Automatic Job "screeners"

So, automation and computers have done all these great things......super, so what.   Let's move on to one of the giant downsides of all this "great" technology and move away from actual human interaction.

At some point, someone had the smart idea of creating these automatic "job filters".   They come in several flavors, some that automatically scan your resume for certain words or phrases, personality tests, blah blah.

My absolute favorite is the "black and white" questionaire.   This will often have some "black and white" disqualifier, which probably would be overlooked in lieu of other skills the candidate might have.

For instance, sometimes, the "screener" will ask you if you have a certain degree.   There are no responses other than "yes" or "no".  It does not allow for the entry of a "related" degree, such as if you happen to have, say, a Finance degree rather than an Accounting degree.   Even though these are interchangeable amongst most of the planet, the black and white questionaire is often programmed to reject you immediatley.

Another awesome one I recently ran in to was what essentially amounted to an Actuarial assistant.  You pretty much just ran canned reports, and kicked the spit up to a higher ranking person.   The description flat out stated it required no actuarial experience.   However, they are completely hung up on one tiny question that was built into their "black and white" questionaire, did you pass one part of the Actuary exam?  Its simple, yes, your resume gets by the stone wall, no, you get an automated rejection letter.

Nevermind that I have spent the better part of the last 10 years constructing every imaginable report, and analyzing data quantitatively.   I clearly would not be a good candidate for a job.....running reports and analying data quantitatively because I didnt take ONE PART of a multi part exam.

This is something an actual PERSON might recognize, but the black and white questionaire just tosses you aside.

Thanks technology for taking the "human" out of "human resources".

Happy Valentines Day...

I recently read an article that I came across on Yahoo, although I couldn't locate the address of it for purposes of this blog post, which quoted statistics on the racial requirements of people on online dating sites. It concluded that the least attractive male to females was of Asian descent, and the least attractive female to males was African American. So, as a male, this got me fairly interested as to why African American females were so disproportionatley shunned. It led me to read through many blogs and articles, and it seems that at least part of the reason is that African American females seem to be one of the most likely demographics to oppose interracial dating. In addition, African American males do not achieve the same educational or societal standing as African American females on a whole, which in effect, forces African American females to choose from a smaller proportion of ''good black men" which accounts for why such a large percentage of them have never been married.

This has also assisted in creating the stereotype of "the angry single black woman", which no doubt probably accounts for why they ranked last in those polls.

So, why exactly, are black women so opposed to interracial dating, at least, it seems, more so then many others races? Without singling out any post or article, the most frequent argument I have seen is that they are very interested in building a "strong black family". I have to take issue with the "black" part of that. Since when did "black" or any "race" become as important as the strong and family part of that? Why have black women increasingly settled for either not having families at all, or having children out of traditional family settings, simply to ensure their "blackness"? What is blackness? Why is it so important to keep your family lines as "black" as possible? Does keeping your line racially pure make you closer to your ancestors? Is it impossible for a child of mixed races to be proud of or educated about all of his ancestors positive accomplishments?

What really bugs me about it is, any person, not just a black woman, who lists racial purity as one of their top requirements of reproduction or relationships, is that very few of us even know where the hell we came from. Even with all this modern emphasis on family trees and geneology, most of us cannot go back further then "yeah, grandpa lived in Jersey City, and he thinks he was Italian". This is especially true for many of us who have generations that were particuliary poor or illiterate, and from which very little information exists. So, at what point do we stop being "African", "Italian", "German", and just be American. What point is a strong family more important then a strong "black" family?


The second most popular argument by far is the one about society or their respective families not accepting or blessing the relationship. To me, this is a tremendously weak argument. Only a very sad person is going to let society or their family control their potential happiness, and only very sad members or society or families have such contempt for another race that the overall happiness of their relative or society in general takes a back seat.

Racism and Michael Jackson

Some recent actions by a number of politicians recently infuriated me.

These actions centered around the death of Michael Jackson, an entertainer loved by millions, possibly billions, of people around the globe. A man who completely transcended every artificial barrier society created. If didnt matter if you were rich or poor, or as a lyric in one of his songs says "black or white", he appealed to all.

So, after his death, what do some of our fine politicians from the idiot side of the isle have to say?

Representitive Peter King- R from Long Island, NY had a whole lot of interesting things to say

http://www.dailypress.com/entertainment/news/sns-ap-us-politician-vs-jackson,0,1367597.story

In this article, he calls Jackson a "pervert and a child molester". Maybe someone should have told him that Jackson was aquitted of all charges on evidence based largely around testimonies of a single family. I wonder how deep the Grand Canyon would be filled if a quarter was thrown in for every time a celebrity was accused of, or sued for, something they were aquitted for.

