| Topic Name: |
Diversity |
| Message Name: |
What it takes to get the job vs what it takes to do the job |
| Date Posted: |
08/16/2003 |
| In Reply To: |
And I can't figure out how.. Submitting a job app and resume for an FAA job is like writing an encyclopedia.
Anyways...
At CA, while they are not really "consultants", the Client Relations Managers are ideally and usually; "hot babes". They may not know how to spell PC, but they got the looks.
Yeah, we have some trolls and knuckledraggers, but they are usually the Div Quality Mgrs.
If you want to woo a client into spending millions with you each year, you send in the (T&)A-team. |
| Message: |
This gets very funny towards the end, so read the whole thing. Or at least read the last paragraph first.
Although your comments about the complexity of FAA job applications and the physical attractiveness of certain private sector employees seem to be on completely unrelated topics, they are very related.
Every job has duties that do not appear in the official job description. Not everyone who is qualified to do the official duties is qualified to do the unofficial duties.
People are often hired or not hired based on characteristics that do not relate to ability to do the job as described. Sometimes this is discrimination. More often it is a matter hiring based on ability to do the "real" job.
The government requires its employees (and its contractors, and their employees) to complete massive amounts of paperwork. Depending on the job you wanted, the FAA may need someone who can complete and submit forms that are even more complex than the job application. If you cannot fill out an application that is, by your own admission, like writing an encyclopedia, you are not qualified to work for the federal government. Their employees must be capable of writing things much more complex than encyclopedias. Children can understand encyclopedias. Lawyers cannot understand the Internal Revenue Code.
Ironically, if the company you identified was hiring only persons who you described as "hot babes" for jobs that you describe as "not really "'consultants'", they would be in violation of either gender discrimination laws (if you were using the word "babe" figuratively, to mean adult women) or child labor laws (if you were using the word literally, to mean extremely young persons, of any gender, who are not yet two years old). However, if you are correct that the persons, regardless of official title, are not really "consultants", then the legal situation is different. If the job consists solely of exposing legs and flirting with guys so that they fork over the money, and is really no different from working in Hooter's, a topless bar, or a strip club, all of which can legal refuse to hire males for certain positions, then the hiring practice is more offensive morally, but might be less offensive to the laws of this country. In some parts of Nevada, it is legal to run a brothel and only consider female candidates for the prostitution jobs, but you still have to consider all genders for the more conventional jobs.
|
|
