It seems likely to me that it was simply an engineering development center where they might test weapons. I feel like that would have some measure of sound-proofing, but they'd definitely have to alert employees so they don't arrive the first day, hear an artillery shell detonate, and lose their **** about something awful being about to happen.
I had a friend who just showed up at a convenience store unannounced, wearing a homemade uniform, and started working. It took them a good 3 months to realize he wasn't an actual employee.
i worked at a sporting goods store and my interview was just him asking me what sports i play
i worked at a ski hill and they gave me the jacket before the interview if you could call it that started
i worked at a grocery store and they asked me to bring a direct deposit form to the interview
i once got a job in high school because i was able to drive and had access to a car
my current job i got through a job agency and i kinda just started and on my first day i was smoking a joint and drinking a beer with my boss after work.
Technically it's illegal, but how do you go about getting caught? As a fedora tipping neckbeard atheist, I can't actually say i'm atheist without the aforementioned ideas being presented on my image. I'm sure it's the other way around though as well, I've heard of companies that have mandatory prayers at certain times of the day.
Well, they're not allowed to be public about it, but they can ******** another reason if they don't like your religious views. Then you can't call them out for it.
An employer doesn't even have to give a reason. They are by no means obligated to hire anyone save for in the case of affirmative action, which I'm pretty sure isn't a thing most places nowadays and can choose to not hire someone for whatever reason they feel.
That's pretty wrong. It's incredibly illegal for an employer not to hire someone based solely on race, religion, sexual orientation, and a couple other things. Have you never heard of the civil rights act?
Well, Title VII I think this is the one of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not too often enforced by the EEOC in regards to the actual act of employment racism etc. is not nearly the issue it was in 1964 , but rather workplace discrimination. Employers don't submit all reasoning for turning anyone away to the EEOC or anything. There has to be substantial evidence for workplace discrimination to even bring an investigation at the request of an applicant turned away and even then the employer doesn't really have to explain why they didn't hire the person. I can't think of any cases in recent history where part of an investigation was actually talking to the employer about the applicant
Also keep in mind that, for such a case as is likely the one from the post, Title VII provides for exception where the employer wishes to maintain BFOQ, eg a church would not hire an agnostic, or an "authentic Mexican restaurant" would not hire non-Hispanic servers.
The civil rights act has been updated periodically. Here's the EEOC website saying in pain English that it is illegal to discriminate (read: not hire someone) because of race and a host of other factors. This is enforced through complaints, mostly. A quick google search shows that Fedex, a Georgia power company, Facebook, and the Boston fire department have all been sued successfully for discriminatory hiring practices.
The Boston Fire Department case is especially interesting since it was white workers suing to end the racial quota requirement since incompetent black people were getting promoted with lower test scores.
If there's any reason to believe a potential employee would not fit in well in the working environment, it's not likely they'll be hired. Surely it's less of a "this guy's agnostic he'll be a ****** hire" and more of a "we're really religious and it will likely become uncomfortable for both him and his co-workers"
Of course, if it's just the interviewer that's religious and it's for a secular company, then that's wrong, but if such a question were asked in an interview I feel it's safe to assume otherwise.
A woman has to wear make up to be presentable? ****** expensive, annoying to put on and brings you out in acne if you don't remove it properly at night. And then when you don't wear make up, people think you look ill.
I completely agree. I've heard this one quite a few times. Women must wear makeup that is. I have never worn makeup and I don't intend to start.
In my opinion it's the same as real life photoshop or wearing a mask/paper bag. If people don't like how I look, that's their right to think so. They shouldn't however tell me I need to change how I look just to please them and hide behind the claim that it's some social decency or civility issue.
I have yet to see one good argument for making women wear makeup and/or dresses/skirts.
Though I probably fall under the category of "militaristic feminist" rather than just a person who wants to stop having out of date expectations forced upon them. I'd prefer to be the latter but with this new feminazi movement, it's hard to tell where people would say I fall now. I don't have a tumblr account, so I have that going for me.
Agreed. My wife never wore makeup. She started a new job recently and started to wear makeup- I told her she should stop and just keep being herself. She looks better anyway
A friend of mine was asked at the interview
"Are you a god fearing man?"
And he replied with the Magneto quote
"That is such a strange phrase. I've always thought of God as a teacher; a bringer of light, wisdom, and understanding."
