From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 10c950,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10c950,public X-Google-Thread: fdb77,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gidfdb77,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 10261c,90121986704b5776 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 109fba,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4873305131bf4d94 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: billg@jk.pst.com Subject: Re: Your english sucks, mine is better. Date: 1997/11/29 Message-ID: X-Deja-AN: 293765556 References: <34557f2b.1934172@news.mindspring.com> <65pa18$ffc@netra.montana.edu> Organization: IDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.pascal.ansi-iso,comp.lang.pascal.misc Date: 1997-11-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <65pa18$ffc@netra.montana.edu>, ljelmore@montana.campus.mci.net says... > billg@jk.pst.com wrote in message ... > >In article , nojunkmail@ever.com says... > >> Don't y'think its a responsible thing to do to verify what a prospective > >> employee says? > > > >No. If you can't tell whether a person is being honest or ask _that > >person_ more questions to verify, or give opportunity, then you should be > >one to hire people (I know, this is OPINION, YMMV). The moment you > >"check up" on someone, you have broken a potential trusting relationship. > >Expect less than working toward common goals. > > > No wonder no managers live up to your specs -- you require god-like > omniscience (not to mention the patience of a saint). How can you tell > whether a person is a thief, let alone whether or not they'll get along with > other people you've already got working with you? As the man who thinks he > can't be fooled, you're the perfect mark for a good con man... The only reason there is so much emphasis on all the "controls" is to divert attention from the politics, exploitations etc that are occurring _to_ the potential employee. Most trusting people (most people) are taken advantage of this way, as they could not comprehend using such behaviour. If you just play the odds, chances are you will never come up with a bad-egg job seeker (assuming you are not just one of the extortionist companies). If you do, chances are that you have caused it. Most manager-types are not "touchy feely" and request "just the facts" and cannot see beyond. A little intuition goes a long way. It's not learnable. You either are or you're not. > > >> It's just as likely that difficult person was NOT "beyond the average" or > >> have higher ethical standards. Really, on what do you base your above > >> comments? :-) > > > >OK, so I forgot to add that the person may be very ambitious. That > >doesn't mean they are "difficult" or even that it is their fault for not > >"seeing" everything. But you as "manager" have no excuse. It is your > >fault. Especially for not handling the situation appropriately by taking > >the all to often used "you're difficult, you're fired". Perhaps, for > >instance, you "forgot" (conveniently forgot in order to play the odds > >that you would be able to excercise control over the individual or force > >him/her to follow you) to explain that your machine was such that people > >are only machine parts and their inherent worth is not valued. ;) > > How much work experience have you had? If you've had much, I'm beginning to > suspect that you've been fired multiple times, or at least strongly > encouraged to move on elsewhere. Either that, or this is a troll. At least 15 yrs. 4 at one co. 5 at another. R&D, engineering, planning, hands-on mostly but a wealth of information on organizational practice and development gathered. The rest in various (consulting) and also following my own pursuits. Not just IT though. But definitely related technically. I don't get any big points for being the techie who wrote an OS or compiler over the weekend or anything. My focus is management (generalist) in technical environments with the ultimate goal of growing a business. The business is a lifelong dream and am pursuing that now. I was fired once, but it was more of an agreement that because I wouldn't give up technology rights we were probably not a "good fit". How right they were! (I feel so exposed now! Why did you ask me that. ;) ). > > As an employee, I realize I'm being paid to do a certain job. If I don't do > what I'm hired to do, then why should they pay me??? That's the implicit > contract -- I agree to do X, they agree to compensate me with Y. It's a > mutual agreement -- no one is forced to accept a job. If you don't like it, > move on elsewhere or starve. It's not that much different than 10,000 years > ago -- certain things are required for survival. I agree with the underlying theme here: that most employment should be viewed as temporary work until other means are available/possible and not "employer as your care taker looking out for your behalf". It's not like marriage, it's more like dating. > If you didn't want to do > them then (farming's too hard, hunting's too icky, or whatever), you > starved, or more likely, you became a primitive socialist -- those that did > work should share with you simply because you deserved it from your > "inherent worth" as a supposed human being (I'm here and I'm breathing, so > feed me!) -- and if they didn't share voluntarily, you and your other lazy > buddies took it by force. Quite frankly, I've known a _few_ people whose > only "inherent worth" I or anyone else could ever discover was as dog food. > Mostly they're in prison or became worm food and fertilizer. > > If you hire a couple of guys to paint your house, what do you expect them to > do? If they ignore your directions, do things as they see fit, choose colors > you think are hideous, get into fights with your neighbors, etc., are _you_ > going to pay them? Will you hire them the next time you need that job or > some other job done? Rememebr, there are no bad employees, only bad > managers... Hmmh? Exceptional case given again. If you have encountered more than your share of exceptions, then it's time to look internally. C'mon Larry you know very well that employment contracts are designed to be as good for the employer as possible. Doing X and Y is fine if agreed to. It's when the hidden clauses and implications are present that problems occur. Those who are trying to be clever in exploiting and extorting deserve what they get. To expect some kind of all-encompassing loyalty and sacrifice of all your intellectual possessions just because one agreed to do some work for another is silly. Relationships are built over years and not in a few interviews. Expecting employees to be slaves is the road to disaster. The employer-employee pattern doesn't work. That's why we are seeing so many sell their wares as products and services: because the employer-employee scenario takes away freedom, exploits, extorts etc. and attracts those who are of that mentality to become "employers". Good contracting will force the unscrupulous (sp?) to become more honest and be compensated for their own value and not for others'. billg