The key word in the open house issue is "open" to allow for transparency currently lost in the limited disclosure game that is the modern interview process. That benefits everyone. Not to mention we offer evening events to respect those with full time jobs.
I think his point is that if someone has cancer and they end up needing to fire them it's going to become an issue for them emotionally. Good, bad or indifferent-- I understand what he's saying, if that is what he is saying.
But Dan's point is well taken: is this what we want to incentivize? A culture of lying and partial disclosure? Now, that doesn't mean 100% disclosure of all things at all times-- people have a right to privacy. But what I think is often lost here is the understanding that when we force everyone to wear masks, we often end up not knowing where the masks end and the real faces begin.
This is a fair point too, at least in as much as job seekers should be screening employers for a variety of things. Not enough job seekers do that. They just say whatever they think will make the employer happy.
In recent years I've come up with a few ways to screen potential employers.
One good way, before interviewing if possible, is to travel to the office during the time of day that you expect to arrive, were you to take the job. For most people that would be morning rush hour, but I commonly work at night.
As well, travel from the office to home - or perhaps to the general neighborhood where you expect to relocate - at the time you expect to get off work.
When you interview, ask the hiring manager whether he knows where you would be likely to sit, where you to hire on. In the case of my work at microsoft, that one question would have led to my turning down the contract. I was expecting an office with a door I could shut, but because I was a contractor, on my first morning I was told I'd have to sit in - I Swear I'm Not Making This Up - "The Boiler Room".
If they have a lunchroom, ask to see it. Extra credit if you can actually eat there.
I personally care quite a lot about what I can before and after work, and during my lunch hour in the general neighborhood of where I work. Some people don't care but I do - if there aren't any cafes in the area, I don't pursue it. That precludes quite a lot of otherwise good jobs that are in the middle of huge industrial parks.
Correct, but unfortunately you will probably never, ever, ever know if this is the case and you would have a hard time proving it anyway so the point is probably moot. The real question is: what can someone who is having trouble finding work do anyway? See my response below.
Let's put Michael's specific situation aside for a moment. The truth is, neither of us knows WHY he isn't finding work. We each might have our own inklings as to why but there are surely some causation/correlation flaws we have no insight into. (And I will get to this)
So let's take him out of the equation and create a fictional person having a hard time finding work-- call him Bob. Maybe Bob went to a poor school-- or no school-- or blogs about satanism or who knows what. Bob's getting passed on and he doesn't really know why but can only suspect. You or I certainly cannot know why either sitting where we are so we really shouldn't speculate, even on the reasons this fictional person claims are the reason. That's because only the hiring managers passing on him know and their reasons might be different from what he thinks AND each other. This is not to mention that they might not even be able/want to verbalize it. Maybe some are bigoted and don't like his nationality. Maybe he smells funny when he walks in the room. Maybe they are all just assholes. Maybe he is terrible at what he does and doesn't know it (I went to school with someone like this who thinks the world has it in for him but he's really just very uncomfortable to be around and he can't help it and can't be made aware of it for whatever reason.) Sometimes these things are "gut" feelings-- right or wrong-- and they make hiring a particularly inexact science-- especially for the job seeker trying to reverse engineer it.
What I have found working with the un-, under- and mal-employed is that a lot of times the reason they suspect they aren't finding the work they want-- and the reasons third party observers suspect-- is not really the case. Put on top of it the fact that hiring organizations often refuse to say why they didn't hire someone to shield themselves from lawsuits and that compounds the problem. Sometimes candidates walk into job interviews they had no chance of getting even before they walked in through no fault of their own-- I wrote about this here: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140917152632-29657051-make-...
So what's the solution? Well, there is no perfect solution but there's also know obvious answers either. Coming back to Michael for a moment, in my experience, a lot of times people don't look at personal webpages so-- even if his suspicions about the mental illness affecting his job chances are right-- I highly doubt it has lost him EVERY single opportunity. Which, to be fair, it doesn't seem he is suggesting. What does that mean? Well...
tl;dr: there's something going on none of us knows and/or cannot know that's at play here.
Lesson: STOP DECONSTRUCTING THE JOB SEARCH! It's stupid. It's like trying to figure out why someone doesn't want to date you. What are you going to do? Argue with them?