He got the job. Later learned that it was because depth of his faith impressed the interviewer.
But, and I hate to be anywhere even close to the thoughts a Feminazi might have, would a man have been asked that question? I know, we don't know if the interviewee was male or female, but its safe to assume female.
I am not a SJW, but you don't have to be an SJW to at least CONSIDER whether something is sexist or not.
If I apply for a job it's expected from me that I look presentable. I can't just show up wearing baggy jeans and some random T-shirt with a pop quote. In my profession it's expected that you wear at least something that looks like you take what you do seriously, like a suit. My hair can't look like **** either. So why shouldn't a woman look at her best?
I'm [b]not[/b] seeing that woman should always wear makeup and that every woman looks ugly without it, but face it, most do. First impressions are key. Always and no matter what.
Why should a woman have to wear makeup to look presentable?
Women are humans, they have skin flaws and it shows the immaturity of people that think makeup is required.
That opinion is usually held by men who haven't worked out that things like porn and women in glossy magazines are not real and do not actually look like that.
Why are women obligated to wear makeup to look presentable for a position when most men never touch makeup a day in their lives and it's fine? If you're interviewing for a hooker position, sure, but the goal in professionalism isn't to be "sexy".
Let a man go in there with a non-groomed face and see what happens in every professional position.
I have a mustache, used to have a full beard but yknow. Navy.
anyway, if I don't keep it looking good it goes from accent to ******** real fast. If the guy has no facial hair, he better have clear skin too to make a good first impression.
make up eliminates a lot of things, reshapes a person's face. It's like camouflage for how little of a **** you actually give. Any person that goes into a fight unprepared is a fool.
that being said someone beautiful without makeup is infinitely more attractive than one who can houdini the ugly away. Bonus points for being strong, having short hair, being a tomboy, and having a good voice. Bonus bonus points for having a flaw that "works" like having thick ass eyebrows that she uses tweezers to shape up all nice or a nose with a thick or forward ridge that isn't too gigantic as long as her eyes and mouth are a good distance away from the tip. Something being off and the girl owning it and succeeding elsewhere is amazingly attractive. As a 310 lbs man in the navy who continuously goes from 230 lbs to 330 lbs and back, fat is never a "flaw that works." This includes on myself and is why I don't bother trying to flirt past anything other than casual goofiness despite receiving positive responses 9/10 times.
I went off on a tangent, but the main point is this:
Make up is a major advantage to have as a woman, it's extraordinarily powerful. A man has to be what he is 100% unless you look like Frank Wolf or you're in either Twisted Sister or a rendition of Rocky Horror Picture Show.
Right, that might not be the case in the post, but a girl can be "groomed" and not wear makeup. Hair being brushed and everything. Being well-dressed too. So your point isnt valid.
What aspect of my post are you claiming to invalidate, that both men and women are able to affect first impressions and that women have an advantage in being able to use make up? Because nothing you said invalidated anything.
If you are asked that specific question. Then you must look terrible. It's not like it's a normal question to ask. If someone doesnt look like they showered/put makeup on for an interview those are some serious hygiene concerns.
Assuming it's just some bum fluff or stubble and not a full beard "Have you not shaved your face today to prove your masculinity or because you just don't care about looking presentable"
Well, if physics still applied regularly you'd also be dead within a minute or two, because the ratio of your lung capacity to surface area would be wrong.
>go for an interview
>take out voice recorder as you sit down, set it record already
>'mind if i record this? I think it will help'
>they can't say they do
>they can't ******** you or you'll sue
>you just passively aggressively litigated your way into a job bro
I was asked what breast size I was for an interview at a retail store a few years ago. When I threatened to report them for continued sexual harassment during the interview I was told "they weren't interested in hiring prudes". I thought that kind of **** only happened in movies. Geez I can't imagine what kind of reports you guys get.
Here is a good tip. In Texas there is no law or regulation that states that you can't record a job interview, but you must have consent of the other party in order to do it. If they agree, then anything they say that might be inappropriate or illegal will me admissible in court. This is good also because the fact that you record the interview can't in anyway affect their decision of hiring you.
When I was in my Pizza Hut interview I was asked "Can you be a dick to an angry customer, and make them walk away happy?" I replied "Hell yes I can." It is not hard to get mediocre restaurant jobs.