Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • No Kidding??? Really? I am *stunned* by this news.
  • Captain Obvious to the rescue!
  • I am a sexy beast. Very sexy.
  • I'm 6'4 and good looking. Merit Schmerit...
  • I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

    I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.
  • So that's why I'm employed!
  • yeah, no shiat. the last two people one of the department managers hired here were hot and sexy as hell. dumb as farking stumps, but extremely hot.
  • hollywooddame.comView Full Size
     

    good help is hard to find
  • Not sure about the "attractiveness" clause but I never hired a tech person who still uses an AOL account.....
  • cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

    I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.


    Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

    Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions
  • In organizational psychology this is known as the U-scale or U-factor. It measures the moving average of unattractiveness in an organization on a weekly basis and influences employee selection and cultural fit assessment. For example, a smaller company with a higher U-factor will not want to walk their candidates through the main part of the office to where they will conduct the interview. If they do, they are advised to provide distraction. Candidates can be shown various parts of the company that are only planned in advance. Exposure of candidates to personnel in a high U-factor organization can result in the company's inability to negotiate a lower offer if they really like the candidate.

    The proper way to compute U-factor is

    Men: personal U-factor = perceived unattractiveness rated 1-5 by 10 women / 10.
    Women: personal U-factor = (perceived unattractiveness rated 5-10 by 10 women) - (proximity to menopause).

    U-factor is linked to male employee tardiness, male employee performance and male employee attrition. Many organizations are now adding it to their human resources processes for both interviewing and performance reviews. One company in the mid-west is looking to provide a bonus plan for those who take it upon themselves to improve their personal U-factor to include a gym membership and makeovers.

    The upside of having of an organization having a high U-factor is that the potential for romantic relationships among employees decreases for those with higher life expectations. The down side is an increase in gaming and Dungeons & Dragons tournaments in the break room.

    Noe (2010). Organizational Behavior, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing.
  • Aar1012: cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

    I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

    Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

    Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions


    been there, done that..

    .. fired the guy who used car cleanliness as a hiring criteria once i was done defending the company to the EEOC
  • This just in.. people usually eat more when they're hungry!

    And Aar1012 - it makes more sense that it seems on the surface. It's just looking at a different metric as to how one lives their life, even if it would be presumptive and unfair if someone simply couldn't afford a better car. You can draw judgements like - if someone keeps their car in terrible shape, they're probably not the most responsible in general and thus might make an unreliable employee. If someone has a "Death to jews" bumper sticker, they're probably at risk for emotional issues. And a car full of mcdonalds wrappers might say someone's more interested in getting the job done quickly than getting it done right, or that they'll run late a portion of the time with poor time management skills.
  • I once had an interview in Switzerland where they insisted on flying me over for a face to face interview. I tried to talk them out of it as I figured it was wildly expensive - I said I'd gladly go to a teleconferencing center (this was before skype and such, get off my lawn). They insisted on the interview. So I went to Switzerland and shouted across the table at them as we ate at a cafe near a busy road. I was hired. I must be extremely good looking.

    actually I know enough managers that, once the elimination of resumes finishes (those that don't meet the requirements), it's all 'gut feel'. Attractiveness and Socialization are all that matter at that point. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
  • Here's how we hire:

    1. Are you qualified based on your education and experience?

    2. Can you answer our technical interview questions thoroughly, showing that you not only know the material but you can also apply it as well?

    3. Can you travel?

    If the answer is "yes" to all 3, you are hired.

    The end. There is no talk of hobbies, interests, or anything else.

    Of course, I work in a heavily male dominated industry (IT) and get virtually no female applicants, particularly on our side since we do field services which involves a huge amount of travel (we don't get many women at all interested in that, I'm not sure why).

    Since I'm not gay or bi (not that there is anything wrong with that), I don't get much opportunity to see if I would throw all that out the window for an attractive female candidate with a nice rack.

    /I probably would
  • I'll admit it - I once hired an intern because I thought she was cute. Not massively babeolicious or anything, but... cute.

    It backfired on me when it turned out that she actually wanted to fark me, which I did not see coming. Even back then in my early 30s I wouldn't consider myself some kind of stud that the girls swoon for.

    Anyway, I'm very glad I never gave in. It would've been so easy but it would have screwed up my job, my marriage, and probably my whole life.

    I would say I learned my lesson but if I ever have the chance to hire another intern... I'll probably make the same stupid mistake. Good thing that's not likely to happen in my current job.
  • Aar1012: cgraves67: I had a boss who hired people based on the condition of their cars. He would sneak outside prior to the interview and take a peek at their cars. If they were rusty, beat-up, and full of McDonalds wrappers, they didn't get hired.

    I don't know that he was a good authority on who to hire though. After he quit we discovered that he stole a bunch of prototype designs from the company and sold them to competitors.

    Condition of cars? That is officially the dumbest thing I have heard in terms of hiring.

    Some HR Farker is going to now defend such actions


    Car cleanliness I could see. Some people have disgusting car interiors. It's farking gross. I'm not a germophobe (I just peed and didn't wash my hands!) but I have serious questions about anyone who is willing to sit in filth every time they drive somewhere. OTOH, I was just in a co-worker's car at lunch whose work I admire, and it was farking nasty. So while I don't like it perhaps it's not a great hiring criterion.
  • where do you think the term "dick-tation" came from?
  • trapped-in-CH: actually I know enough managers that, once the elimination of resumes finishes (those that don't meet the requirements), it's all 'gut feel'


    Very much this.

    By the time a resume has made it through the HR gates, I can assume that all realistic minimums for the job have been met. The only thing that actually matters assuming they can do the job is whether or not I want to tolerate them for 40-60 hours a week.

    /I usually refer to it as the beer test if HR isn't around.
  • Warrener: trapped-in-CH: actually I know enough managers that, once the elimination of resumes finishes (those that don't meet the requirements), it's all 'gut feel'

    Very much this.

    By the time a resume has made it through the HR gates, I can assume that all realistic minimums for the job have been met. The only thing that actually matters assuming they can do the job is whether or not I want to tolerate them for 40-60 hours a week.

    /I usually refer to it as the beer test if HR isn't around.


    The Beer test?

    Isn't that how we ended up with 8 years of George Bush?
  • phew...

    thought i was going to have to get all qualified. thank you natural lottery.
  • My buddy is a manager at a local restaurant and he definitely does this. He searches job applicants names (women only, the men get instantly filed thirteened) on Facebook and only calls in the attractive single ones for interviews. He definitely has the hottest front of house staff in the neighborhood.
  • Load 25 of 42 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.