The double standard | INFJ Forum

The double standard

Lerxst

Well-known member
Jul 3, 2010
2,380
750
0
MBTI
INFJ
I'm tempted to create a Web site that allows job-seekers to rate employers based on the same things they would be getting judged on. Things like:

Honesty
Punctuality
Communication
Thoroughness

Things we've all been through from the resume writing to the interview itself and how our potential employers have "behaved" during the process.

It gets me absolutely furious when I dedicate about 2 hours to writing a customized cover letter, arranging all my work history and then making sure I have all the facts I need when sending an application out, only to receive, at best, an automated response back and then... nothing.

They should be as much accountable as their candidates, yet they get away with this BS repeatedly and then use some lame excuse like "due to the number of responses...". Last I knew, copy and pasting a "Thanks but no thanks" reply to a distribution list took a few seconds.

Then there are the "bait and switch" jobs that advertise one position at one salary but want to hire you for a lesser one once you go through all the hurdles. Or the ones that decide not to tell you about an application status until months after the fact, when you've already given up.

So, why did I make this thread? To start a bitch list for anyone who is or has been unemployed and thoroughly abused by this double standard. Go ahead, let it rip! Get it off your chest and list all the crap these employers expect you to go through but want to be free and clear of themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
A couple years ago I applied for a job as a music librarian @ a community college and the process to interview was f***ing ridiculous!

Step 1: Register on CC website and create login/PW
Step 2: Fill out e-application and await to receive notification should you qualify.
Step 3: Upon qualification, show up on said date/time to take 1.5 hour long WRITTEN TEST to evaluate your music/music history/accounting skills in lecture hall filled to capacity with potential candidates.
Step 4: Upon satisfactory score, show up in Downtown Los Angeles during prime time traffic hours on said date/time to interview (*unmentioned by employer* parking not provided, be prepared to pay exorbitant parking rates and walk uphill in heels). Panel interview will rank candidate accordingly. Await email with your ranked score.
Step 5: Emailed response received two months later. Email states something to the effect, "Due to budget cuts, there is only one music librarian position to fill. You were ranked 8 out of 87. Thanks for your application and do apply again in two years."

AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!
 
uh employers are taking all the risk...
you can quit whenever the fuck you want
the employer invests training, and risks you doing something stupid and causing problems
and it's not that easy to fire someone. it's not a pleasant thing to do, makes other employees insecure, and there are legal barriers too

this is why the balance of power sits in the employer's corner, generally speaking
 
I love this idea, actually.

But it can also apply to those who are already employed and looking for a better opportunity.
There are pros and cons to leaving one place and accepting another offer.

Something like this would aid those on the fence in making a more informed decision.

edit: Actually.. there are a few things like this.. such as jobvent.com
 
Last edited:
uh employers are taking all the risk...
you can quit whenever the fuck you want

Quitting is an automatic disqualification for unemployment benefits. You quit - no paycheck. With bills, mortgages, and families to feed, most people can't just quit.

the employer invests training, and risks you doing something stupid and causing problems

The same investment the employee risks. We're not talking about Burger Kind or MacDonald's here, these are more career oriented jobs/employers. If you put out the "feelers" and send an application to another company while you're still employed (Since you mentioned "just quit" above) and they actually contact your current employer *whoops* guess who's getting fired! Would've been nice to know if that company had a reputation for doing that, ya think?

There are a lot of risks involved in deciding to work for a company; things that may not be obvious until you start working. And any employee can easily risk their entire career going to work for the wrong employer. When I started in my field I was eager to take the job I had been eyeing for about a month. After working there for 3 or so years, I realized I was automatically black-listed from a lot of other places I would have preferred to work for simply because that place had a bad reputation in that industry.

Not all of that would be exposed by any pre-employment check, but having some clue ahead of time - like they always have x # of jobs posted on a weekly basis tips you off to the turnover and maybe some of the reasons for it. Not worth risking a career over a place like that.

and it's not that easy to fire someone. it's not a pleasant thing to do, makes other employees insecure, and there are legal barriers too

"Right-to-Work" - look it up. Sounds all fine and dandy until you get into the deeper fine print. The details mentioning how an employer can fire you at their will, with or without cause are especially chilling, not to mention the restrictions on collective bargaining/labor unions.