Yes, sometimes these practices are inane, frustrating, even illegal-- though the burden of proof is so high it's probably not worth most people's time.
And yet-- and yet-- there's SO MUCH WORK TO BE DONE in the world, SO MUCH, and money is so cheap-- SO CHEAP-- creative job seekers with a modicum of skill can usually find meaningful work if they circumvent the traditional job search process. Indeed, these jobs are often better. I wrote about this as well: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140912054444-29657051-explo...
Only three questions matter when screening a candidate: can he/she do the work, does he/she want to do the work and do you want to work with him/her? The current process of resumes and keywords and personality-based interviewing biases toward the last question-- in my mind the least relevant. Lots of people didn't want to work with Steve Jobs because he was a certified maniac-- but so what?
Certainly you don't want to hire unnecessarily disruptive people but I'd suggest companies be wary of passing on candidates too quickly for reasons we SUSPECT (key word) will make them poor fits-- including matters of which probably only trained medical personnel are qualified to speak about, even if to do so makes us feel safe.
In my mind there are two types of organizations-- growth-focused organizations and risk-averse organizations. Generally speaking, risk-averse organizations will accept almost any reason not to hire someone if they don't fit a pre-determined mould (the right profile, the right background, the right look-- yes, the right school, etc) and depending on the firm's market position and corporate strategy that may make sense. This is the opportunity for the growth-based organizations.
The market for people who are good at getting jobs is fierce and tight. If you can find these candidates on LinkedIn with the right keywords, they will be expensive and possibly flight risks anyway because they are very liquid in terms of marketability.
But if you are looking for people who can and want to do the work, the market is wide open. And the benefit will be to the organization that sees this inefficiency and exploits it. 80% of people are in the wrong job or don't have one, per Gallup and gov't statistics. If that's not an opportunity for any enterprising organization, I don't know what is.
I know Michael from other parts of the Internet. He tends to write essays and blogs on all sorts of things.
He is very picky about what company he will work for, for example he doesn't like Amazon's labor rules so he refuses to work for Amazon or any company with labor rules just like them. He doesn't want to work with Windows, instead he focuses on Linux and Mac OSX. He has Java skills, and lists them on his resume, but he doesn't want to do a Java job.
His resume was once four pages and he had to learn to trim it down to one page. He sometimes lists obsolete technology on his resume as well.
He wants to write drivers and system level programs in C/C++ and he favors Codewarrior 8.
He has a point about the ADA protecting the mentally ill from discrimination, but there is a stigma about the mentally ill by managers that they can't trust them enough to hire them for a job. They see people in wheelchairs, blind, and deaf as disabled, but mental illness cannot be seen and thus not considered a real disability.
I share schizoaffective disorder with Mike, it can cause communication problems and having trouble getting social clues. Just by typing or talking a person can pick up on that you are mentally ill. We communicate in word salads sometimes when we get into a bad mental cycle. Where the words are all mixed up like a salad.
I was curious how "discrimination" is defined, at least in the dictionary. It is: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.
If someone is mentally ill such that it's obvious to folks around them, and they communicate poorly compared to another candidate who is in other ways equal, then is it discrimination not to hire them? (not saying this description applies to anyone here; I'm just asking a hypothetical to get a sense of what's meant by discrimination)
If you interview a person and say to yourself, "This guy is kind of strange. I'm not sure he'll pick up on social cues, so he might make people in the office uncomfortable. Sometimes he doesn't communicate well. He can't explain what he's thinking, and his words are a jumble. I'm not sure he could publicly speak, like give a presentation, and I sure wouldn't want him to represent my company to customers." Is it discrimination to pass and choose another candidate who is comparable in other ways, and not hindered in those communication and interpersonal ways?
I'm no lawyer but these issues usually fall under "fit"-- which is legal. If there's an email floating around saying, "I think this guy has a mental disorder" and they get sued, yeah there's a case. But it usually never gets that far.
True I studied employment law, you have to prove that they discriminated against you. Record the meeting and find them saying they can't hire you due to a mental illness, or subpoena their email and hope they wrote they won't hire you due to a mental illness. If you don't have this evidence, no lawyer will take your case, and the EEOC won't support you.
They could just write down "overqualified" or "lacking social skills" or "doesn't get along with others" as reasons and not even mention a mental illness.
