|
Yeah, that's still not a blacklist. One person isn't a list. There aren't such things as 'official channels'. The laws covering how employers can make hiring decisions are restrictive of what they can't use--the protected statuses--not what they can use. They can use whatever they want. People have a weird fantasy of hiring practices. People talk about people they work with and this is fine. In this particular case, the guy aggressively screwed over other people, attempting to get other people fired for his mistake, which is supremely lovely behavior and I warned people I knew who he was likely to apply to. I have no problem with this decision and would do so again. if you call up everyone to tell them that Mark is often late to meetings, people are going to think you're weird and have an axe to grind. If you warn them that Mark screwed something up massively and then tried to blame someone else for it, that's really different. You're only going to be believed if people know you and find you trustable. You don't need an overarching policy, it's okay to make decisions on stuff on a case-by-case basis. Like, if you know someone is cheating on someone else, maybe you keep your mouth shut because it's not really your business. If you know he's cheating with an HIV-positive Hep-C ex-con with jealousy problems, then you should probably tell that person. Almost anything can be abused; that's not a reason to not have things.
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:I'm not really interested in the argument between you and the OP, since I suspect that's what this was really about. And no, one person can be blacklisted. While they don't advertise it, the HRs of companies do share information about employees and even interviewees. States do have laws about what can and cannot be said by former employers about an employee. Most of them cover supremely lovely behavior. Were you operating in a state that didn't offer information immunity? One person can't be blacklisted, because a 'list' has more than one item on it. What happened was in no way a blacklisting: I called only people I knew, which wasn't everyone in the industry, I did so about one person, and it wasn't about politics or personal issues but an actual job performance issue. Name the laws that prevent a previous employer from saying stuff about an employee. Edit: If you're talking about untruthful things, then that's covered under defamation, as already said. I assume you're talking about opinions or truthful things. Also, I wasn't an employer, I was a fellow employee. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Jul 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:One person can be blacklisted. It's refers to being added to a list of people a company won't hire. These lists often are shared within an industry, and depending on the state/country and the nature of the list can be illegal. If they are added to a list, it's not one person, is it? And a blacklist is not particular to a company, it has to have effects outside that company, because every company has a list of people they are going to not hire. quote:Laws vary from state to state. Here's a partial list of what an employer can and cannot say. Feel free to peruse. Notice how all of those say 'job performance' or 'reason for termination'? quote:I'm curious why your company didn't provide a bad reference if this guy was a lovely employee, hence why I asked if your state provides information immunity. That's my only interest with regards to what you've said. I don't care about your motivations or fight with the op otherwise. The company fired people for lovely reasons as well as good reasons, and everyone knew that, so no one would consider getting fired from them or a bad reference from them a significant warning sign.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Ok. You're being tedious, so I'll try to be clear for you. I have not once implied that a blacklist consists of a single person. I've said that a single person can be blacklisted, or added to a blacklist. A company having a list of people they won't hire is normal. The problem is when these lists are shared between companies. Okay, I"m sorry I didn't understand that you were saying that because it's just a truism. Of course a person can be added to a list. My point is that is not what was being talked about in my case. Nothing in what I did amounted to the creation of a blacklist. Nor was 'bullshit' involved. quote:Yes, job performance or reason for termination are both things that I think are fine to pass on to other companies. The problem is when there's no way for someone to defend themselves against it, or even find out where the accusations are coming from. Hence why I think formality is important. What 'formality' are you referring to? If you're talking about the 'disclosure' bit, I was fine with the guy knowing it was me saying that he was a lovely, unethical fuckup. That is, in fact, what happened--a guy I warned about him told him at the interview what I'd said, he talked his way past it, and then proceeded to gently caress up and gently caress over his new employer and fellow employees a few months down the road. C'est la vie. Again, it seems like you are saying because this can be abused, it shouldn't happen. That is not a good argument. That's like saying you shouldn't ever complain about a coworker to other people either, because that could also be abused.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:My point is that I wasn't discussing your case. As I said, that seems to be between you and the OP, which is where I'm happy to leave it. I'm only really interested in hiring policy in general. Hiring policy in general is never going to exclude information the people doing the hiring have that came through 'unofficial' channels, and it shouldn't, either. In a thread that starts out as a kind of creepy callout of me, I appreciate you trying to move away from the particular situation described, but if OP had actually wanted to start a general thread there was no reason to include my post, and the particulars are significant. In my case, this is the only time I've ever called up people and warned them about someone because he was such an egregious shithead. It was exceptional and out of the norm, because the guy was such a raging rear end in a top hat but, critically, did not seem like one, he interviewed very, very well. quote:Formalities, or regulations, or laws, or whatever you prefer to ensure there is disclosure. There is a huge difference between each of those. And not every state has laws that mandate disclosure, and I don't agree disclosure is automatically a good thing, either, especially not in gagging fellow employees in talking vs. the actual employer's official HR position. quote:If he knew what you said and was able to contest it, great, that's what I think is important. It's when there's no disclosure about who's passing the information around or what it even is that there's a problem because that is open to abuse. Again, that something is open to abuse is not actually an argument. If you think this is true, then explain why me complaining about that guy in a bar to other people in the industry isn't also some bad thing to do. quote:Having to come clean about what's being said and who's saying it at least gives the target access to recourse and discourages abuse to begin with. My only concern is with the process. I think you have a misguided and Quixotic view of the 'process'. I think that requiring disclosure also leaves people open to harassment from someone who they are (rightly) giving a bad recommendation of.