No matter, many crimes a person is automatically guilty in the court of opinion without trial, and crimes against children is one of those crimes.

However, I dont believe this is a case of that. You see, the comments like this are largely coming from conservative whites, a great place to find racists. Mr. King speaks of how he posted the video after "speaking with his constituents" (by the way, Mr. Kings district is one of the whitest, wealthiest, and conservative districts in all of Metro NY).

Just the other day, I was listening to the local sports radio show, which I rarely listen to any more because of its host, Tony Mercurio, who continuously inserts his political opinion, and his frequent guest, lock stock and standard Republican and former politician George Allen, pretty much echoed Mr. King in spirit (he didnt personally insult Michael Jackson based on a baseless opinion as King did, but nonetheless insinuated that it wasnt news worthy).

Mr. Allen suggested that we should be writing stories about "North Korean missles" and "The War in Afghanistan". Well, for one, weve been hearing about the war in the middle east for nearly a decade, every single day. Thats an ironic subject to choose when you are complaining about the amount of coverage for a single subject. As for the North Korean Missles, I dont know what media he is watching but I have seen plenty of coverage of that issue.

Is Mr. Allen suggesting that maybe we should just stop talking about Michael Jackson, and not that there isnt enough coverage for other things? Any other day, guys like Allen are bitching about how the "liberal media" isnt portraying things correctly, but when a popular minority figure is in the news, he cant find reason quick enough to have the media switch attentions.

I wonder what the reactions would be if some country music superstar, a NASCAR star, or a prominent figure in some right wing special interest group died. Mr. Kings constituency would probably have a candle light ceremony, and bitch about how the "liberal media" wasnt giving it enough attention.

I remember when the great NASCAR driver Dale Earnhardt tragically passed. Coverage for him was extensive, and on many channels for a long stretch of time. Keep in mind, this was a star in a sport largely only followed by a small segment of the US population. I never once recall ANY minority politicians, or any politicians at all for that matter complaining about how there "were more interesting things in the world" or insulting Earnhardt.

I remember when Princess Diana died as well. That was covered for weeks on end by every news outlet in the country. Did you see any politicians commenting on that coverage?

Yet, when a black man, famous the world over, who has done more to better peoples lives then most ever will do, dies, now people have things to say. I guess the millions of dollars he has contributed in life and death to worthy causes, countless hours spent on charities, and worldwide vigils attended by millions, wasnt nearly enough to buy the respect of the conservative white man.

Racism

A recent turn of events led me to make my first post in a very long time. Racism.

I cannot possibly understand how a person can hate another for nothing other then their skin color, or dissaprove of two individuals not of the same skin color being together.

Further more, I do not have the slightest idea where the logic rests.

For instance, ask a person who is racist, why they hate a particuliar race.

Likely, their answer will be include some stereotypical behavior, clothing style, or way of life. It will never be simply for the fact that they are a particuliar skin color. Im not sure if the differences between people were anything more then skin color in their opinion, they would even hate at all based on race.

So, in reality, they are hating a whole group of people, for those particuliar behaviors, clothing styles, or way of life, without actually knowing if each individual person practices those particuliar hated items.

If I am white, what is to say, that a Black woman, Latin woman, or Asian woman is not the best match for me? Can a Black woman not take good care of me? Can Asian women not be educated and stimulating? Can a Latin woman not be an excellent mother to my kids? Can it be possible that I found a non-white woman who posseses all of those qualities, and in greater abundance then any white women I've met, including my ex-wife? Should I settle for a poor quality white woman simply because shes white? No thanks.

Why should skin tone ever matter? Its just skin. Its not the person, and never will be. A white person, a black person, and every other skin tone on the planet could identify with or possess any quality, including those some would like to stereotype as traits of certain skin colors.

For those who think you shouldnt go outside of your own "race". Why? Is it some sort of "racial purity" thing? Shouldnt I be looking for the best mother to my children and partner for me, instead of trying to keep the propogation of my skin tone alive? It's rediculous to rather have a "racially pure" home, then a stable, warm and loving home.

Front runner fans with stupid car flags

Ok, Im going to go off on a rant today.

Im tired of front runner fans, you know who you are, who deem it neccessary to display any of the following

- Flags attached to the sides of their cars from their windows (these are unbelievably annoying and stupid looking to boot)
- Large inflatable items in their yard
- Huge window stickers

When, and only when their "team" wins a big game, usually the championship.

