Bill: > > > If hiring people who share your political views is illegal, then > how > do > > > the political machines themselves get away with it, since that's > the > > > core of their existence? > > > > > > Oh, c'mon, Bill, surely you're not that dense. > > > And that seemed like such an obvious question :)
<snip> > > > > We're talking about a software testing position. If you > > discriminate because they don't have the technical abilities, fine. > But to base > > your decision on their feelings about the Iraq war and occupation is > > not OK. > > > If I'm hiring someone for an important position in my company, the > better I understand that person's basic attitudes, the better we'll get > along, and something that 'subtle' can make the difference between > spending a career together or not. I don't think in terms of people > coming and going, but of building a company with people who will stay > around because this is where they want to be. I assume Mike isn't > looking for someone who will be gone next year, so I'm suggesting that > a > basic attitude check up front is good for the long run. You may be surprised to learn that I am presently in partnership with a fellow who, on matters political anyhow, is so far away from my core convictions it's almost as if I were working with you or Ed. :) As it happens we have come to talk about such things at great length, and both appreciate each other's divergent thinking styles. The net result is both of us modified somewhat some ideas we had about "the other side", and were both given opportunities to reassess our beliefs when challenged in mutual respect to do so. I actually got him to admit that George Bush probably IS a human being with good and bad points, and even feelings-- not the reincarnation of Hitler-- and I was able to confess my adulterous fling with Bush's Wilsonesque "making the world safe for democracy" policy in a way that helped me better refine my essentially conservative viewpoint. It was all good. Even more than before I knew his convictions, I consider him a close friend, not just a partner, and I have better rapport and working relationship with him than I've had with some people who, on the surface, you'd think would be my soul mate. He's not super radical per se, but definitely disposed to liberal politics, and has a lot of preconceptions still that I have to work on. :) My point is that political opinions are often a bad measure of likely compatibility. Unless, of course, you really are a hot-headed and intolerant person... in which case, yes, you'll get along with like-minded people, but you'll never really build trust with anybody because you make assumptions from the outward opinions about what makes them tick inside that are really based on things that make you tick. Oh, I still tease him about his wacky views, and he still teases me about mine, but we don't let these things get in the way of honest collaboration on the task at hand--which is building software, not political platforms. ;) That's why it doesn't make sense to overtly ask things like, "So, what do you think of the neo-con crypto-fascist military industrial complex murdering untold hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in cold blood for mere lust for oil?" in a technical interview about, say, database design---not even so much the legal ramifications which, as Ed points out, ought not to be neglected either. :) - Bob > > > > Bill > > > > -- Ed Leafe > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
