44 ms·

You have employees with outstanding arrest warrants and domestic violence issues? It kind of sounds like you also need to reevaluate your hiring practices... E

You have employees with outstanding arrest warrants and domestic violence issues? It kind of sounds like you also need to reevaluate your hiring practices... Edit: I'd like to encourage people responding to this to consider the context: an article about why someone doesn't want to employ a certain category of people, and a response to that article about how there's lots of value to be found in that category, if only the author had better hiring practices. E.g. "somebody's gotta hire them" would apply equally to the article's female employees, and thus is also a criticism of hiring practices that exclude those "problem" people, which presumably includes the parent. IOW, the premise here is that you want to hire people maximally useful to your business. Maybe you don't think that's should be the point, but then you're having a different discussion.

watwut 12y ago
Are you sure that world where such people are unemployable is better? It is better for all of us if they can find employment somewhere. Otherwise they have no other choice then collect social checks or steal.
cmiles74 12y ago
The poster works in manufacturing.
- icambron 12y ago
  So? The point of the post is that they think the article's author must have poor hiring practices and cites their own experience hiring as evidence. That's a perfectly reasonable line of argument and I'm not even defending the article on that point. But to the degree to which that evidence is applicable to the business described in the article, the parent's own employee issues are also comparable. If you want to say that manufacturing hiring is simply completely different than in...whatever the article's author does, then sure, but then what's the point of the comparison again? I'd also point out that I don't quite understand why manufacturing hires should involve wanted criminals...
  - niels_olson 12y ago
    Somebody's gotta weld pipe, turn metal, and crank wrenches. I don't see Ivy leaguers applying. A guy who chose the wrong parents and learned to make bad decisions instead of good ones can get these jobs because no one else wants them, and they don't require that much skill.
    - cobrausn 12y ago
      Not quite. They do require just enough skill and just enough technical learning to filter out most of the non-college educated population, but not enough to attract any college grads. So you end up hiring the people with the skill who are generally intelligent but don't always (as you said) make smart life decisions. Usually pretty awesome people with a few issues. Disclaimer: Family business (that I am not part of, but do tend to frequent) is a machine shop.
      - niels_olson 12y ago
        > require just enough skill and just enough technical learning to filter out most of the non-college educated Ok, fair enough, although I submit that is pretty much the lowest working definition of a tradable skill. I was, am, in the Navy. Have had to go to the jailhouse with sailors, and have had contract work finished late because the pipe fitters, welders, etc, put valves in backwards, forget to weld before charging the system, etc.
CapitalistCartr 12y ago
Manufacturing is like that. I've bailed my guys out of jail (enough to get a quickie card from the bondsman), separated fights, etc. It goes with the territory.
- dclowd9901 12y ago
  If this is the case, then this is hardly a fair comparison. Reason 1 being women in manufacturing are typically in office jobs and Reason 2 being that, compared to the kinds of men who typically work the floor, just about anyone will look reasonable who works in the office, man or woman.
  - CapitalistCartr 12y ago
    It probably isn't an equal comparison. The original poster might be in a completely different hiring situation from the blog writer. However, I've hired women to work on the floor in manufacturing and I prefer them. As the original poster said, less BS from the women, more reliability. On average, of course. There are no 100% shortcuts.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    > Reason 1 being women in manufacturing are typically in office jobs "Nimble fingers" was one sexist reason to employ women, at lower pay rates, than men in many industries including auto seat making (because of the sewing) and electronic assembly (because of all those fiddly little components). There are, and have been since the industrial revolution, very many women involved in manufacturing and industry on the shop floor.
    - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
      This is still true in developing countries. e.g. FoxConn prefers women over men for assembly, but these days they can't be so picky. Most of those died in the recent Bangladesh factory tragedy were women.
  - mediaman 12y ago
    We have plenty of women in manufacturing, on the floor, occupying both lower level jobs as well as skilled trade jobs. I am not comparing guys on the floor with accountants.
trhway 12y ago
>You have employees with outstanding arrest warrants and domestic violence issues? It kind of sounds like you also need to reevaluate your hiring practices... so, nobody should hire "problem" people? Typical "holier than thou attitude".
- zo1 12y ago
  Why should they? It doesn't mean that they're classist, or snobbish or anything. If the "problems" affect their work life, and as a consequence the profitability of the business, then it's a purely practical decision to make. Now, some people choose to give people more chance than they deserve because they're nice. Nothing wrong with that. But make no mistake, someone who brings their "problems" to work doesn't deserve that job because they're not willing to put in effort to separate the two. There are dozens of willing, able, and motivated candidates who will do better.