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Yes, it was weird he included your post and it makes me think this was mostly about arguing with your decision to out the guy. I'm not really interested in that. Do yourself a favor and bring it up with him. I don't really want to, like I said, it was pretty creepy. quote:Misguided. No, I don't think it's misguided. I do agree requiring disclosure could leave people open to harassment, which is why it's probably best to arrange things to be done through the company so that HR can say person X is a shithead. Alternatively, leave the source anonymous but leave them able to respond to the criticism itself. Being able to call someone a shithead without giving them a chance to respond leaves them open to abuse. Calling someone a shithead and letting them know who you are leaves you open to abuse. Neither situation is desirable, but fortunately this isn't zero sum. Again, saying that something is open to abuse is not an argument. Nearly everything is open to abuse. That is not sufficient to say that something shouldn't be done. A face-to-face interview as part of the hiring process is also open to abuse. So is having a resume where people put down their activities and interests. Anonymity would not help: If it was a real complaint, that would allow you to figure out who it was. If it was fictional, it wouldn't allow you to fight it. quote:Yeah, already said I don't know any way to actually deal with it. That doesn't mean I think it's right. Do you think that people talking to each other informally at bars about other people in their industry is a problem, or not?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:I'm not sure you meant to say it this way. I'm assuming you mean that's not sufficient to say something should be done. On the other hand, because everything is open to abuse doesn't mean that some things aren't worse than others. I've already provided a few examples of people getting hosed over without even being aware of it by informal company-to-company networks. I'm not sure what else I can provide. If your position is "everything is bad so do nothing", we can stop right here. Yes, I meant 'should be done'. My point is that simply saying 'this is open to abuse' isn't an argument. You have to argue 'the potential for abuse outweighs the potential for good and the problems in stopping it'. Since you've said that this isn't actually possible to do anything about, it kind of sounds like you're saying 'This can be abused, but there's nothing we can do about it", which is you saying 'do nothing', right? quote:If a person was an absolutely lovely employee, they'd have plenty of people to disagree with. If it was fictional, they could speak with HR. In the end, in your case, the person was hired anyways and then fired for being, surprisingly, a lovely employee. Sometimes letting things go is preferable to being a vigilante, and it works out anyways. No, sometimes employees only have one or two other people they work with, or just have one boss they work for. If it was fictional, how would HR help? If the anonymous report from another employee was 'this guy was a fuckup' all HR could do would be say 'we have no record of him being a fuckup' at best. Vigilante has an actual meaning, like 'blacklist', and it's inappropriate to use it here. quote:Yes, if it prevents someone from being hired. We're not going to agree on that, so lets drop it here. Wow, you actually think that people shouldn't even be allowed to complain about people when blowing off steam. You're right that we're not going to agree on that. Adventure Pigeon posted:No, I fully realize that's the problem. Hence why I said in my earlier statement "if it prevents someone from being hired". I don't mean we should ban talking about work in bars. I mean bar "relationships" shouldn't be the basis for choosing whether someone is hired or not. You have no way of knowing if that conversation will prevent someone from getting hired, and someone can't simply forget that they heard someone was a big ol' fuckup. quote:I work in the biological sciences, and I see the formal and the informal getting blurred all the time. The people you're on papers with, who you've worked under, who you've collaborated with, can all affect your chances of getting hired, getting grants, and keeping your job.In my own case, I was rejected from a fellowship because one of the minor people on the grant application had a grudge between him and someone on the grant committee. I found out about a year after the fact. I've heard and seen plenty of other stories about how those informal relationships can gently caress people who don't deserve it over. Maybe it comes from being in a more unpleasant field, but I take a dimmer view on those bar conversations. Edit: Removed info so it doesn't further gently caress someone who already got hosed. To me, what you are ignoring is the failure of 'official channels', that a person can be blackballed (which is what the phrase is when it's on an individual level) solely through the set of relationships you mention, and that your position is that the person blackballed shouldn't be able to complain about being blackballed to other people. I fail to see how a bar conversation at all intersects with the above. Who you work with, who you've collaborated with, all of that is still going to function if nobody ever talks poo poo in bars. The above situation happened solely inside the formal settings of the program. Instead of fretting about the informal networks--which are not eradicable, which are a natural part of human association, and which also serve positive functions as well as the negative ones you fixate on--why not concentrate on the fact that the formal processes at most institutions are mostly massively hosed up and politicized, with the institution almost always working to defend the much more valuable PI than the employee? