The logic in the conclusion is cyclical. Society devolved stereotypes and criteria for successful workers based on observation and as a way to weed out those not willing to comply with an established order. This marginalized certain workers. Her conclusion is that those marginalized workers know how rare a shot for them is and so work harder. Abolishing the stigma against using these workers would make shots common for them- thereby removing the incentive for them to work harder to prove themselves. If we infer from past experience that would then likely lead to a pattern of poor work and inability to conform to order being associated with these groups. Repeat.
Now- I’m not saying DONT give people a shot and DO buy in to blind stereotype. Hiring is complex, reading people is complex. An employee with some foundations and soft skills you have to train job skills can be a much better investment than an employee with strong base skills and weak soft skills. Training from the ground up means that you get to teach them YOUR WAY from the start and don’t have to worry about what they bring with them. It also means that without a “pedigree” behind their skills or accreditation you can pay less for the same job, and it’s harder for them to jump ship for another company since no one outside your organization has an objective metric of their skills.
But there’s more to it I won’t get into. That said- the conclusion here is faulty on several levels. One I mentioned. Another is somewhat philosophical. Why are people with families considers unreliable? Because they have to go on vacations and school plays and what not. Dinners at home and quality time. Tend to sick loved ones and so on right? Now- in some jobs that matters less. Some jobs are very flexible and you an easily take time off without hurting your work. So for all these jobs it doesn’t matter if you have a family. For the jobs it does matter for though...
For a person with a family to apply the same dedication to the job as a single person could, they’re neglecting their family. Plain and simple. I’ve had jobs for years that were 6-7 days a week, 10-12 hours or more a day, on call 24/7. Jobs where you worked until 4,5,6am then slept in the office or car and woke up at 7 to work again.
I’ve had to take my laptop to the beach and have conferences for 4,6 hours, take 2 hours stops mid travel to handle some emergency. I’ve gone a month without ever seeing home and I was at the home office- not traveling. If you do this with a family, you’ll miss most of their lives. I was young and didn’t have a family so I could do it. So saying that workers with families can be just as dedicated as single workers is true- but only if you don’t give a rats ass about a persons work life balance of their life.
Usually your summations are pretty spot on. A few have been slightly off on nuance- but not so much I felt a need to comment on it. This one however misses the point of the larger post almost entirely.
I might say: TL:DR- the logic of hiring marginalized workers because they work harder to prove themselves is self defeating since removing the handicap they seek to disprove negates the need to disprove it- but it can also been seen as exploitive since people like those with families need to neglect those responsibilities to dedicate the same time to work as those without. One shouldn’t discount workers out of hand for not fitting some ideal stereotype- but the overall message here misses the mark.
At the risk on incurring another 500 word essay, I have to disagree. The main point I drew was that hiring these types of workers got good results because these people had to work harder to prove themselves. I could have been more clear about the consequences - more hiring = less hard work = less hiring. The rest devolved into an anecdote-laced discussion about workers with families, which was more of an example of your main point rather than a standalone argument. If my TLDRs lack nuance, it's because your posts are so full of it that any reasonable summary would have to leave some out.
Hence why they carry such length. To carry nuance, support, context, and examples for thought. I wouldn’t want you to think I am criticizing your work. Many people seem to appreciate it. I merely was stating from point of fact and for posterity that this particular summary doesn’t reflect the overall content this time. I can’t speak as to what you read from my post- only as to what I wrote and what was intended. That isn’t an indictment of you- the comprehension of writing depends on the reader but also as much on the writer communicating intent- and an understanding between them.
Right. Certainly misunderstandings could arise when I'm tired or otherwise distracted. But if you, as a writer, want to communicate your point more clearly and effectively, you'd be better off limiting yourself to one comment. Brevity is not a vice, especially on a meme site where most people probably don't want to scroll past obscenely long comment threads to reach an explanation of the joke, an image source, etc.
So I’ve been told. So the book says. That’s just not too fun for me though. I do that at work, they pay me to. While I know that I’m ruining my chances at the coveted Pulitzer for internet message boards- it’s a risk in need of taking. As discussed before in previous posts about verbosity- it’s not that I don’t trust people to understand a point- it’s that it’s repeatedly been demonstrated to me that enough people will take things out of context or have some mental fart reflex if I am not very clear in the nuances.
As this discourse began- I failed in my hundred thousand words to impart the message I wanted to upon you, and in your own words- your summary was as detailed as it could be in the number of words used- yet didn’t hit the mark. So- if we run the risk of miscommunication with high or low word count- what’s the difference to me? I may as well follow my muse.
Perhaps no one will read it. Perhaps they will. Likely not. But I’d rather be as thorough as possible and have no one read it than pep it up to try and whore for hits but sacrifice the nuances to do so.
But hell- one of the most popular books in the world is the Bible and that thing is waaaay more verbose than need be. Put it on my desk and tell me to relate it to the board and I could do the whole thing in 1 page more or less. I wouldn’t though- since the point of such discourse isn’t to sell toothpaste or get approval for a project or get people to tune in to trash news. It’s in the nuances.
I was applying for a job in the UK, recently. Recruiter tells me "You have a typo in your former employment, you wrote an American 'z' instead of an English 's'..." I was like... "Yeah, yeah, but no. That's the company's name. That's a trademarked name and is pretty much set in stone for legal purposes." He asked again. He didn't get it. Never heard back from him...
After 25 months job hunting after my masters degree, I was literally researching how to "accidentally" safely amputate a foot so I (as a caucasian, heterosexual, non-military, native born American, with no ties to the industry) could literally get a foot in the door as a handicapped individual.
I failed to get a job at a firm where a guy I went to school with works as a project manager. He got arrested the night before our mid term project presentation (for project management) for public intoxication and urinating on a cop. His uncle owns the firm.
Good on anyone who takes a chance on someone for a hire, remember though: "trust but verify; and if they ever screw you, forgive but never forget their name.
TLDR: You be successful in hiring "undesirable" workers because they work harder and devote their time to proving themselves.
I failed to get a job at a firm where a guy I went to school with works as a project manager. He got arrested the night before our mid term project presentation (for project management) for public intoxication and urinating on a cop. His uncle owns the firm.
Good on anyone who takes a chance on someone for a hire, remember though: "trust but verify; and if they ever screw you, forgive but never forget their name.