Glad I was providentially hindered...

[blhowes]

I was providentially hindered from a situation which, quite frankly, I don't know how I would have reacted.

We're hiring some new people at work, so a number of us were asked to interview the two people yesterday, then give our feedback to our manager. I was supposed to go with my wife yesterday to get a second opinion regarding her back surgery, so I interviewed the first one in the morning and asked to opt out of the second one. My boss said that wouldn't be a problem.

One of the girls in our group that interviewed the second person related her experience. (long story short) She went to the interview room, saw the person from the back and assumed it was a lady because of the long hair. She waited outside the door for a while, and ended up going back to her desk for a while. The person was still with my manager, so the girl called and said she would be glad to interview her when he was through. So as not to cause her any embarrassment, he responded that he'd bring HIM (emphasis) down to her office so she could interview HIM.

They met up with each other and she conducted the interview. At the end, she said, "You've been interviewing different people now for almost three hours. Are there any question that you have that weren't answered yet?"

The person responded, "I recently had an operation and I'm in transition from male to female. Do you think that'll be a problem with the people at this company?"

The lady was dumbfounded, but managed to sqeak out a response about how diverse our company is, etc.

I honestly don't know how I would have responded. I'm glad I was providentially hindered from that situation.

Disgust aside, it got me thinking afterwards about whether or not that should be grounds for not hiring a person. Assuming he/she was just as qualified or more than the other candidate, should the person be denied the job because of the operation? Legally, I guess that can't be the criteria used to deny somebody employment. What do you think? Should an employer have the right to not hire somebody on these grounds?

[Edited on 3-24-2006 by blhowes]

 

[JohnV]

Long ago someone's moral integrity was a pre-eminent qualification, and his abilities though important, could be worked with even if not better than another's. But a person of questionable morals, no matter how qualified, could not gain the trust a position of any sort automatically required.

Just my two cents.

 

[ANT]

That's tough ... I wouldn't want to be in that position either!

My reaction (opinion) would have been ... If someone is this confused about the decisions they make with their own life, I wouldn't want to trust them with important decisions that have to do with my business.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by JohnV
Long ago someone's moral integrity was a pre-eminent qualification, and his abilities though important, could be worked with even if not better than another's. But a person of questionable morals, no matter how qualified, could not gain the trust a position of any sort automatically required.

Just my two cents.

The pendulum has swung to the opposite side. Will it ever return (this side of eternity) to its original position?

 

[satz]

Sadly, i doubt it...

2 Timothy 3:1-13 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.

 

[satz]

Does anyone think that the answer to the question might differ based on if you are the owner of the business or if you are an employee supposed to hire based on your boss' specifications?

 

[Craig]

I would state what the company's position is on such a matter...no doubt most companies will say it's okay.

However, the phrase of the question would have opened up an opportunity to disqualify him.

"Would you find it difficult if you perceived people did have a problem with what you're doing? Do you find you're influenced by how you think people perceive you?"

Turn the tables. You can give the PC answer then expose the underlying lack of ethic through the revealing words these people use. I would be willing to wager this man would be indecisive and grilling him further would have shown his weakness.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I'd be totally aghast if confronted with such a situation.

I would simply respond, "er, em, um, er, eh, well, whew, em...."

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Slippery
I'd be totally aghast if confronted with such a situation.

I would simply respond, "er, em, um, er, eh, well, whew, em...."

I don't know that I could be so eloquent. My hat goes off to you.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by Craig
However, the phrase of the question would have opened up an opportunity to disqualify him.

"Would you find it difficult if you perceived people did have a problem with what you're doing? Do you find you're influenced by how you think people perceive you?"

That would have been a great response. If you had been caught off guard like the interviewer was, do you think you'd have been able to overcome the shock quick enough to respond with this?

(I'm not usually that quick on my feet. I probably would have done one of those Archie Bunker moves where he gives one of those looks, and slowly bends over his head onto his hand and says, "Ah, gee". Later, after considerable thought, I might have come up with your line of thought)

 

[~~Susita~~]

 

[SRoper]

I have a workplace story related to this. I was working as an intern at a company, and a meeting was called for everyone in one of the product divisions. The management explained at the meeting that "Bill" who had taken a leave of absence for a few months would be returning to work as a woman. Now the management picked a bad day for this announcement: April 1st. People were cracking up, getting rowdy, yelling "April fool's." It took forever for it to sink in that management was serious and it wasn't a joke.

 

[blhowes]

Originally posted by SRoper
I have a workplace story related to this. I was working as an intern at a company, and a meeting was called for everyone in one of the product divisions. The management explained at the meeting that "Bill" who had taken a leave of absence for a few months would be returning to work as a woman. Now the management picked a bad day for this announcement: April 1st. People were cracking up, getting rowdy, yelling "April fool's." It took forever for it to sink in that management was serious and it wasn't a joke.

That's a good one.