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).
Degradation of skills =/= sloppiness. You have a False Equivalence going on there.
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.
Probably because I never said or implied that they could only come from a poor worker. That has been your Strawman of my words. It's not the that they are only from poor workers. It's that it's a very, very strong indicator that the person is a poor worker. I'm not going to spend 30 hours a day interviewing people with sloppy resumes when I can spend 4 interviewing people who care enough to give me one that isn't sloppy, whether they did it on their own, used a spell checker, or got someone to help them. Dyslexia isn't an excuse for a sloppy resume. If you have a weakness in an area, you do something to overcome it.
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.
Once again, quality work is related to the job duties of almost every job position. Sloppy work is bad for almost every job position.
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.
At least that shows good problem solving skills and the ability to recognize your own weaknesses, along with a desire to overcome them.
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.
There are a lot more experts that would speak to it being true than not.
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.
Corporations and other business keep all kinds of records and internal studies. If push came to shove, I'm certain I could find an expert with facts and figures to back himself up.
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.)
Oh, sure. Not all experts are equal and some aren't really qualified, but if you're careful and research the ones you plan on using, you're usually safe.
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?
Who cares. That's not what I'm measuring. I'm measuring something different that is very, very relevant to the job of a cashier. A sloppy cashier is more likely to make monetary errors and cost the company money. A sloppy cashier is more likely to miss scanning items and cost the company money. A sloppy cashier is more likely to double scan an item, costing the customer money and hassle, which in turn can cause that customer to stop shopping at the store........costing the company money.