  - Noelkd 12y ago
    You can be nice and have problems.
    - zo1 12y ago
      You're not nice if you let your problems affect your work to a large extent. There is only so much we can expect an employer to bear. And to be honest, that largely depends on your usefulness to the employer. Unfortunately, that means that since lower-paid workers are more easily replaceable, that the employer is less willing to bear with the problems.
- jarin 12y ago
  Exactly. Clearly I don't support domestic violence, but the alternative is to have them on the street or living on government assistance. Someone's gotta hire them.
fleitz 12y ago
Haha, do you think manufacturing is staffed by people who aspire to work in factories, or those who can't get hired anywhere else?
- will_work4tears 12y ago
  What do you mean by "aspire to work in factories?" When your job prospects are Fast Food, other Restaurant, Retail, or Factory / Warehouse job, is it "aspiring to work in a factory?" I ask because I worked in Factories and Warehouses before going to college and becoming a programmer. Working in those places wasn't a "lifelong dream" but they were better than almost ALL alternatives for what skills I had. Better as in pay, benefits and not having to deal with people(customers) directly. Not to detract from your point that highly skilled college graduates aren't flocking to factory jobs, just pointing out that those of us that have been there actually have actively sought those jobs out. I guess you could say I was "aspiring to work in a factory." Hell, when the average job everywhere else was 6-7 dollars an hour, a 15 dollar an hour factory job was a hot commodity.
  - fleitz 12y ago
    You hit the nail on the head, factories can't be picky about who they hire because anyone who has a better option takes it, it was mostly about the idea that a factory could hire people with out warrants and still have employees. I worked in a warehouse after high school too, nothing provides 'inspiration' to code like the alternative being stacking boxes.
    - will_work4tears 12y ago
      I know it makes me sound like a bad person, but it wasn't even the effort or boredom of stacking boxes, but the dead looks in employees eyes that had been there for decades. I didn't want to end up in a loveless job. I love what I do now and would do it even if I were independently wealthy (well, not put up with PMs, etc), and that's more than I ever hoped to achieve while working in a factory or warehouse.
mediaman 12y ago
The outstanding arrest warrants are caught in our recruiting process, prior to a formal hire. We usually work with the candidate to try to resolve them before bringing them on board (it is possible to have an outstanding arrest warrant and not be aware of it, for old nonviolent offenses). Domestic violence you cannot catch in a background check, unless it's progressed to felony levels obviously. Domestic violence often evolves over time. That is a very challenging situation and we wound up parting ways. Ideally we would have caught symptomatic behavior in the interview process but typically people with those problems can be very good at masking it. Our process certainly isn't perfect, but as we continually fine-tune it we have fewer and fewer of these issues.
- icambron 12y ago
  I have no doubt that all sorts of stuff slips through the cracks in all sorts of ways. I've certainly had really problematic hires. My issue is I'm trying to square "you have problematic female hires? I bet you just have bad hiring practices" with "our employees sometimes beat their wives". I'm not even saying you're wrong on the narrow point-- maybe the article's author is really bad at hiring women-- but I'm not sure you're in a great position to judge the effects of hiring process quality. Maybe figure that stuff out at hiring time is just hard, for both her and for you?
  - mediaman 12y ago
    You're right, it is hard, at least for me it is. But I think how a manager reacts to errors made in the hiring process is important. I try to be introspective, and evaluate how we could have better identified that potential issue preemptively, and adapt our process for the future. But I don't think that banning some incredibly broad demographic that includes 51% of the applicant pool is a sign that someone is really taking time to think about and fine tune the hiring process. I mean, I accidentally hire some people with drama issues, so my conclusion is don't ever hire women? That's the best process change I can think of? Not asking about conflict resolution experiences, or maybe a teamwork test, but just ban an entire gender? I just don't see how a good hiring process can come out of that kind of thinking. What if then you hire some men who don't communicate as well as they should -- then do we ban all men as well? Basically, I think hiring is hard and so process based on simplistic rules of gender or skin color or whatever don't usually work well, and besides begin illegal in the US they're also usually a sign of a process that hasn't really been thought out. By the way -- I re-read your comment, and if I understand it correctly it seems that your stance is because I've made hiring mistakes (even if they are subsequently and promptly corrected) that I should have no credibility to comment on this blogger's hiring process of banning women. I guess it's your prerogative to have that standard -- only those who haven't made any mistakes have credibility -- but, if we assume that anyone who's done a lot of hiring has made mistakes, the only people with credibility in your eyes are those who have done little to no hiring. Personally I wouldn't find that approach useful.