All in all, the odds are unfairly tipped in the employers favor and I have yet to see one demonstrate the ability to handle that much power and control. At least if you know a place will screw you over from the start, you'll have a clue as to what you're in for!
 
I'm almost a bit indifferent on this matter because I do see that corporations and a lot of companies are assholes to people and screw them over. But I also think that they have some justification for it because, at the end of the day, they care about making money and being efficient. Sure, you might find it ridiculous that the music library won't pay for parking or let you park on their campus but if they do, they unnecessarily lose money and get complaints about the waste, especially in government jobs.

I think this is why we need regulation, so that the playing field gets leveled and everyone gets a fair chance. The free market model works amazingly, in smaller economies (i.e. a farmers market) but when things get impersonal, bad things happen.
 
Work your ass off to get over that six month hump that officially makes you employed, then fuck your employee over. That's what I do if my employee is a douch
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
I'm almost a bit indifferent on this matter because I do see that corporations and a lot of companies are assholes to people and screw them over. But I also think that they have some justification for it because, at the end of the day, they care about making money and being efficient. Sure, you might find it ridiculous that the music library won't pay for parking or let you park on their campus but if they do, they unnecessarily lose money and get complaints about the waste, especially in government jobs.

I think this is why we need regulation, so that the playing field gets leveled and everyone gets a fair chance. The free market model works amazingly, in smaller economies (i.e. a farmers market) but when things get impersonal, bad things happen.

A mention in the email would have sufficed. OP started a vent thread so I was venting --we gotta do what we gotta do in the end.
 
Never look for jobs. Only take jobs offered to you. Great success!
 
I agree, and I seem to be constantly writing up comment from people saying exactly this for my job.

My company is one of those very high turnover companies but I am 24 so I really don't have a choice right now. What always gets me about my employer is that ex-employees set up Facebook pages and forum threads about how they are slave-drivers, unfair wages, actively discourage unionisation, exploitative etc. and then you'll get a comment somewhere that is clearly written by someone paid by the company to say how they find the company has been absolutely excellent and has offered so many opportunities etc. It's always blatantly obvious they have been paid to say it because there's something very false and empty about what they're saying. I thought that before I got the job and now I work there I know no employee would actually say all that positive stuff!

I guess this isn't really a rant, but it bothers me for some reason seeing them pay someone to give them a positive rep - which they need since ex-employees try to encourage people not to work for them because they're that bad!!!

I'm in a graduate role as a journalist by the way. The media sector has got a lot worse in the UK over the last 50 years because there's a lot of candidate demand. So employers are able to pay people between
 
Last edited:
it did annoy me sometimes that i spent hours and hours composing special written responses to criteria in advertisements for jobs for which i seemed more than adequately qualified, only to receive an automated response a month or two later that seemed to go beyond perfunctory into rude. um, i did end up wondering why they didn't raise their requirements posted in the job advertisement if they were actually looking for someone with a masters or specialist degree, it could save us all some time.
 
This is almost sounding like the Why you should never major in business administration thread.

[MENTION=287]justeccentricnotinsane[/MENTION] You don't bad mouth your past employer because... it's one of those things you're just not supposed to do. Again the balance of power is skewed once more, even after you leave a bad job, your past employer still has the upper hand. Think in terms of references and recommendations. Legally (in the US) an employer can't say anything bad about you other than "Yes, you worked for them". However, the lack of any positive comments indicates to your potential employer that you weren't a "good" employee. I've been there as well, being told "We just didn't hear what we needed to" when they contacted a past employer.

Our government has a system of checks and balances to stop any one branch from gaining too much power. In our business/labor market though, we live and work in a Dictatorship. The saddest part about all of this is that we let them do it to us!?!

Think of it in these terms - you are selling yourself to that company. They pay a salary and say you are worth xxx per year. You accept and make xxx per year. The only catch is that you do what they tell you, how they tell you and when they tell you. You become an asset, sometimes not even of equal value to a piece of machinery.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Blind Bandit
[MENTION=2890]Lerxst[/MENTION], If I own a private company and I'm hiring you as an employee why wouldn't I have the right to have the upper hand? I would have built this company from my own resources or the resources of the venture capitalists that have invested directly with me and it is technically mine assuming this is a privately held company (If it's publicly held or paid for with tax money it gets more sticky.) My loyalties are with my investors and getting them their return on investment, not with my employees. Does it suck for the employees? yes. But that is the risk you take when you opt for the security of being an employee, you could take out loans and find investors to start your own company as well. It is the capitalist market. Keep in mind when you start your company though you have to think about things like taxes they are not taken care of for you like they are when you're an employee, balancing debt and equity, something you also don't have to worry about as an employee other than personal debt but it's not a balancing game like it is with a company, safety regulations and OCEA, health regulations if you are in any food service industry, having sums of money which you can't use because it's your surplus and safety net.

