Job interviews unfair and insulting to people like us

Post Reply New Topic

Well, for me it definitely is. Once I got past a job interview (my current job had multiple interviewers) I always excel at my position. In my current position I know I am extremely well liked because I'm reliable and friendly and know my stuff inside out. If it wasn't for just finding a damn contact and getting an interview I would probably have close to a six figure income. I had only ever succeeded in one one on one interview and that was because I was a cocky a**hole and told the guy his setup was horrible and how I could fix it. Even though I was vastly overqualified I really enjoyed that job until there was nothing more I could fix. Even though I lasted 4 months I did more than most would in an entire year.

I had one interview where I spent a long time getting ready (a warehouse manager role) for and I was told within the first minute with a smirk that "it's strange for someone like you to actually WANT to do this type of work" as if you can neatly fit work into 'white' and 'blue' collar. I proceeded to call the HR recruiter who set it up and told her to never waste my time again. Once I started being a bit of a jerk and ignoring the advice of useless 'experts' is when things started to turn around ironically enough.

I ask you then if it's not the interview and the ridiculous bias they have in favor of sociopaths and against Aspies (gee, every sociopath I know has a high paying job) then what the heck is it?

just remember to look good in the interview. If you look good and have decent social skills, people will think more highly of you.

Would you think more highly of a hobo on crack who cusses people out or a sharp-dressed man who is polite to others?

Oh yah the boss likes it if you ask him/her questions when you're at a job interview because that shows you're interested. Showing eye contact is easy. If you're having trouble, just pretend you're having a staring contest with the boss but lose everytime by blinking.

and don't worry too much, just let social skills flow naturally. All you have to do is listen to what the boss has to say while nodding your head. Be sure to remember to laugh at his unfunny jokes. People like it when you laugh at their jokes.

I rarely do well in job interviews. I think it's because I come across as nervous and have trouble answering "on the spot" questions. My best interviews were where the interview process was short and to the point.

Temp agencies are a great way to get a permanent job. Get on with a temp agency if you are having trouble. Show up regularly, do good work, and they will keep calling you. You will have to put up with some nasty jobs/employers, but sooner or later a good employer will offer a job when they see your work. That's my experience anyway. I've only used this for warehouse type work though.

Thus validating the concept of "Nice guys finish last".

...

If you people are done complaining now, how about presenting what you believe to be a "fair" examination?

Keep in mind that as an employer, I would (hypothetically) be looking for a person who is both willing and able to perform a job that requires:

• Following orders, both verbal and written
• Adapting to rapidly-changing priorities
• Adapting to variations in working environment
• Getting along with co-workers at every level
• Communicating with vendors and customers
• Diligent arrival and attendance

... not to mention the actual skills related to the position.

And even if you don't know someone at the company, a former aerospace engineer recommended sending in a resume to HR and finding the phone number of the actual hiring manager.

And if you get this person on the phone, a brief, easy, one or two sentence introduction of who you are and then, "I've already sent a copy of my resume to HR. May I send you a copy also?" And that's the money statement. And please notice that you are not asking them to go around HR.

And you might catch the person on a good day, and you might not. This is more of a best bet approach.

In a speech, Temple Grandin said people on the Spectrum tend to have one of three cognitive approaches, with some overlap of course:

1) abtract thinkers, such as people good at math,

2) story/narrative thinkers (who for example might do excellent with the case study method used in medical or law school), and

3) picture thinkers, like Temple herself.

Well every autistic is different with different difficulties.

I'm a story / narrative thinker. With math classes, I tend to either get an A or an F, and think I've figured out why. If I have the time available and take the time to explain to myself what the math concepts are doing (for example, that a particular graph is exploding upward and why it's exploding upward), then I usually understand things very well and do very well. If I don't have the time or if I can never connect with the subject matter, then that's not so good.

They're unfair to a lot of people. But that's the way things are, right? The majority is always right, even when they're dead wrong. If your natural sleep cycle falls outside of the expected norm, if you sleep best nocturnally, then people will judge you as someone with no self control rather than someone who simply prefers to be awake at night. If you have no taste for pop music and dubstep, then sorry, the selection of social places is cut incredibly short. Is it right, is it moral that it's expected for men to lose their virginity before they're 18? No, likely not, but that's how the majority likes it, so anything else and you're branded a loser, no matter whether it was choice or misfortune.

The majority rules this world without logic, without reason, and most of all, without care, weaving nonsense and resisting change simply because "it's the way things have always been". Until the majority changes, us and everyone else who falls outside of that majority are rather trapped having to struggle to fit into a role they don't want to, and often can't, perform.

I think one improvement would be if college admissions were an OR rather than an AND. For example, they could be open to admitting students with good grades or good test scores. And if we want to go a little far afield, the dance department or the philosophy department, for example, could have a limited number of admissions for unconventional students.

It would be completely illogical to hire people without some kind of interview except for the most menial of jobs. A job interview might not be useful for someone picking up trash in the park, but it is a necessity for the vast majority of jobs. Job interviews are not going to end no matter how much some people don't like them.

a lot do. they go through temp agencies or contracting agencies (basically the same thing but different pay scales, levels of responsibility, etc.). i used to get a lot of secretarial jobs through temp agencies, and later a lot of contract jobs through recruiters. they were all "temp to permanent" - low risk to the company, you can't sue if they fire you, no sense of investment by the management. and i've had a fair share convert to permanent regular employment.

i can't work full time anymore, and my resume is so spotty it's hardly even worth sending it out, although i do have a great skillset; so next city i hit (nothing available here) i'm thinking about signing on with another temp agency and see what happens. nice thing about temping is only ONE interview, which is pretty forgiving--if there's a second one where you are placed, it's usually also less intense because they are not making a "final" decisions--and you have some choice how long you stay with any company, by picking and choosing your placement. good for someone like me.

When being asked questions during an interview apparently answering "It's all in my resume, did you read it?" is not the right answer.

Hello awkward silence.

LOL... no... but sometimes it sure is tempting!

truth is they are looking at a lot of resumes and trying to parse through a lot of repetitive (but not identical) information so i generally try to be supportive and understanding in those situations.

That's quite true.

Rather far from this topic but loosely related to this : A few years ago a lawyer in the west, I think in the State of Washington, didn't think that the local judge was actually reading the briefs he filed before ruling on them.

So he decided to conduct a little test.

He took two consecutive pages of a brief he was submitting to the court and fixed it so that there was a little paper bridge between to consecutive pages in the brief. That is, when you opened the brief, there was a little bit that would tear or break as you turned to the page. The little paper bridge was so small that it would likely not be all that noticeable.

A little while after the judge made his ruling, he went back to the court clerk and requested to see the copy of the brief which is not unusual. Sure enough, the tiny paper bridge between the two pages was still there and unharmed.

Word got around about what he had done and the lawyer was reportedly in a bit of trouble for pulling that trick.