Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[Maxperson]

There isn't. However, since there is no connection between excellent grammatical skills and most jobs, it won't be considered a BFOQ for most jobs. Acting as if it you think it is will just be a lawsuit waits to happen.

At this point you seem to be willfully misinterpreting what I'm saying.......repeatedly. I've never once said that grammar is a required skill for any job. I've said over and over again that being sloppy on a resume, is a very strong indicator of being sloppy on the job. That's it.

That is an unfounded assertion. My cousin has been driving trucks for more than a decade- his record is spotless.

It is absolutely not unfounded. Just because exceptions exist, does not mean that in general it is not a true assertion. Hiring managers don't have the time to waste with people who are likely to be bad for the business. Losing a few exceptions is worth not losing vast amounts of valuable time. They can't interview that many people, so strong indicators of sloppy work habits will be key to eliminating resumes.

True.

However, even with those sites you subsequently posted, my position remains unchanged: using typos as a primary- read that as "pre-interview"- disqualifier for all jobs is playing with fire.

There are all kinds of long-standing business practices out there that would not withstand a legal challenge- unenforceable contract clauses, clauses that don't mean what their drafters think they do, etc.

They've survived because their validity hasn't been challenged. Legal "scarecrows", if you will.

I very much doubt that not calling someone back because they are extremely likely to have sloppy work habits is one of them. Given the sheer volume of people that are eliminated for it, I doubt that it has been challenged yet.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

At this point you seem to be willfully misinterpreting what I'm saying.......repeatedly. I've never once said that grammar is a required skill for any job. I've said over and over again that being sloppy on a resume, is a very strong indicator of being sloppy on the job. That's it.

Near as I can tell, the ONLY exemplars you have given of sloppiness on resumes have been related to grammar, sooooo, no, I'm not willfully misinterpreting your posts.

It is absolutely not unfounded. Just because exceptions exist, does not mean that in general it is not a true assertion. Hiring managers don't have the time to waste with people who are likely to be bad for the business. Losing a few exceptions is worth not losing vast amounts of valuable time. They can't interview that many people, so strong indicators of sloppy work habits will be key to eliminating resumes.

It most certainly is unfounded. Show me a study showing causation or correlation between grammatical accuracy and job performance.

I've gone looking for them. They don't exist. There are lots of articles by HR managers and business owners who write articles assuming there is. They DO raise some good points- with some noting making exceptions for dyslexics or ESL applicants- every last article takes the correlation for granted. At least part of this can be forgiven in that nearly every one of those articles I have found deals with white-collar jobs only, where effective communication skills and a dependence on paperwork are more important.

For guys like my truck driving cousin? Not so much.

I very much doubt that not calling someone back because they are extremely likely to have sloppy work habits is one of them. Given the sheer volume of people that are eliminated for it, I doubt that it has been challenged yet.

See above.

Also, I think you meant "hasn't" in that last sentence, right?

Assuming this is the case, I'm going to go on record to say that I'd be surprised if it were challenged as the sole reason as opposed to part of a pile of evidence, probably in one of the 400+ EEOC/ADR cases brought annually involving dyslexics, such as this one:

https://www.understood.org/en/commu...-discrimination-case-shows-the-system-at-work

Which means that changes would occur on a company by company basis, as opposed to high-profile, statewide or national scales.

 

[Umbran]

I take far less care with my spelling and grammar when I post than with my resume and work

You are, however, "...human, something every person on the jury can understand. "

The person who is submitting the resume is human. But, apparently, while you expect leniency on that basis for yourself, you are not willing to give it to others. This is a case where the Golden Rule should apply - do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. If you expect to be given a pass for an error, you should be willing to give a pass as well.

 

[Eltab]

What I get from this exchange is that discrimination is ok as long as you hide it.

What I'm getting is that "discrimination" and "racism" are code words in the law which if somebody uses them, the accusation alone = irrefutable proof of guilt.

I'm also getting that several participants are beyond reasoning with; they want to win and beat the disagree-ers over the head with an "I'M RIGHT" club.

 

[Maxperson]

Near as I can tell, the ONLY exemplars you have given of sloppiness on resumes have been related to grammar, sooooo, no, I'm not willfully misinterpreting your posts.

It's grammar and spelling, and yes you are. Sloppiness is sloppiness is sloppiness. It doesn't matter what form it takes, it is representative of the person submitting the resume and it is very likely that the sloppiness will carry over into the workplace. Equating what I am saying to a direct qualification for a specific job is willful misrepresentation at this point. I've explained it to you too many times for it to be anything else.

It most certainly is unfounded. Show me a study showing causation or correlation between grammatical accuracy and job performance.

Well, if a study hasn't been done, it must not be true. Sorry, but first, just because a study hasn't been done does not mean that it is unfounded. Second, studies are manipulated all the time. You can find conflicting studies on just about everything studies have been done about. It's like experts at a trial. You can find one to say just about anything you want said.

I've gone looking for them. They don't exist. There are lots of articles by HR managers and business owners who write articles assuming there is. They DO raise some good points- with some noting making exceptions for dyslexics or ESL applicants- every last article takes the correlation for granted. At least part of this can be forgiven in that nearly every one of those articles I have found deals with white-collar jobs only, where effective communication skills and a dependence on paperwork are more important.