This has been no more evident then the Giants Super Bowl win. The next day, Im sure every store on earth sold out of Giants gear, as the front runners, band wagoners, sunny day fans, and Patriot haters (the majority of Giants backers for the super bowl) raced to deck their cars and houses out in blue and red.

Collectively, my favorite teams have won two titles in my complete lifetime, the Atlanta Braves in 95, and NY Rangers in 94. Although all of my teams have been pretty good most of my lifetime, the Knicks, Rangers, Braves and Vikings, all of them have seen considerable bouts of down time, and 2 of the four have won nothing in the 26.5 years Ive been on the earth. I wear the hats in good and bad times, I wear the shirts, the jerseys, have the key chains and mugs, the house carpet, etc.

Hilarious thing is, even after the Braves won the series and the Rangers won the Stanley Cup, I did not purchase a single item after the victory. My support was equal the day before, and day after they won, it didnt waver, increase, or motivate me to have to display the fact in everyones face that "my" team won, with stupid car flags. The feeling was enough for me, and should be for any die hard fan.

So, for people who think they are cool, or "part of the frat" by displaying 600 lbs of memoribillia they didnt have Superbowl Saturday, on Superbowl Monday, you are pretty much just a joke to everyone who isnt in your "frat". Just wanted to point that out.

New Job

So, after a couple days of negotiations, I was offered a position in another company, for a decent raise, and a substantial increase in a few areas on the benefit side.

So, I quit today. In about 30 mins or so I will be walking out of here for the last time.

This is the first day Ive felt motivated to go in to this job in a long time, strangely enough.

So, Im taking about a day and a half, and I start my new job Monday, which Im looking forward to.

Roger Clemens..

So there is all kinds of fuss over the details involved with the contract Roger Clemens signed for a prorated portion of the season.

Apparently, he reportedly grabbed all kinds of concessions, such as being able to go home when he isnt pitching, etc etc.

Also reported is that Joe Torre and many of the Yankees current stars and leaders such as Derek Jeter signed off on this.

My issue is the large amount of negative backlash Roger Clemens is getting from this.

"Hes not a good teammate", "Hes selfish", "There is no way the Yankees are going to get the added dollar value". Blah Blah Blah.

For a second, put Clemens in a suit and tie, or coveralls, and place him in your position. Average Joe.

When you go in for a job are you asking any of the following---

1. Is my company getting their value for my salary?
2. What are my coworkers making?
3. Should I take less money or perks to be more "team" like?

Im sorry, you arent. You are trying to grab as most for YOU/and or your family as you can. It is the companies responsibility to determine the value of your work and how much they are willing to fork over in return.

If an employer offered you 5 more vacation days a year more then the company norm, so that you wont go across the street to a competing company who might/will, are you going to reject that because you'd rather be treated the same as everyone else?

Hell no you arent.

So stop blaming Clemens for doing the same thing on a larger scale. Clemens will come to the park and do what the Yankees pay him to do, be a great pitcher and help them towards a ring. If Steinbrenner and Co. feel this is a fair price for his services, then blame them.

Or maybe you can look around the league, there are a whole lot of players who are collecting checks for being chronically "injured", such as Carl Pavano, Mike Prior, or Mike Hampton, and there are many who signed for big dollars in a contract year, and went back to sucking afterwards.

At least Roger Clemens is going to give the employer exactly what they thought they were paying for.

Noone cares about your degree...

After reading a recent letter to the editor, I became infuriated over something I see constantly.

Why, exactly, do people feel its neccessary to insert their education or professional experience in to every day conversation.

For instance.

Bill- "Isnt it a great day"
John-"Yeah Bill"
Bill- "I think Ill go to McHadies Pub"
John- "Well, Im working on my Masters in Culinary Arts at Pudwhacker U, and Id have to say, I dont like their food"


You know what John? Nobody gives a damn. I dont care about your Masters degree, I really dont. Why is it neccessary that you slipped that in to the conversation? Do you think your Masters degree really has any bearing on how Bill is going to view the food? Did Bill ask you for your special qualifications that you feel are applicable to your opinion?

I have a degree, and the only time I ever mention it is on job resumes, and when somebody is challenging me on something I spent 4 years in school to learn.

For instance

George- "What do you know about double entry accounting?"
Lethal- "Well I did go to school 4 years to do it"

I dont just randomly offer that information up, as if Im searching for respect. Lame.