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:Pretty much. I don't like the situation. I'll argue against it. If someone who understands the field said they were going to come up with a set of regulations to improve transparency in the hiring process and maybe improve regulation against blacklisting, I would support it, but if you said come up with something on your own, I'd admit I don't know enough about the field to be confident that whatever I came up with would protect people or fix things. Again, transparency comes with its own problems, and something can be totally transparent and still lead to someone being blackballed. We have not, at any point, actually been talking about blacklisting. quote:You have a bad habit of misreading what people say so you can argue against it. As Paradoxish just said, it's not the conversation, it's how people behave with it. It isn't my fault that what you're saying is not, actually, realistic. You said you're against those bar conversations if they lead to someone not getting hired. If I complain about someone being shittastic, the person I'm complaining too, if they're in a hiring situation, can't pretend they don't know that information. Also, you said that you "take a dimmer view on those bar conversations". quote:Official channels can fail and academia is especially hosed up with regards to recourse. Your friend's story is very common. I could name four people with similar experiences, one of whom was kicked out of a program part way through a PhD, one at the end of it, but it's separate from what we've been talking about Except that your proposed best-case scenario is to have everything be formalized. My point is that formalization is not in any way a protection against abuse. In fact, I would argue that formalization actually benefits the powerful and established more. quote:If you've failed to understand why fields with a lot of competitiveness and hostility might use informal relationships to gently caress each other's job prospects over, well, I dunno what to tell you. I haven't, though. At most, I've pointed out that this is not something you can actually address in any way without also getting rid of the way that people use informal relationships to help each other out or to avoid being hosed over. For example, informal conversations are often what warn people "Don't join that guys lab, he steals his students research/doesn't actually understand CRISPR/acts like a poo poo to female grad students". Obdicut fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jul 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:This has gotten pretty far off track and kind of absurd. I think the thread was doomed the second it budded off the gamergate mess. I agree, transparency comes with its own problems, and needs means of recourse to be meaningful. We have been talking about blacklisting, but I think things keep coming back to your own case, which I agree wasn't blacklisting. We haven't been talking about blacklisting at any point. The OP isn't about blacklisting, and nothing you and I have talked about has been blacklisting. The network of informal relationships is not blacklisting, which is most of what we've talked about. quote:Formalization is not protection against abuse, but that doesn't mean informal relationships benefit the powerful and established just as much. The stuff about barroom conversations is getting sort of silly. The real problem are informal relationships that result in things like the British blacklist of construction workers, or HR departments passing around blacklists consisting just of applicants. Those are entirely different kinds of relationships, and when you have an actual database, it's obviously not 'informal' anymore. It's formalized. quote:And yes, people outside of power can use informal relationships to protect each other just as much, and I've used them myself. I'm not really interested in those, but I wouldn't want any regulations that would prevent that. You wouldn't want any regulations, right? That's the conclusion you've come to? quote:Mostly I think greater transparency and access to recourse would help prevent the major blacklisting incidents. It would also probably prevent some incidents where a person's name is dishonestly passed around. Please explain how. quote:It would probably also prevent some people who're genuinely bad from being banned. I think it's more important that good people be hired than bad people not be hired. I have no idea what regulations would actually accomplish this, and I'm not sure any could since companies are happy to skirt the existing ones. The two things are related, since good and bad people are applying for the same jobs. This is not like the justice system; if a job is available, either a 'good' or a 'bad' worker is going to get it (stipulating the vast majority of workers are 'good'). If you don't prevent a 'bad' worker from getting a job, then you have prevented the good worker from being hired for that job.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:I'm not getting into another weird hounding argument where you try to find weird ways to misinterpret a handful of words, and we end up going way off topic. Sorry dude. I'm not doing that, nor have I done that at any point. What I'm saying is that you are, apparently, of the opinion that there aren't any regulations that could be put into place that would help, but simultaneously you're saying more transparency would be better. I do not agree: I think more transparency would force, for example, grad students who want to warn each other that a PI steals research, or a PI who wants to warn other PIs that a grad student cuts corners in doing research, to do so in a way that would be more damaging for everyone involved. In the first case, it could be absolute career suicide, in the second case, the PI would be forced to formalize a complaint in a way that would actually be more damaging to the grad student. Taking it outside research and into a 'normal' job, someone might have fired someone for smoking pot on the job; putting that in actual formal writing instead of informally telling other people that is, again, going to be more damaging, not less. At no point in this discussion have I been in any way mendacious; i think that you have acted as though we've been talking about blacklisting at any point, but we haven't been. Blacklists-- lists banning people from work in an industry-wide way based on politics or them actually being ethical or whatever--are bad. They are horrible. Informal transmission of information--what you and I have spent most of our time talking about--is not bad, official transmission of information is simply different, not better,and I honestly disagree with you that greater 'transparency' would be a better thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
Adventure Pigeon posted:The last conversation somehow lead to you accusing me of wanting people to stop being able to tell each other about bad employers. It wasn't an 'accusation', it is the logical outcome of you not wanting people to take into account those bar conversations when hiring. The only way to have that happen is for those private conversations not to occur; people can't pretend to have not heard them. These informal lines of communication are not worse than 'official' lines of communication, and they are also not going to, at all, in any way, ever disappear.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2015 00:50
|
|