrimination are OK some aren't. For instance, discriminating based on "this applicant doesn't have the required skills" is perfectly reasonable. Any attempt to claim an all or nothing approach on a vague notion such as discrimination is nearly the definition of disingenuous, so please don't try and play stupid games with that either.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      >(First clue: there are different words with different definitions and connotations involved). Haha, condescending ever. The connotations are different, that's the slant someone is trying to put on whether their discrimination is good or bad. We change how we act towards one person such that they benefit relative to another's detriment. Whether it be preferential treatment by omission of detriment or preferential treatment by application of benefit if the treatment alters according to the characteristics of the subject then we have discriminated. discrimination - "treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit" (Random House Dictionary) preference - "a practical advantage given to one over others" (ibid) >As for why it is not like the gender question: asking why a 37yo is doing entry level work is asking about things which it can reasonably assumed to be direct consequences of the applicants choices in life. Preselecting on gender is selection based on something the applicant has almost no control over (excluding the extremely tiny portion of post-op transgenders). The question doesn't bother me. I don't think your assumption stands to much inspection - I'm sure you can imagine many scenarios that would leave someone in an "entry level" position against their will. Why does it matter how old the person is, can they do the job, will they do the job? One can change one's age no more easily than one can change one's sex. >Any attempt to claim an all or nothing approach on a vague notion such as discrimination is nearly the definition of disingenuous, so please don't try and play stupid games with that either. I love these sorts of closing statements, they must be the thinking man's ad hominem "anything that disagrees with my stated position would be idiocy", that's almost the definition of tiny-minded simpleton. </sarc>
DuncanIdaho 16y ago
To give you more detail. Addict is never really cured. Once you're through with addiction, the cravings are there for life. Whenever you need to release your steam the craving for drug kicks back in. My mentee is coping with that through writing, so sometimes he will not come to work on time - because he's setting his mind straight. So our agreement is that I don't care about his schedule - as long as his work is done according to specified parameters. I didn't say I don't act differently towards him. I said he doesn't get preferential treatment in a sense that I won't be commiserating him for being an ex-addict. Instead I raised his tempo of learning while gently guiding him through the finer intricacies. But I demand highest quality of him. I also look out that nobody (especially superiors) will pick on him since he is pretty introvert - and I don't want him to slip back due to some extrovert having a bad day. This guy needs to build character, courage and ultimately self-confidence. And not making it hard for him, plus helping along the way if possible is one of my goals.
- DuncanIdaho 16y ago
  Why the downvote?
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  I'm 100% with you on your goal, it's a noble act to mentor someone with the spirit that you appear to be applying. However, it sounds like you are giving them preferential treatment. You say it's just different, but then if those differences aren't available to others they might also advantage it is a preferential treatment. I guess one could argue it's not preferential in that you'd give the same assistance to another ex-addict. Personally I don't think you have to help everyone just because you're helping someone, ie preferential treatment doesn't seem wrong to me a priori.
  - TheSOB88 16y ago
    Will you quit arguing over such petty differences?! Jesus Christ! People view the world differently, so of course they'll apply different meanings to the same words, and even to the same concepts. You said he's not wrong, and you're just arguing over semantics. Why argue? Why? Sorry for not keeping my post cold and logical and HNish, but that's the problem: you're being robotic here and arguing just to argue.