If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by lucretia borgia on September 4, 2008, 8:11 pm
On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 17:55:51 -0400, "Lucille" <lzoltynospam@now at
show/hide quoted text
comcast..net> opined:
show/hide quoted text
>In my office only business references were checked and personal references
>were rarely, if ever checked because you had to figure they only gave you
>the names of friends who would give you a good reference and it certainly
>wasn't cool or cost/time effective to look up neighbors. I'm not even sure
>that would be legal.
>When my husband was given top secret government clearance for his job a
>couple of our neighbors were called, but they were only asked for knowledge
>of something like criminal activity or wife beating or something that might
>get you thrown into jail. They didn't ask anything that would mean they
>would have had a really close relationship with him.
My husband had to have security clearances too and because we moved so
often with the navy it became quite difficult for him to find people
who had known him non-stop for five years. Eventually he had put
down a married in aunt of mine. His vetter said something to him
about the odd woman he had listed. I asked her what had been said and
she said she didn't like the way they seemed to home in on me so when
they said "Are there any foreigners in the family?" she said "Of
course, his wife" - well I was a foreigner to her, she was Welsh lol
He got his clearance, they just thought he sure married into a screwy
family.
|
|
Posted by lucretia borgia on September 5, 2008, 7:57 pm
show/hide quoted text
>I think in this time it's pretty unusual for social contacts to be checked,
>unless that's what you're using for your job.
>Ellice
I think they have to have social contacts to check but it's something
like the marks for skating, top and bottom removed and only the middle
of particular interest. Anything untoward will then stand out and
cause further checks.
|
|
Posted by lucretia borgia on September 5, 2008, 8:05 pm
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 19:58:44 -0400, "Lucille" <lzoltynospam@now at
show/hide quoted text
comcast..net> opined:
show/hide quoted text
>Checking social contacts seems to me to be a waste of time and effort.
>Would anyone with even half a brain give them the name of someone they've
>had a battle with, or someone they know despises them or mistrusts them. I
>really believe they would only give the names of friends and relatives who
>love them.
>L
>>
The married in aunt I referred to loved both David and I but as a
Welsh woman, when asked about me, she regarded me as a foreigner and
being English the person asking the question took it very seriously
lol Thus it really proves how silly asking questions is.
|
|
Posted by lucretia borgia on September 6, 2008, 8:16 am
opined:
show/hide quoted text
>It's been a very long time since I've had to interview for a job, but
>these days they make character assessments based on answers which are
>formulated by psychologists and sociologists. My husband doesn't
>interview well. He doesn't like having to play those games in the
>interview process. They ask things like, what is your best strength
>in life? What do you think you've achieved in life so far? These
>questions are so touchy feely it's obnoxioius already. Can't they
>simply look at his impressive resume where anyplace he's worked he's
>won every possible achievement award, with the physical trophy to
>prove it.
>Feh.
>Victoria
I'm with Mark on that, can't stand that sort of thing, but fortunately
I will not be interviewing anymore lol
|
|
Posted by Dr. Brat on September 4, 2008, 6:46 pm
Karen C in California wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> Lucille wrote:
>
>> Are you saying that your private life should be monitored? I always
>> thought my workplace performance should be what counts.
>
>
> I'm saying that if an employee has a penchant for verbal abuse in their
> private life, I'd want to know about it to be sure it doesn't carry over
> into the workplace and cost me clients. Just like you'd want to know if
> they're a habitual liar going to get you sued for making false
> representations to customers, or a habitual groper.
Just so you know, it surely looks like you're implying that I have a
pechant for verbal abuse (this is the second time for that one) and
might be a habitual liar.
Do you want to deny that this is what you are implying or would you
rather provide proof of the above accusations? After all, your clients
might like to know that you engage in slander in your personal life.
Elizabeth
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~living well is the best revenge~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate
and expand her sense of actual possibilities. --Adrienne Rich
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
|
Page 4 of 7 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Re: OT: reality check for Karen C. | September 3, 2008, 10:03 pm |
| Yoo-Hoo Karen C | June 26, 2009, 11:14 am |
| Thank you Karen C | February 21, 2006, 2:12 pm |
| PING: The Karen | May 2, 2008, 2:47 pm |
| Thanks, Karen! for UFO nudge | May 25, 2008, 6:38 pm |
| Ping! Karen C. | April 30, 2009, 10:56 am |
| Ot Karen what happened to your friend | September 3, 2006, 12:01 pm |
| Big auction...Karen remember?? | January 2, 2008, 1:32 pm |
| Comestibles and Conversation with Karen | April 29, 2008, 1:15 pm |
| OT: Attn Karen C (CFS in the news) | April 21, 2006, 9:18 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap