http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busine...46101.html

Quote:A US company has introduced a “snowflake test” to weed out overly sensitive, liberal candidates who are too easily offended.

The test includes questions such as “What does America mean to you?” and “When was the last time you cried and why?”. Many questions are designed to assess a candidate’s stance on America, police, and guns.

Someone who’s not proud to be an American is immediately out of the running, as are people who don’t support the Second Amendment right to bear arms, said Kyle Reyes, who created the test.

“A snowflake is somebody who is going to whine and complain and come to the table with nothing but an entitled attitude and an inability to back their perspective.” Mr Reyes told Fox News.

“We use the test to weed out the sort of people who were inundating us with resumés and didn’t even know what we did.”

A bit over the top. You shouldn't employ people based on their political beliefs.

Really what you want is a test to try to weed out people who will disrupt the workplace and be quick to sue. To that extent, a snowflake test could be useful.

LOL, they won't be able to help themselves on the questions about the police and guns. I foresee tweets about how "I didn't get the job, but I showed them."

Sure you did, snowflake.

This was news ... in March.

A tiny marketing firm in Connecticut, suddenly announces to the national media that it did something very divisive ...... in order to get free marketing, for itself.

No kidding?

I think it is a terrific idea. I actually have my own test. I don't hire anyone that doesn't show up to the interview with a wedding ring (show stopper) and I give preference to those that have a social media account with evidence of children (not allowed to ask that question). My experience is those with family obligations are far less likely to cause problems and don't have time to get into petty social schit among coworkers. The only exception is for overseas requirements in which the opposite is true and those with families separating themselves are more likely to quit or get distracted with long distance problems.

I know of a company that asks the candidate "whats the maximum number of days per month a person should be allowed to call in sick."

You can filter out a lot of future grief with that one.

(05-17-2017 11:24 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I know of a company that asks the candidate "whats the maximum number of days per month a person should be allowed to call in sick."

You can filter out a lot of future grief with that one.

How is the answer to that not trivially "only up to the number of sick days he/she has accrued" ? Seems like a silly question.

(05-17-2017 11:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 11:24 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I know of a company that asks the candidate "whats the maximum number of days per month a person should be allowed to call in sick."

You can filter out a lot of future grief with that one.

How is the answer to that not trivially "only up to the number of sick days he/she has accrued" ? Seems like a silly question.

Bigot.

(05-17-2017 11:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 11:24 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I know of a company that asks the candidate "whats the maximum number of days per month a person should be allowed to call in sick."

You can filter out a lot of future grief with that one.

How is the answer to that not trivially "only up to the number of sick days he/she has accrued" ? Seems like a silly question.

Filter activated.

(05-17-2017 10:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I think it is a terrific idea. I actually have my own test. I don't hire anyone that doesn't show up to the interview with a wedding ring (show stopper) and I give preference to those that have a social media account with evidence of children (not allowed to ask that question). My experience is those with family obligations are far less likely to cause problems and don't have time to get into petty social schit among coworkers. The only exception is for overseas requirements in which the opposite is true and those with families separating themselves are more likely to quit or get distracted with long distance problems.

FWIW, this opens you up to legal action. Doesn't mean you can't do it in the ways you've described, but there's some risk there if a candidate finds out they've been denied a role for their marriage status or lack of offspring......

Married men and women are the best. 2nd best is divorced men... they have more bills to pay and are motivated to keep their job and grow, but they also spend more time drinking. Single and divorced women are the worst, especially if they have kids. If they aren't missing days left and right because little Timmay got a cold, they are showing up for work on Tuesday with no sleep, ruffled hair and wearing the same clothes they had on Monday because they took advantage of the Timmay staying with the baby daddy to spend the night riding the c*ck carousel. They also spend much of the day texting on their cell phones or flirting with their married male coworkers.

(05-17-2017 12:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 10:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I think it is a terrific idea. I actually have my own test. I don't hire anyone that doesn't show up to the interview with a wedding ring (show stopper) and I give preference to those that have a social media account with evidence of children (not allowed to ask that question). My experience is those with family obligations are far less likely to cause problems and don't have time to get into petty social schit among coworkers. The only exception is for overseas requirements in which the opposite is true and those with families separating themselves are more likely to quit or get distracted with long distance problems.

FWIW, this opens you up to legal action. Doesn't mean you can't do it in the ways you've described, but there's some risk there if a candidate finds out they've been denied a role for their marriage status or lack of offspring......

Is marital status an equal opportunity condition?

(05-17-2017 11:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 11:24 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I know of a company that asks the candidate "whats the maximum number of days per month a person should be allowed to call in sick."

You can filter out a lot of future grief with that one.

How is the answer to that not trivially "only up to the number of sick days he/she has accrued" ? Seems like a silly question.

You just flunked!

(05-17-2017 12:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 10:58 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  I think it is a terrific idea. I actually have my own test. I don't hire anyone that doesn't show up to the interview with a wedding ring (show stopper) and I give preference to those that have a social media account with evidence of children (not allowed to ask that question). My experience is those with family obligations are far less likely to cause problems and don't have time to get into petty social schit among coworkers. The only exception is for overseas requirements in which the opposite is true and those with families separating themselves are more likely to quit or get distracted with long distance problems.

FWIW, this opens you up to legal action. Doesn't mean you can't do it in the ways you've described, but there's some risk there if a candidate finds out they've been denied a role for their marriage status or lack of offspring......

Marriage is not a protected class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(05-17-2017 01:17 PM)Claw Wrote:  Is marital status an equal opportunity condition?

(In the most general terms) Making decisions on anything outside of skills and availability can be construed as discriminatory, yes. Certainly there are a million qualifiers out there for specific jobs.

But if you made a hiring decision between two candidates, one married and one not married, and made the official decision because of some of the above posters specification, then yes that could be construed as illegal.

However the reality is that if the decision is made for those reasons, it's never officially captured as such and would be almost impossible (and expensive) to prove.

(05-17-2017 11:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 11:24 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I know of a company that asks the candidate "whats the maximum number of days per month a person should be allowed to call in sick."

You can filter out a lot of future grief with that one.

How is the answer to that not trivially "only up to the number of sick days he/she has accrued" ? Seems like a silly question.

Nice job of tripping the filter. Correct answer - I don't take sick days unless an ambulance has to take me to a hospital and they won't let me out, so I wouldn't know.

(05-17-2017 11:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 11:24 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I know of a company that asks the candidate "whats the maximum number of days per month a person should be allowed to call in sick."

You can filter out a lot of future grief with that one.

How is the answer to that not trivially "only up to the number of sick days he/she has accrued" ? Seems like a silly question.

"We thank you for your interest in the position but after much consideration we have decided to pursue other candidates with superior qualifications. We wish you the best in your future endeavors."

(05-17-2017 01:12 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  Married men and women are the best. 2nd best is divorced men... they have more bills to pay and are motivated to keep their job and grow, but they also spend more time drinking. Single and divorced women are the worst, especially if they have kids. If they aren't missing days left and right because little Timmay got a cold, they are showing up for work on Tuesday with no sleep, ruffled hair and wearing the same clothes they had on Monday because they took advantage of the Timmay staying with the baby daddy to spend the night riding the c*ck carousel. They also spend much of the day texting on their cell phones or flirting with their married male coworkers.

Damn dude that's a lot of detail

(05-17-2017 01:43 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 11:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 11:24 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I know of a company that asks the candidate "whats the maximum number of days per month a person should be allowed to call in sick."

You can filter out a lot of future grief with that one.

How is the answer to that not trivially "only up to the number of sick days he/she has accrued" ? Seems like a silly question.

"We thank you for your interest in the position but after much consideration we have decided to pursue other candidates with superior qualifications. We wish you the best in your future endeavors."

Don't forget to promise to keep their resume "on file"

(05-17-2017 01:50 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 01:43 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 11:27 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 11:24 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I know of a company that asks the candidate "whats the maximum number of days per month a person should be allowed to call in sick."

You can filter out a lot of future grief with that one.

How is the answer to that not trivially "only up to the number of sick days he/she has accrued" ? Seems like a silly question.

"We thank you for your interest in the position but after much consideration we have decided to pursue other candidates with superior qualifications. We wish you the best in your future endeavors."

Don't forget to promise to keep their resume "on file"

We stopped saying that after one frequent interviewee asked to see the file so they could update the resume.