One of my early jobs in management was with Pic N' Save. I was directed to stick resumes with errors like that in a separate pile and not to call them back. This was for stockers and cashiers.

 

[Maxperson]

You are, however, "...human, something every person on the jury can understand. "

The person who is submitting the resume is human. But, apparently, while you expect leniency on that basis for yourself, you are not willing to give it to others. This is a case where the Golden Rule should apply - do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. If you expect to be given a pass for an error, you should be willing to give a pass as well.

It's a matter of what is reasonable and what is not. The likelihood that someone who is sloppy on a resume will also be sloppy in the work place is high. The number of applicants for any given job is astronomical. You can't call back all qualified applicants for interviews, so you need reasonable ways to cut the numbers down, and sloppiness is a key one. Making an occasional mistake is also reasonable, but the number of legitimate mistakes on resumes is far lower than just being sloppy, so the risk of wasting days on end with applicants who aren't going to be hired is huge if you don't cut them out of the running.

The difference between what I said about about being human and the errors on applications is that I could show what I did to be a mistake, and therefore understandable. Nobody delivering a resume will have that chance, because time is just to valuable to waste giving it to them. It's not always fair, but it's life. You can't do everything you'd like to in business.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's grammar and spelling, and yes you are. Sloppiness is sloppiness is sloppiness.

No, I'm not misrepresenting or twisting your words. Sorry.

And not all sloppiness is equal in the eyes of the law. There is a reason why an airline can have a mandatory age cutoff of pilots at 60- degradation of skills- and may have a more lenient standard for flight engineers (many of whom are former pilots).

It doesn't matter what form it takes, it is representative of the person submitting the resume and it is very likely that the sloppiness will carry over into the workplace. Equating what I am saying to a direct qualification for a specific job is willful misrepresentation at this point. I've explained it to you too many times for it to be anything else.

Near as I can tell, you're just assuming a sloppy resume can only come from a poor worker. You have presented not a shred of proof, just a bald assertion of your belief.

And in reaction, I am telling you a simplified statement of the current law: using criteria unrelated to the actual duties of the vacant job position as a pre-interview sorting tool is a risky business practice.


The is also the law of unintended consequences to consider: over time, if all resumes submitted to you must be grammatically perfect, regardless of position applied for, all you're doing is making a job for resume writers. The very trait you're seeeking to use as a measuring stick gets concealed as more and more people get help writing resumes (I do it for relatives all the time, FWIW). The poor grammarian/speller's true nature is concealed behind a polished facade.

Well, if a study hasn't been done, it must not be true.

No, not at all. There could be correlation or causation. It might even be 100% true.

Unfounded merely means the assertion made has no evidentiary support. Without evidentiary support, it is merely an opinion.

That makes it of low potential value at trial, and possibly not even admissible.

Sorry, but first, just because a study hasn't been done does not mean that it is unfounded.

In a court proceeding, it can mean exactly that. Especially if you're claiming high correlation or causation. It depends on whether the experiential or scientific test for admissibility is applied.

If you're a STEM expert, you will be expected to supply some kind of hard data. Published & peer reviewed, even. It may even be controversial. But if you don't have anything like that it will be excluded.

And even an experiential expert must have actual experience to make his assertion admissible. If the assertion is that flawed grammar & spelling is an accurate predictor of other poor work habits, if he or his employers haven't actually hired personnel who had flawed grammar & spelling who also had demonstrably poor work habits, his testimony won't be admissible.

Second, studies are manipulated all the time. You can find conflicting studies on just about everything studies have been done about. It's like experts at a trial. You can find one to say just about anything you want said.

True.

Still, experts at trial and the studies they rely upon (if any) have to be approved to get admitted into evidence under the Daubert and other cases shaping rules of evidence.

(And no, they don't always get it right- I know of at least one trial in which a forensic expert who had investigated hundreds of cases was excluded because the wrong standard of admissibility- experiential vs scientific- was applied.)

One of my early jobs in management was with Pic N' Save. I was directed to stick resumes with errors like that in a separate pile and not to call them back. This was for stockers and cashiers.

Just because you did it, doesn't make it right or legal.

Granted, a cashier needs to be able to count- less so these days than when machines didn't do most of the math for you- but what is the correlation between the ability to do basic math and the quality of your linguistic skills?

(I looked- there ARE studies that show links between math and language skills, but those I found all deal with higher-level symbolic stuff, not the adding, subtracting, dividing and multiplying of cash register work.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's a matter of what is reasonable and what is not. The likelihood that someone who is sloppy on a resume will also be sloppy in the work place is high.

What proof do you have of this?

You've asserted this many times and in many ways, but so far, all we have is your say-so, plus links to articles by people who act in accord with this theory, but likewise do not offer support for their belief the correlation exists.

 

[Umbran]

The likelihood that someone who is sloppy on a resume will also be sloppy in the work place is high.

I asked before, and I will again - upon what do you base this assertion? If you cannot give a well-supported answer beyond, "I believe this to be true," then maybe you should not be throwing stones at others over sloppiness, because that isn't nice, tight, neat, well-funded reasoning. So far, it is a personal opinion.

The number of applicants for any given job is astronomical.

No, they really aren't anything like the numbers seen in astronomy. But that's okay. I forgive your sloppy language use.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

A couple links regarding this thread's original topic.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...d_on_public_school_students_in_louisiana.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris...se-y_b_8338116.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592