Hiring Managers: do you discriminate?

[Cyber Surfer]

Originally Posted by sandsthetime

So the older associates aren't innovative, hungry, and focused? Despite the fact that I'm a millennial, please remind me to never apply at where you work.

Whenever I heard the word "hungry" mentioned to me on a job interview, it was always a red flag. In my experience, it always meant they were looking for someone who would do everything for a tick above minimum wage. Can't tell you how many times I aced the hungry question only to see the company reveal $10/hr for the position.

(Not trying to imply that you're looking for young people at slave wages)

Is hungry the same as "passion" or "drive"? That's another set of words that sends me red flags, and every single time it's a position that expects you to work like a dog while the higher ups reap the rewards. Those people who want "hungry" employees tend to be full of themselves and eventually responsible for ruining the company image the moment they screw up (and try to blame the people that work under him/her). Seen it more times than I can count.

Nothing wrong with humility as long as you are productive. Nothing wrong with having passion and drive, but not to where you're making next to nothing for people who can fire you on a whim to protect their own self-interests. Good companies reward employees for keeping the company strong, bad ones tend to treat you like disposables unless you're at the executive level.

[txfriend]

Everyone would like to believe that they would not discriminate, but we all do. If I hired hourly workers my major concern was job proficiency, not age or anything else. However, if I hired an exempt employee, that changed somewhat. I was partial to military officers, especially the ones that graduated from West Point or Annapolis. The job could be learned, the military bearing and confidence could not.

[fishbrains]

Originally Posted by txfriend

Everyone would like to believe that they would not discriminate, but we all do. If I hired hourly workers my major concern was job proficiency, not age or anything else. However, if I hired an exempt employee, that changed somewhat. I was partial to military officers, especially the ones that graduated from West Point or Annapolis. The job could be learned, the military bearing and confidence could not.

The difference being that the OP likes to discriminate based upon age, which is a protected class and therefore illegal.

If you have a preference for competence, that is simply good sense. If you have a preference for military vets, that too is ok, as anybody has an opportunity to enter the military.

[May1989]

Some of you go on and on about cultural fit. What exactly do you mean? If your team consists mainly of 20-year-olds and you only hire candidates the same age. Sure that is cultural fit. It is also age discrimination.

Remember, you'll be old one day too. Would you like to be treated shabbily just because of your age? Discrimination of any kind is disgusting and repulsive.

[Vision67]

Actually, the entire hiring process is a form of "discrimination."

A hiring manager is filtering and deciding which candidate will deliver the best results. The other candidates do not make it through the filter.

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by May1989

Discrimination of any kind is disgusting and repulsive.

Not true. If I disciminate agaist you because you wouldn't look me in the eye; perfectly fine. If I choose someone else because we had a better conversation; again fine.

Discrimination happens throughout our every day lives, all day long. It's usually fine. But discrimination based on religion, sex, nationality, age and sexual preference are illegal, and wrong.