5 ms·
Again I have no prob with teetotalers whether for medical, social or religious reasons. The only prob I have is how to screen candidates to root out the fanati
by notNow 11y ago
Again I have no prob with teetotalers whether for medical, social or religious reasons.
The only prob I have is how to screen candidates to root out the fanatics and fundamentals from the moderate and regular conservative folks. Unfortunately, these two subgroups share common traits or values and abstaining from drinking is one of them.
What I said was simply that I'd need to extract more info from the candidate to make sure I'm making the right decision.
It is not about anti-religion or religious folks but a policy not to hire crazy and unstable people. I don't want female employees to feel uncomfortable at the company because of a new hire because he might have some objections to how women should dress or debating whether people should eat or have a cup of coffee during Ramadan.
This sort of stuff is unacceptable and I might say that it is not a controversial point for many people. I experienced first hand how some fanatics could drive people out of an org because of their conduct and social antics & crusades. The org lost very competent people to the competition because a fanatic thought he was on some holy mission to transform the workplace into a utopia just to feel good about himself. Needless to say, the place turned into a living hell and he also was in a position of authority to do that and we couldn't do anything about it before it was too late.
So sorry if my opinion shattered your idealistic view of the world around us but it's way way better for me not to hire a "rockstar" fanatic and see people leave in drove because of his social toxicity and to stick to normal and skilled people who would fit and blend well with the group without friction and uneasiness.
- clebio 11y agoI almost think you're trolling. But just in case you're not.... I wouldn't even worry about "fundamentailists" or "fanatics" in interviews because they _would not be there_. They'd be on some private commune that generates its own power from a water wheel and everyone where's linen, and no bare legs or arms. Honestly. Religious or ethical people that show up to a company office, on-schedule, and can answer interview questions are, basically by-definition, not fundamentalists or fanatics.
- throwaway118376 11y agoOK, so it all makes sense now. You had a bad experience with one person so you use that as an excuse to generalize and become discriminatory toward humanity at large. How is that fundamentally different from, say, seeing a person of a certain race do something bad and drawing racist conclusions, or being dumped by a woman and concluding all women suck, or seeing one person of religion X do something shitty and concluding all billion or so people of that religion suck? In other words, you're falling into the same trap that racists and misogynists and homophobes and nationalists and others fall into across the entire world. To which I have just one thing to say: put yourself in the other's shoes. Alright, so you'd clearly never be a religious fanatic, so you can't relate to that. But what if it were race or gender or something else? Let's say you're a member of some nationality, in a new country, trying to make the best of life. Some other person in your community who's from the same country does something really really shitty. All of a sudden, everyone hates you too, your boss fires you, and no one will hire you because they just assume they know how you'll act. You never even get a chance to make your case. How would that feel? In other words, give people a fucking chance. If someone causes problems, deal with that individual. In your situation, I suppose the org should've gotten rid of the toxic person faster. But don't you fucking dare start saying that everyone with characteristic X, Y or Z should never be hired at any job ever just because some particular person you used to know caused problems. That reflects on you and you only.
- DanBC 11y ago> It is not about anti-religion or religious folks but a policy not to hire crazy and unstable people. That's another protected characteristic that you've admitted to discriminating against. Do you actually hire people?
- notNow 11y agoWhat about stupid people like you who struggle with simple "reading comprehension" exercises in their native language? Are they protected as well?