Вот как надо писать обьявления о работе - за пару часов 70 с лишним комментов. Вот это мастер, я в восхищении. А то я как напишу - с трудом полдюжины кандидатов откликаются.
Знаю я Ваши конторы - женщин разных вероисповеданий и цвета кожи от Вас не допросишься, хоть из себя выпрыгни. И тем более, 70 комментов не с предложениями сдачи в наем рабочей силы, а с обсуждением какое это замечательное или не очень замечательное объявление.
Hmm... I guess in N. America this guy would go directly to the court as: * До тридцати лет - age based discrimination * Семейное положение "холост - family status-based discrimination * Мужского пола исключительно - sex-based discrimination * Не соблюдающий традиции - religion-based discrimination And to be honest, I wouldn't mind going an extra mile and personally sue him (item 1) - I HATE this crap.
You can not sue him - you don't have standing, you have to be hurt personally to sue AFAIK. If you aren't - you can only complain to the police. Personally, I regard any of the laws restricting voluntary job contracts to be stupid. If you don't like the job, go next door. If you don't like the employer, write an article in local newspaper trashing him or organize the protest near his door. What the court has to do with that?
It works all to well for a young male in his late 20ies/early 30ies, in a job-seeker's market, such as IT. Yes, in this case you have the luxury of "going next door". Just think about yourself in some 20 years or others who are not in that good position...
We have a number of people in our company in ages 40-50. And programming job does not require any specific physical abilities, so I don't see why my 20-year experience would present any problem to anybody - except for being overqualified for some simple jobs, but I am already overqualified for them anyway.
In any case, if you say "that's good because I could benefit for that" it is logical, but immoral. That's like our trade-union people, that have protected salaries 5 to 10 times average and all cousins and relatives set up in various do-nothing-collect-paycheck places and any time anybody wants to change anything they go on strike - because the law allows them to. Sure they think this law is very good - but is it indeed? If I would advocate things on such grounds - I would be just like them, and I do not want to be like them. Well, maybe except for the salaries. But I earn my money, not extort it by lobbying.
First off, there is nothing immoral in defending my own interests, be it today or tomorrow. This is how the modern society works. Of course, it's very nobile to worry about someone else's interests but ain't rendering promoting of my own agenda to be morally flawed.
Anyways, it's clearly an off-topic twist in this discussion. My point is that nobody should bullshit people with the requirements unrelated to the set of tasks which the employee is supposed to perform. If you want a person to travel a lot in coutries where supply of kosher food is somewhat limited, state just that and let the person decide whether it's a good fit for him/her or not. And yes, this is extremely popular in Israel to come up with the list of requirements that are hardly can be called fair and this does bites EVERYONE in the ass at some point.
First off, there is nothing immoral in defending my own interests, be it today or tomorrow.
There is, if you do it by stealing someone other's property or restricting their freedoms. E.g., it would be nice if there was a law requiring everybody to pay me $1 each day, but I see no moral justification for such a law.
My point is that nobody should bullshit people with the requirements unrelated to the set of tasks which the employee is supposed to perform.
That depends of what do you mean by "should". If you say "it is stupid to do so" - I agree. If you say "there should be a law against it" - I disagree. Because if I see something as stupid, somebody else can see it as beneficial, and I have no right to enforce my optinion on him. If he's right and I'm wrong - the profit is his, if he's wrong and I'm right - the loss is his, on both cases - it's his business, not mine. Everybody can be as stupid as he likes, for his own money.
And yes, this is extremely popular in Israel to come up with the list of requirements that are hardly can be called fair
I never saw any requirements that were not "fair", whatever you mean by "fair" there. The whole concept of something being "fair" or not "fair" in a job requirements is somewhat alien to me - it's like saying I'm unfair to the store which I don't visit because I don't like the smell there or the face of the cashier. I have whole right to visit any store I want and he has whole right to hire anybody he wants, for his money. If he doesn't hire me - the loss is all his, I'll find better place to work. Anyway if he hires someone, he expect to make more profit then he pays, so if he doesn't hire me - he loses all the profit he could make, so why I should be bothered with his loss?
this does bites EVERYONE in the ass at some point.