A lawyer won't even take the case unless it is able to be proven that you were discriminated against.
You assume the interviewer will tell the truth in court, he/she will lie and make up a different reason why they didn't hire you to avoid being fired or covering things up.
You almost have to record them saying it, or having a letter or email where they say it. It is really hard to prove. It comes down to your word against theirs.
They aren't stupid enough to write down "This guy has a mental illness I refuse to hire him" they will make up other reasons to cover up the fact that they don't want to hire a mentally ill person.
I've been through this many times, filed with the EEOC, talked to lawyers, ended up on disability because I couldn't get a job. They never say they rejected you because you are mentally ill. Always "not a good fit", "overqualified", "not a team player", "lack of social skills", whatever they decide to write down even if it is not true.
Lawyers would not take the case because it was hard to prove.
I am particularly good at public speaking. For example I got a standing ovation from a thousand developers when I gave a talk at the Apple World Wide Developers Conference. I've also spoken at lots of user groups, including the Naval Postgraduate School Macintosh User Group.
If you are right, then his point about discriminating is moot. Seems more like he can't find a job he wants, and dismiss others that would be happy to hire him.
I can say: "I want to work in Haskel, making games for the Wii U, from home, for 3 hours a day only". No matter what my experience, I won't be hired anytime soon.
Noah (owennoah) posted some magnificent suggestions to a very serious endemic problem affecting millions of job seekers and hurting employer's ability to find good talent. But the reply to him is a vaguely victim blaming rant pointing out Michael's specific flaws based on subjective impressions of some things seen on the web.
A pointless response is bad enough but a destructive one simply boggles the mind.
I apologize for that. I was trying to find other reasons that he might have finding a job other than his mental illness based on things he posted on his diaries and blogs on other websites.
There is also a factor of things found on Googling his name that are other than his mental illness essay.
I was posting those things to help him understand that there are other factors besides a mental illness that interviewers look at. I had hoped it would show how to over come that, and find a job. But I don't know of any solutions to it other than to get negative articles about him removed from the Internet, or create his own positive articles and SEO them over the bad articles. A reputation website might help with that.
Well all have flaws, sometimes we don't admit to them and don't learn from them and fix them. Many are in denial of them. Nobody is perfect, and in some cases you have to take a job using a technology you don't like to pay the bills because nothing else is available. I spent a decade with Windows and Visual BASIC, people laughed at Visual BASIC at the time, but I got paid money to develop in it. There are people who had ethics that Microsoft was corrupt so they refused to use Windows and Visual BASIC, but a lot of jobs at the time were for Microsoft IT shops. Those people who refused to use Microsoft tools due to ethics went without work. Some projects were short and didn't have a lasting value and some people refused to do them as well and went without work.
Myself I can learn almost any language or OS out there, I see them as tools and I don't hate one and love the others. I was able to find work because I wasn't picky about the tools or OS.
You are both right though. 1) Discrimination is real and should be discouraged and may indeed have affected Michael's chances at finding work but ferreting out discrimination and fixing its isn't a great use of an individual job seekers' time when so many other people can use good workers but 2) if the points about his choosiness are true-- and I don't know if they are-- they would probably affect things as well in a way he is refusing to acknowledge. But again, I don't know Michael so I want to move away from that. Because a larger point can be made here: this would be an example of how MANY people have blinders to their own reasons they aren't finding work-- and certainly not only people who blog about their personal problems.
I get this all the time. Every excuse in the book and then I ask: "Did you follow up?" "No." "Did you send a physical letter or make a physical cold call, or even a telephone phone call-- something to break through the noise?" "No." And then I prod them to do those things and they don't. An unfortunate part about the job search is that its a sales process and many people don't require sales skills to do many jobs yet suddenly we expect them to sprout sales skills like wings when suddenly its time to look for work, often when they are at their most vulnerable moment-- the time they NEED that job. It's a cruel farce. But there are ways around it.
That's why I talk about exploding toilets-- a lot of companies just need the work done. Ask any sleazy late-night locksmith if he works on his sales skills. No, he has the tool you need when you are locked out of your apartment at 3am. You want him or not? Fortunately or unfortunately, there are enough exploding toilets out there that job seekers who really want to fix problems don't have to worry too much about navigating the job search as a sale-- they just have to get some attention. But in order to get attention, they need to want to get it and that's often a bigger problem than you know b/c most people don't want to fail or risk looking ridiculous, as if these people they are contacting will even remember them-- and then they create excuses for why they can't and often blame others.
