3 ms·

I get that perspective, and I did think about it a lot. Understand that the position was mostly charity work - the pay was negligible for a six month contract.

I get that perspective, and I did think about it a lot. Understand that the position was mostly charity work - the pay was negligible for a six month contract. I was ok with that part - I was motivated to help, not by compensation. The intrusive testing, coupled with bad compensation is a root cause of the problem IMHO. I think organizations only really change when they feel pain. In this case, my hope is that the pain of repeatedly losing good candidates is enough to drive policy change (at the congressional or executive level). I don't think it helps to try to "change from the inside" in this case. If I (and other candidates) just roll with it, there's no incentive for change.

freedomben 3y ago
You are completely right. Once inside, your power to affect change is nearly zero unless you are a very high ranking person, and even then it's pretty near impossible. The change will come when enough people say "we can't hire the best people!" Until then, the only argument is "it's an invasion of privacy and outdated" but if it's not broken (i.e. not causing any problems) they won't fix it. All the candidates power is at negotiation of the offer time. Once you accept, it's kind of over.