You have to understand that there is a lot of risk that goes along with running a company that are risks that an employee simply does not have to worry about. If you lose your job you're not going to be several million dollars in debt, you won't have a bunch of investors that you have to apologize to you will simply be out of a job.

That said I think your idea for a website is a great idea and I see no reason why anyone should have anything against such a site. It's similar to say product reviews on amazon.
 
[MENTION=2890]Lerxst[/MENTION], If I own a private company and I'm hiring you as an employee why wouldn't I have the right to have the upper hand? I would have built this company from my own resources or the resources of the venture capitalists that have invested directly with me and it is technically mine assuming this is a privately held company (If it's publicly held or paid for with tax money it gets more sticky.) My loyalties are with my investors and getting them their return on investment, not with my employees. Does it suck for the employees? yes. But that is the risk you take when you opt for the security of being an employee, you could take out loans and find investors to start your own company as well. It is the capitalist market. Keep in mind when you start your company though you have to think about things like taxes they are not taken care of for you like they are when you're an employee, balancing debt and equity, something you also don't have to worry about as an employee other than personal debt but it's not a balancing game like it is with a company, safety regulations and OCEA, health regulations if you are in any food service industry, having sums of money which you can't use because it's your surplus and safety net.

You have to understand that there is a lot of risk that goes along with running a company that are risks that an employee simply does not have to worry about. If you lose your job you're not going to be several million dollars in debt, you won't have a bunch of investors that you have to apologize to you will simply be out of a job.

That said I think your idea for a website is a great idea and I see no reason why anyone should have anything against such a site. It's similar to say product reviews on amazon.

Agreed, but would you disagree that the overall financial success of any company directly correlates with the happiness of it's employees? By happiness I mean a mutual understanding/agreement of job security and a healthy company morale?

I have experience on both ends of the spectrum and can attest to the fact that employees will work harder and smarter if they know you have their back. This is not a definitive statement by any means, there are exceptions to every rule. One happy employee can do the job of 2 unproductive employees, go above the call of duty, and have a genuine regard for their company's service/widget, which translates to the customers and ultimately to $$$. Compare that to high employee turnover, high levels of unproductivity, and employee disingenuity and it behooves every company to treat the people at the bottom of the totem pole fairly.

Sure there are a lot more financial risks you take when you start a business than when you start working for a company. The examples outlined above are just the cost of doing business. Companies take out insurance policies to protect themselves from certain forseeable financial risks and/or legal protocol to cover the owner's own ass as far as liquidation of his/her personal property. The same cannot be said for an employee.

I'm thinking the OP was advocating a sense of fairness on both sides. In a perfect world it shouldn't be skewed to either side. Everyone's time is valuable. I've seen the disgruntled lowly driver piss off and potentially lose the company's largest account. Here comes the tired cliche (sorry)...what goes around comes around.

Edit: Case in point, In-N-Out Burger
Don't know if you're from California, but this place has a cult following.

The company does a REALLY great job of prospecting the right employees --they hire smart high-school/college kids who want to work AND they pay them fairly, something slightly above minimum wage. Employees know that when they leave, they'll get a great rec and future employers know they have a great work ethic with solid work experience. The thing that sets In-N-Out apart is that anyone you talk to has a smile on their face, are always polite and just seem happy to be there --every time. Not to mention that their food is consistently good and made in front of you. Compare that to the Jack in the Box down the street where you're wondering if the jerk-off behind the counter spit on your food because he's pissed at his manager who barks at him any chance he gets because he's getting pressure about making the quota.
 
Last edited:
When I started this, it was to show the difference and hypocrisy involved in the entire job application process from the start. As a job seeker you are expected to:

Build a professional resume
Write a functional cover letter
Contact people for references
Complete a job-specific application.
Take a test. This is assuming you're dealing with a professional level job. Most of the other jobs don't require testing.
Interview

These are the things we're all expected to do and an employer expects to see when you apply. What, exactly, are our expectations of them or the standards they should uphold? Absent.