But again, back to the original point: the reason we think is the problem often isn't so trying to deconstruct it is pointless. It's like dating. If someone isn't a match, move on. Someone out there wants you desperately-- but only if you want to help them and can.
I was lecturing the Portland Startup Weekend on engineering ethics. My point was that unethical practices such as those exhibited by the Portland Startup Weekend lead to such practices as industrial control systems that have laughably weak security.
A person who does Interviews who Googles your name will uncover this sort of stuff. They will read it and not give you the benefit of the doubt. You won't get a chance to explain that you were talking about sloppy practices that lead to industrial accidents.
Instead they will read where you got ejected from hackathons for allegedly making bomb threats, and then move on to the next candidate.
I think this is a big factor in why you don't get jobs and contracts.
If an interviewer had watched that show, they could have a negative view of you and remember you had exposed the software consulting industry of being a hard life and not always being paid.
You have been a critic of the startup scene, you have been a critic of the software consultant career, you have been a critic of so many things that it gives you a negative reputation with recruiters and interviewers. All of this is revealed by a few Google searches of your name. On top of that you are very picky on what company you work for and what development tools and OS you will use. These things are seen as being negative, and recruiters and interviewers want to see positive things, people not complaining about the industry but instead solving problems and working with others as part of a team.
All of these things raise red flags and prevent you from being hired. The major factors are not your mental illness, but these other things that can be revealed by Google and other search engines. There is also a criminal and financial/credit background check that employers/contractors/clients do prior to hiring that also has to be done. They will see that the police ejected you from Hacker Dojo etc, and see the times when you were without money and owing back debt and back taxes. If they see you have bad credit, they might worry that you are more likely to steal from the company. This is true for federal background checks for government contracts.
Those things are what I uncovered with just a simple Google search, and I sure there is more that can be found.
They don't complain about things, they study problems and how to solve them with logic. When you discover a problem, you don't criticize the industry, you don't get negative, you work on a solution and stay positive and stay in a good mood instead of a bad mood. When you discover a problem, it is an opportunity for you to find a way to solve it. This is how many people have become a success, and how many startups get founded.
I think you are misunderstood, I think you have a great amount of knowledge, I think clients miss out when they reject you, but you have a negative image on the Internet and in real life that just drives people away from you.
I myself deal with negative thoughts, when I write something criticizing something or being negative here on hacker news I get downvoted. I have to remember that I should stay positive and find solutions to a problem if I discover a problem. It is positivism and creativity that I need to be focused on, and so should you.
I've read your ethical engineer essay. Your ethics seem to be from the 1960's. In the Startup Community they are completely different and part of hacker culture founded in the 1990's and quickly changes based on the youth and founders.
I myself had to learn to adapt to these new age ethics by Paul Graham and others. Most of the industry goes by these modern ethics from Dotcom giants to the small startups.
They can tell you aren't a good fit just by the interview when you reveal your 1960's code of ethics.
"The ability to make good decisions regarding people represents one of the last reliable sources of competitive advantage, since very few organizations are very good at it." ~Peter Drucker
I'm Noah, Brooke's partner in crime at Staffup Weekend. To me this has always been an emperor-has-no-clothes situation. People seem to think in terms of "hackathons" whereas we more simply think of things as "doing the work." Since when did resumes and brain teasing interview questions and all this nonsense become MORE obvious and sensical than DOING THE WORK. Let people DO THE WORK that needs to be done and you can save dozens of person-hours, lots of frustration and heartache AND get a better hire than the "traditional" method.
I agree but I think we must make it clear that the work we ask people to do should be similar to the work the employer wants done, but not work the employer would benefit from. I believe it is important to pay for work done for my benefit. When I've been the hiring manager, once I need to determine if the candidate can do the particular work I need done I'll pay them to do it. Often one day for $150. Usually they offer to do it for minimum wage but the difference is trivial. Many offer to do it for free but again I won't let them.
On the other hand, I tell job seekers to get to work doing things for others whether for pay or not. This is perfectly legal because you are working for yourself and the only person who can pay you less than minimum wage is you.
