Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

HeY LeT Me ShArE My JeSuS

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 0:24

Interviewer: Do you go to church?

The fuck, man! This is a god damn interview for an enterprise-class J2EE job.  I know the guy's christian, so obviously I had to give some bullshit about how I'm now agnostic, but previously christian.

I thought getting a job was supposed to be trivial if my GPA was high and my work experience was solid.  God damn.  Now I know how it feels to be black.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 0:38

If you live in the US, you have every right to refuse to answer that question on grounds that it's entirely irrelevant to the interview, and you also have the right to sue for discrimination if they don't hire you. (And you'll win unless your lawyer is a dumbass)

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 0:41

>>2
Good point.  I tend to shy away from legal trolling, but in this case it probably is justified. 

On a second thought, maybe I have instead trapped him.  Once he squeezed the agnostic line out of me, he did sort of switch subjects.  Maybe he'll be paranoid about not hiring me...we'll see.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 1:01

But what would be the damages? It couldn't be that much, could it?

And does it matter that he already volunteered the information?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 1:12

I wouldn't hire a non-Christian. And if he's the company owner, he has every goddamn right to select his employees in whatever way he decides to. Hell, you're lucky he isn't just outsourcing your job to India or China.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 1:14

lol, was googling, and I really didn't realize how bad this guy is: http://www.sideroad.com/Human_Resources/illegal-job-interview_questions.html

He asked the marriage/girlfriend question, asked about my apartment (I technically "live with my parents", but I pay for that shit), and a shit-ton of personal questions.

I am going to at least anonymously forward this link to HR and tell them to get their senior hiring managers to review it.  In retrospect, I am pretty pissed that I was so uncomfortable during this part of the interview.  I didn't really think about denying answers at the time, especially considering the job market, etc.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 1:17

>>5
Oh and I almost forgot; most non-minimum wage jobs are passed along through social connections anyway... which means that your so-called interview will just be a nice relaxed meeting with your employer. Are you going to sue him for asking you an uncomfortable question between two cups of coffee? I don't think so.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 1:24

>>7

This is an S&P 500 listed corporation that should be aware of poor questions issued by their managers that give more than ample room for undue bias/discrimination.  I don't care if a little company does this, because I don't want to work there anyway if they want to maintain a particular culture (e.g. having only with Christians).  In this case, it's different -- interned at this company for quite a while and never had this sort of personally-invasive issue.

ihbt

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 1:26

>>8
herpa derpa

:s/having/working

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 1:36

>>8
If it's such a big company it is close to impossible to maintain a single culture among the employees, for statistical reasons if not other. This theory can be easily confirmed by finding a non-Christian employee (just look for weird names, duh). I very much doubt that that question was meant to do anything else than test how you react upon touching a subject which he knows as likely sensitive, i.e. perceiving your nervous tics. That way, he can easily see whether he touches other 'sensitive points' anywhere else in his line of questioning. In this particular case, it sounds more like psychological test than religious filtering if you ask me.

also you forgot your sage.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 1:55

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 2:01

>>11
Would she sue me if I rule /34/'d it?

Also, you forgot your sage. Again.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 2:02

>>12

I am everyone in this thread, including you

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 4:21

So how should you respond to those illegal questions? ``No comment'' ?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 4:40

>>14
Shout "OBJECTION!" while pointing a menacing finger at your interviewer, then explain why his question is invalid. Expect negative results unless you're applying for a lawyer job, in which case you would automatically get the job.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 6:04

>>14
Does it hurt to sage?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 6:25

>>16
Yes. I don't like that ``ENTERPRISE BULLSHIT''

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 10:18

I'm sharing your mom's jesus.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 10:50

>>1
It's pretty prejudice of you to assume he was asking about Christianity. More likely he was trying to find out if you were Muzlim and a terrorist.

You just let the terrorists win fucker. Now go buy a hummer you american faggot.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 11:10

>>19
This is what happens when terrorists win:
http://media.ebaumsworld.com/picture/e5hansej/1197924297125.jpg

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 11:11

>>20
motivator

You know where to go.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 11:11

>>14
Easy. "I don't believe that question is relevant to this position." Then start talking about Sepples or Java.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 11:31

You need to get your ears checked. I was asking you whether you consider GOTO harmful, and if you could summarize your feelings on Church's formulation of lambda calculus in a sentence.

I abandoned my efforts at an having an intelligent discourse when you replied with some ramblings about being agnostic, and decided to just screen you for the low-level code monkey position.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 12:02

>I thought getting a job was supposed to be trivial if my GPA was high and my work experience was solid.

Oh my! Totally wrong. You don't understand this competitive world at all. Humans and competition intersect @ (cheat ,  back stab).

When it comes to working in the industry you will face injustice all the time and you will be in competition with various co-workers simultaneously.

At least this guy just asked for some background. There is a lot worst, believe me.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 12:04

>>2

I don't see how he can or can't discriminate you? It's his company.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 12:06

>>25
Maybe that's how you non-Merkans work, but here we actually have laws against that sort of thing.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 12:11

>>26
Really? That's quite shocking.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 12:38

was jesus christ a computer programmer?

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 12:51

saging a sage thread

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 13:03

I think it was supposed to be one of those "why is a manhole cover round" questions.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 13:25

>>30
Coming from a civil engineering background I always LOL at that question. The PHBs and neckbeards all babble round hole, round cover blah blah blah. Reality: there are places with square man hole covers too, a colleague told me he pointed them out to the interviewer at Microsoft that asked that same question.

The real truth is that "it's in the spec that way", Why beacuse it's in the building code that why. Why? Because some bright lad with the city planning commish in 1850 took a kickback from the local iron foundry and they delivered big round expensive to cast covers to the general contractor putting in the sewer lines.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 13:52

>>31
Actually, manhole covers (and manholes, for that matter) are round because it's not possible for the cover to accidentally fall into the manhole if it's round -- in no possible orientation will the width of the cover be less than the width of the hole. With a square manhole, it's quite easy to fit the cover into the hole itself by aligning it along the hypotenuse.

Name: 32 2010-03-10 13:53

(And I come from a civil engineering background as well. You ought to know that answer.)

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 13:59

>>33
Calling bullshit. It's just a spec that way.

For the same reason railroad tracks are gauged at 4'- 8, because that was the spec for cart track in the UK, which was before that
the spec for the Roman roads; 2000 years ago.

Specs never go away.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 14:04

Manholes are round for the same reason that bubbles are round: because nature abhors a square anus.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 14:05

>>34
You're right. If there wasn't some backroom dealings going on, they'd be nothing more than filaments.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 14:06

>>34
4'8'' is nature's spec for the width of two horses stood side by side.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 14:08

Sure thing bub, the width cross bar draw for the mules has nothing to do with it right? PROTIP: two draw animals side by side aren't that wide. Ergo you're wrong, bitch.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 14:08

>>35
forgot to mention, I also have a civil engineering background.

Name: Anonymous 2010-03-10 14:13

>>38
You are a failure of a troll. Working animals also have a sense of personal space so the Romans were all like yeah okay we'll give you(r) asses room to breathe. ergo your wrong bitch

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List