This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Should hiring based off being related to some one be illegal?

#31DJStrongPosted 6/17/2013 11:14:44 AM
Bump

it is slow today...
---
"On the contrary my friend, we're going to live!"
#32FunWithAFryPanPosted 6/17/2013 12:41:12 PM
DJStrong posted...
FunWithAFryPan posted...
Superlnfinity45 posted...
DJStrong posted...
Startrekky posted...
Yes. One shouldn't be at a disadvantage (or advantage) in terms of social mobility simply because of who he or she is born to. Now, of course, people will say that it's unrealistic, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make that a reality.


Step one being?

I understand the sentiment but enforcing such laws would be a bigger fools errand than the war on drugs. The War on Nepotism, I can see the Ken Burns documentary now...


Please tell me you're a joke account.

People complain about the "war on drugs" because they don't think it should be a war, not that they don't think it should be illegal. Only fringe lunatic crackpots claim all drugs should be legal.


Uh no.


Thank you for that stirring defense Fun

My point was looking at all of the wasted money in regards to Drug enforcement (and the questionable results there in), do we really want to be wasting money on nepotistic hiring practices (do you have faith in the enforcement, I do not)?

Also I never recall saying all drugs should be legal....but I suppose I am a joke account in light of what you choose to read? The level of discourse on this board sometimes....


There was a post in between yours and mine. He said only fringe crackpots want all drugs to be legal when that's not a very smart thing to say. I wasn't even responding to your post.
---
He who strikes with meaning is killed by meaning.
#33wok7_walkmybeatPosted 6/17/2013 12:58:09 PM
ImperialDragon posted...
You're not going to make something as fundamental to human society as "connections" illegal.


QFT

Get out there and network with people.

ALSO often positions go unfilled because there isn't simple ways of advertising said positions.

Lastly its easier and there is already an established level of trust.
---
XBL/PSN/Nintendo ID = BloodFislandMan
ASUS GTXTITAN-6GD5 GeForce GTX TITAN 6GB 384-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 3.0
#34yarsPosted 6/17/2013 1:07:23 PM
personally, i think the best jobs should go to those that cry the hardest on the internet.
---
My whole life has been a miserable pig filled ordeal because of you.
#35DJStrongPosted 6/18/2013 10:07:17 AM
FunWithAFryPan posted...

There was a post in between yours and mine. He said only fringe crackpots want all drugs to be legal when that's not a very smart thing to say. I wasn't even responding to your post.


I know, I meant to thank you for saying 'uh no' to the poster, and went for a bit of humor by characterizing it as stirring, I knew you were not responding to me.
---
"On the contrary my friend, we're going to live!"
#36TheshamenPosted 6/18/2013 10:35:00 AM
I think the one thing many people overlook about nepotism is that it simply streamlines the hiring process.

When we put out a job posting we get HUNDREDS of resumes (thanks to the current job market) instead of sorting through said resumes its easier to have someone bring in their cousin or brother who they can vouch for and we can eliminate easily rather than go through the entire hiring and training process.

It has less to do with "love" and more to do with familiarity.

I know that my brother is a hard worker and knows how to use word and excel properely and will fit in at my company.

I don't know that random person #4 knows how to do anything they say on their resume and quite frankly I'd rather not take the chance
---
I will not change this sig until Alterac Valley is reverted pre-BC http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/969937114
12/21/08
#37Flaming_Fire619Posted 6/20/2013 12:20:29 AM
Here's my thought process on this.

Let's say two candidates come in, and both are equally qualified in all aspects for the job at hand. They have the same level degree, both went to about the same level of school, and both have about the same level of references. The only difference between the two is that one person is related to a worker or boss of the company at hand. In this situation, hiring the relative is not a problem, as you are getting about the same level of employee on either end.

However, let's take a different scenario. Say two candidates come in for a job, and there is a very distinct difference in quality between the two. One has gone to a great college, top of his class, extremely qualified for the position with great references, and interviews well. The second went to a middle of the road college, skated by with his grades to barely get his degree, has no good references, and generally is just a less qualified candidate to the first. However, this second candidate has a father or family member in the company. In this situation, I believe there should be something to protect candidate one, especially if candidate 2 gets the job, because it is obvious that the first candidate was a much better choice, but the family connection got candidate 2 the job. Note that this is a pretty extreme scenario, but possible
---
Not changing until Shelton Benjamin wins the WHC Started: Jan. 10. 2009
http://myanimelist.net/profile/fantheflames
#38DJStrongPosted 6/20/2013 3:48:04 AM
Flaming_Fire619 posted...

However, let's take a different scenario. Say two candidates come in for a job, and there is a very distinct difference in quality between the two. One has gone to a great college, top of his class, extremely qualified for the position with great references, and interviews well. The second went to a middle of the road college, skated by with his grades to barely get his degree, has no good references, and generally is just a less qualified candidate to the first. However, this second candidate has a father or family member in the company. In this situation, I believe there should be something to protect candidate one, especially if candidate 2 gets the job, because it is obvious that the first candidate was a much better choice, but the family connection got candidate 2 the job. Note that this is a pretty extreme scenario, but possible


While it sucks candidate one did not get the job a person that qualified would probably get plenty of other offers and of course there are detriments to hiring a poorer candidate that can manifest. Also I imagine it could be hard to prove, sometimes a 'poor' candidate can interview well and the interviewer can say "I can totally spend 8 hours a day with this guy!" that is to say prove it was nepotism alone, heck even if it was I would lie to the investigator and say candidate one interviewed poorly.

Again my concern is when we make this a legal matter, I assume you mean legal protection when you say: I believe there should be something to protect candidate one until we establish a few things like, who is the criminal, who enforces the law, how much of a connection, what are the penalties, and so forth; we run the risk of creating an environment where even qualified candidates will be turned down out of fear (He is our night-shift janitors second cousin!? Bounce him well get a different <insert obscure job> despite his resume!)

So I would like to ask again to people who want to make nepotism in regards to hiring illegal: Who is the criminal? (the employer or employee for accepting) Who enforces it? What are the penalties (jail time, fines?), what is the burden of proof?, will family trees need to be vetted for employment? there are a whole host of questions.
---
"On the contrary my friend, we're going to live!"