watwut 12y ago

Are you sure that world where such people are unemployable is better? It is better for all of us if they can find employment somewhere. Otherwise they have no other choice then collect social checks or steal.

cmiles74 12y ago

The poster works in manufacturing.

icambron 12y ago
So? The point of the post is that they think the article's author must have poor hiring practices and cites their own experience hiring as evidence. That's a perfectly reasonable line of argument and I'm not even defending the article on that point. But to the degree to which that evidence is applicable to the business described in the article, the parent's own employee issues are also comparable. If you want to say that manufacturing hiring is simply completely different than in...whatever the article's author does, then sure, but then what's the point of the comparison again? I'd also point out that I don't quite understand why manufacturing hires should involve wanted criminals...
- niels_olson 12y ago
  Somebody's gotta weld pipe, turn metal, and crank wrenches. I don't see Ivy leaguers applying. A guy who chose the wrong parents and learned to make bad decisions instead of good ones can get these jobs because no one else wants them, and they don't require that much skill.
  - cobrausn 12y ago
    Not quite. They do require just enough skill and just enough technical learning to filter out most of the non-college educated population, but not enough to attract any college grads. So you end up hiring the people with the skill who are generally intelligent but don't always (as you said) make smart life decisions. Usually pretty awesome people with a few issues. Disclaimer: Family business (that I am not part of, but do tend to frequent) is a machine shop.
    - niels_olson 12y ago
      > require just enough skill and just enough technical learning to filter out most of the non-college educated Ok, fair enough, although I submit that is pretty much the lowest working definition of a tradable skill. I was, am, in the Navy. Have had to go to the jailhouse with sailors, and have had contract work finished late because the pipe fitters, welders, etc, put valves in backwards, forget to weld before charging the system, etc.

CapitalistCartr 12y ago

Manufacturing is like that. I've bailed my guys out of jail (enough to get a quickie card from the bondsman), separated fights, etc. It goes with the territory.

dclowd9901 12y ago
If this is the case, then this is hardly a fair comparison. Reason 1 being women in manufacturing are typically in office jobs and Reason 2 being that, compared to the kinds of men who typically work the floor, just about anyone will look reasonable who works in the office, man or woman.
- CapitalistCartr 12y ago
  It probably isn't an equal comparison. The original poster might be in a completely different hiring situation from the blog writer. However, I've hired women to work on the floor in manufacturing and I prefer them. As the original poster said, less BS from the women, more reliability. On average, of course. There are no 100% shortcuts.
- DanBC 12y ago
  > Reason 1 being women in manufacturing are typically in office jobs "Nimble fingers" was one sexist reason to employ women, at lower pay rates, than men in many industries including auto seat making (because of the sewing) and electronic assembly (because of all those fiddly little components). There are, and have been since the industrial revolution, very many women involved in manufacturing and industry on the shop floor.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    This is still true in developing countries. e.g. FoxConn prefers women over men for assembly, but these days they can't be so picky. Most of those died in the recent Bangladesh factory tragedy were women.
- mediaman 12y ago
  We have plenty of women in manufacturing, on the floor, occupying both lower level jobs as well as skilled trade jobs. I am not comparing guys on the floor with accountants.

trhway 12y ago

>You have employees with outstanding arrest warrants and domestic violence issues? It kind of sounds like you also need to reevaluate your hiring practices... so, nobody should hire "problem" people? Typical "holier than thou attitude".

zo1 12y ago
Why should they? It doesn't mean that they're classist, or snobbish or anything. If the "problems" affect their work life, and as a consequence the profitability of the business, then it's a purely practical decision to make. Now, some people choose to give people more chance than they deserve because they're nice. Nothing wrong with that. But make no mistake, someone who brings their "problems" to work doesn't deserve that job because they're not willing to put in effort to separate the two. There are dozens of willing, able, and motivated candidates who will do better.
- Noelkd 12y ago
  You can be nice and have problems.
  - zo1 12y ago
    You're not nice if you let your problems affect your work to a large extent. There is only so much we can expect an employer to bear. And to be honest, that largely depends on your usefulness to the employer. Unfortunately, that means that since lower-paid workers are more easily replaceable, that the employer is less willing to bear with the problems.
jarin 12y ago
Exactly. Clearly I don't support domestic violence, but the alternative is to have them on the street or living on government assistance. Someone's gotta hire them.