I don't see any biting happening. If somebody puts forward job requirements that no person would match - he just won't hire anybody, so the only man who gets bitten in the ass is himself. If somebody matches - then I see no problem at all.
Well, I guess in this case you will not have any hard feelings about "No Jewish applicants, please" kind of posting somewhere in Europe or America. After all "the loss is theirs", right?
I would have hard feelings, but I won't have the state to act for me. Instead, I'd take care that as much people as possible would know about it and act accordingly - e.g. severing business ties with the poster or boycotting his products. Of course, if the position is not about bacon taste control, where observant Jews would have some difficulties on the job :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
А тебя мы любим и верим... :)
no subject
А потрындеть - это в любой группе можно...
no subject
согреюсьпотрындеть можно...no subject
* До тридцати лет - age based discrimination
* Семейное положение "холост - family status-based discrimination
* Мужского пола исключительно - sex-based discrimination
* Не соблюдающий традиции - religion-based discrimination
And to be honest, I wouldn't mind going an extra mile and personally sue him (item 1) - I HATE this crap.
no subject
Personally, I regard any of the laws restricting voluntary job contracts to be stupid. If you don't like the job, go next door. If you don't like the employer, write an article in local newspaper trashing him or organize the protest near his door. What the court has to do with that?
no subject
no subject
In any case, if you say "that's good because I could benefit for that" it is logical, but immoral. That's like our trade-union people, that have protected salaries 5 to 10 times average and all cousins and relatives set up in various do-nothing-collect-paycheck places and any time anybody wants to change anything they go on strike - because the law allows them to. Sure they think this law is very good - but is it indeed? If I would advocate things on such grounds - I would be just like them, and I do not want to be like them. Well, maybe except for the salaries. But I earn my money, not extort it by lobbying.
no subject
Anyways, it's clearly an off-topic twist in this discussion. My point is that nobody should bullshit people with the requirements unrelated to the set of tasks which the employee is supposed to perform. If you want a person to travel a lot in coutries where supply of kosher food is somewhat limited, state just that and let the person decide whether it's a good fit for him/her or not. And yes, this is extremely popular in Israel to come up with the list of requirements that are hardly can be called fair and this does bites EVERYONE in the ass at some point.
no subject
There is, if you do it by stealing someone other's property or restricting their freedoms. E.g., it would be nice if there was a law requiring everybody to pay me $1 each day, but I see no moral justification for such a law.
My point is that nobody should bullshit people with the requirements unrelated to the set of tasks which the employee is supposed to perform.
That depends of what do you mean by "should". If you say "it is stupid to do so" - I agree. If you say "there should be a law against it" - I disagree. Because if I see something as stupid, somebody else can see it as beneficial, and I have no right to enforce my optinion on him. If he's right and I'm wrong - the profit is his, if he's wrong and I'm right - the loss is his, on both cases - it's his business, not mine. Everybody can be as stupid as he likes, for his own money.
And yes, this is extremely popular in Israel to come up with the list of requirements that are hardly can be called fair
I never saw any requirements that were not "fair", whatever you mean by "fair" there. The whole concept of something being "fair" or not "fair" in a job requirements is somewhat alien to me - it's like saying I'm unfair to the store which I don't visit because I don't like the smell there or the face of the cashier. I have whole right to visit any store I want and he has whole right to hire anybody he wants, for his money. If he doesn't hire me - the loss is all his, I'll find better place to work. Anyway if he hires someone, he expect to make more profit then he pays, so if he doesn't hire me - he loses all the profit he could make, so why I should be bothered with his loss?
this does bites EVERYONE in the ass at some point.
I don't see any biting happening. If somebody puts forward job requirements that no person would match - he just won't hire anybody, so the only man who gets bitten in the ass is himself. If somebody matches - then I see no problem at all.
no subject
no subject