An employer can write up anything they want in a job description and then cover themselves with the "other duties as assigned" phrase.

They could take a job that was performed perfectly by a high school drop-out who had it before and then suddenly require a Bachelors Degree for the next person.

They can list a salary that says "based on experience" and then not give you any means for which to measure what their scale is.

They can interview 10 people and then hire the CFO's niece for the job you thought you were a perfect candidate for.

The company writes policies and mission statements and then expects their employees to act a certain way, but the management/founders considered themselves immune to those same standards.

The only "power" an individual has is a "yes" or "no" decision to work for them or not. During the entire process and then during the employment, guess where the majority of the power lies.


Slightly off-topic, research Ben & Jerry's. This is really what all of this comes down to.

The overview: Ben and Jerry's (a business with an ethical, charitable background) was forced to sell due to law that says a company "is required to maximize returns to shareholders at all costs." Another company made a high bid to buy them out and they were required to sell since failure to do so would have resulted in a law suit from their shareholders.

This means, you, me, your friends and family are absolutely worthless unless they have a proven value to that company. So don't take it on faith that a corporation will act out of the goodness of their own hearts and treat people right. Their number 1 legal priority after all, is to make money "at all costs".
 
Perhaps you shouldn't over-invest yourself in your applications.


The old adage 'the customer is always right' can sort of be applied to employers - because they are in the market to purchase your work. When you go shopping, do you want someone to smother you with information, or compelling reasons to choose/buy? Are you interested in how you go about making your purchase will make a pushy storekeeper feel? And if a pushy salesperson has succeeded in making you admit that you're interested in buying something - how often have you said that you'll have to think about it and get back to them?

If you want to make an employer comfortable, you should treat him/her as you prefer to be treated as a customer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
Agreed, but would you disagree that the overall financial success of any company directly correlates with the happiness of it's employees? By happiness I mean a mutual understanding/agreement of job security and a healthy company morale?

I have experience on both ends of the spectrum and can attest to the fact that employees will work harder and smarter if they know you have their back. This is not a definitive statement by any means, there are exceptions to every rule. One happy employee can do the job of 2 unproductive employees, go above the call of duty, and have a genuine regard for their company's service/widget, which translates to the customers and ultimately to $$$. Compare that to high employee turnover, high levels of unproductivity, and employee disingenuity and it behooves every company to treat the people at the bottom of the totem pole fairly.

Sure there are a lot more financial risks you take when you start a business than when you start working for a company. The examples outlined above are just the cost of doing business. Companies take out insurance policies to protect themselves from certain forseeable financial risks and/or legal protocol to cover the owner's own ass as far as liquidation of his/her personal property. The same cannot be said for an employee.

I'm thinking the OP was advocating a sense of fairness on both sides. In a perfect world it shouldn't be skewed to either side. Everyone's time is valuable. I've seen the disgruntled lowly driver piss off and potentially lose the company's largest account. Here comes the tired cliche (sorry)...what goes around comes around.

Edit: Case in point, In-N-Out Burger
Don't know if you're from California, but this place has a cult following.

The company does a REALLY great job of prospecting the right employees --they hire smart high-school/college kids who want to work AND they pay them fairly, something slightly above minimum wage. Employees know that when they leave, they'll get a great rec and future employers know they have a great work ethic with solid work experience. The thing that sets In-N-Out apart is that anyone you talk to has a smile on their face, are always polite and just seem happy to be there --every time. Not to mention that their food is consistently good and made in front of you. Compare that to the Jack in the Box down the street where you're wondering if the jerk-off behind the counter spit on your food because he's pissed at his manager who barks at him any chance he gets because he's getting pressure about making the quota.

No, I wouldn't disagree. From what I can see the problem is self-solving.
 
Please start your employer bitch-list.

It will be popular with employers in screening out potentially problematic applicants.
 
Please start your employer bitch-list.

It will be popular with employers in screening out potentially problematic applicants.

Don't think I have to anymore... OWS did it for me. I suppose putting down "Occupy Wall Street Supporter/Protester" isn't exactly resume building material, is it?

Then again, the ALF-CIO is also an organization I would readily work for if they had any influence in a a"Right to Work" state at least.