fleitz 12y ago

Haha, do you think manufacturing is staffed by people who aspire to work in factories, or those who can't get hired anywhere else?

will_work4tears 12y ago
What do you mean by "aspire to work in factories?" When your job prospects are Fast Food, other Restaurant, Retail, or Factory / Warehouse job, is it "aspiring to work in a factory?" I ask because I worked in Factories and Warehouses before going to college and becoming a programmer. Working in those places wasn't a "lifelong dream" but they were better than almost ALL alternatives for what skills I had. Better as in pay, benefits and not having to deal with people(customers) directly. Not to detract from your point that highly skilled college graduates aren't flocking to factory jobs, just pointing out that those of us that have been there actually have actively sought those jobs out. I guess you could say I was "aspiring to work in a factory." Hell, when the average job everywhere else was 6-7 dollars an hour, a 15 dollar an hour factory job was a hot commodity.
- fleitz 12y ago
  You hit the nail on the head, factories can't be picky about who they hire because anyone who has a better option takes it, it was mostly about the idea that a factory could hire people with out warrants and still have employees. I worked in a warehouse after high school too, nothing provides 'inspiration' to code like the alternative being stacking boxes.
  - will_work4tears 12y ago
    I know it makes me sound like a bad person, but it wasn't even the effort or boredom of stacking boxes, but the dead looks in employees eyes that had been there for decades. I didn't want to end up in a loveless job. I love what I do now and would do it even if I were independently wealthy (well, not put up with PMs, etc), and that's more than I ever hoped to achieve while working in a factory or warehouse.

mediaman 12y ago

The outstanding arrest warrants are caught in our recruiting process, prior to a formal hire. We usually work with the candidate to try to resolve them before bringing them on board (it is possible to have an outstanding arrest warrant and not be aware of it, for old nonviolent offenses). Domestic violence you cannot catch in a background check, unless it's progressed to felony levels obviously. Domestic violence often evolves over time. That is a very challenging situation and we wound up parting ways. Ideally we would have caught symptomatic behavior in the interview process but typically people with those problems can be very good at masking it. Our process certainly isn't perfect, but as we continually fine-tune it we have fewer and fewer of these issues.

icambron 12y ago
I have no doubt that all sorts of stuff slips through the cracks in all sorts of ways. I've certainly had really problematic hires. My issue is I'm trying to square "you have problematic female hires? I bet you just have bad hiring practices" with "our employees sometimes beat their wives". I'm not even saying you're wrong on the narrow point-- maybe the article's author is really bad at hiring women-- but I'm not sure you're in a great position to judge the effects of hiring process quality. Maybe figure that stuff out at hiring time is just hard, for both her and for you?
- mediaman 12y ago
  You're right, it is hard, at least for me it is. But I think how a manager reacts to errors made in the hiring process is important. I try to be introspective, and evaluate how we could have better identified that potential issue preemptively, and adapt our process for the future. But I don't think that banning some incredibly broad demographic that includes 51% of the applicant pool is a sign that someone is really taking time to think about and fine tune the hiring process. I mean, I accidentally hire some people with drama issues, so my conclusion is don't ever hire women? That's the best process change I can think of? Not asking about conflict resolution experiences, or maybe a teamwork test, but just ban an entire gender? I just don't see how a good hiring process can come out of that kind of thinking. What if then you hire some men who don't communicate as well as they should -- then do we ban all men as well? Basically, I think hiring is hard and so process based on simplistic rules of gender or skin color or whatever don't usually work well, and besides begin illegal in the US they're also usually a sign of a process that hasn't really been thought out. By the way -- I re-read your comment, and if I understand it correctly it seems that your stance is because I've made hiring mistakes (even if they are subsequently and promptly corrected) that I should have no credibility to comment on this blogger's hiring process of banning women. I guess it's your prerogative to have that standard -- only those who haven't made any mistakes have credibility -- but, if we assume that anyone who's done a lot of hiring has made mistakes, the only people with credibility in your eyes are those who have done little to no hiring. Personally I wouldn't find that approach useful.