View Single Post
Old 06-06-2010, 07:25 PM   #52
GenghisTron
AKA LittleAndroidMan
D&A Member
Beta Tester
 
GenghisTron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dystopia
Class/Position: Demo/Medic
Gametype: CTF
Affiliations: [TALOS] [SR]
Posts Rated Helpful 11 Times
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy View Post
I haven't ever stated that individuals and companies who agree that a person will never come into contact with customers or vendors and allow their employees to wear whatever they want is a bad thing. Bridget and I are discussing an business position interview in which the company itself requires a standard of professional dress. If you disagree that the company shouldn't take into account what they wear to that interview I'd like to hear the argument, otherwise I'm not sure what you're even talking about.
No, you never explicitly stated that, but you are implying it when you make no exception to the rule by claiming that someone who doesn't follow the traditional corporate dress code would be a 'distraction'. You're not taking into account what role said employee would have in his company.

And no, I never said anything about apparel in the interview. You'll note that when I defended Bridget, I quickly over-viewed you guys' arguments, and really only stuck up for him on a singular point. You argument on interview is irrelevant to me, because I have not brought it up, nor do I have any interest in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy View Post
Right here:
False. You're missing the point. Where did I say it makes them unethical? I didn't. I didn't implicitly, or explicitly say it makes them unethical. That's your interpretation of what I said.

Not speaking up when you see something wrong being done in no way, shape, or form, is 'unethical'. It is shady, but I can sympathize. People have a hard time letting their morals get in the way of their own interests, especially when the responsibility is not on their shoulders. As demonstrated by the Milgram experiment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy View Post
Wow, you've never lived in a corporate environment. I have, and in many, and although I and my coworkers dress appropriately for business we have often questioned and disagreed with our upper management. I've on two occassions told a superior I would not do as they asked because it wasn't ethical and had to involve human resources...
Right, and unless you work at a major corporation, chances are you won't see much ethical abuse. The ethics problems come when corporations become larger. This is pretty much a given.

Working in a 'corporate' environment, and working in a 'corporation' can mean a lot of things. Corporations are measured differently, by definition a 'small' business has less than 2,000 employes (still very large, comparatively), and market capitalization of $300 million dollars. The devil is in the details when it comes to corporations, so simply saying you work at a corporation, or that you work in a 'corporate environment' doesn't mean much. My mom works in a 'corporate' environment, and it's just her and her boss doing taxes. When I talk about a corporation hiring conformists, I'm talking about the huge mega-corporations, where power is centralized. Obviously there won't be much corruption in a company with ~50 employees.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy View Post
If you have worked in a corporate environment I really feel sorry for the companies you've been at, what a horrible place to work. I, and know one I have ever known, has ever worked like that.
There's plenty of examples. Most of the major corporations are like that. The mega-corporations are the ones that have ethics problems. They're the ones buying congressman, paying off regulators, rent-seeking, etc. As I said above, the devil is in the details.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzy View Post
Only because you know the answer is: I'd hire the guy that would be less of a distraction, no matter how minute.
Ok, well, that's kind of like cardinal utility, and it's a terrible business decision. Of course if you owned your own business, it's entirely your decision, but if you're going to hire someone who is less productive because they're 'less of a distraction', you're the one losing out.

Since we're dragging this thread entirely off-topic, and you didn't agree or disagree with my main point in the first post above where I defended Bridget, I'm assuming you agree?

Reference:

Quote:
Bridget's argument is strictly normative--he's saying that it's superficial to judge someone by their appearance, and not their work ethic. He's saying that good appearance and good work ethic are not mutually exclusive. So while, yes, appearance CAN be a good way to weed out bad workers, it's not a concrete way.
Ok, I'm glad we could agree!
__________________

Last edited by GenghisTron; 06-06-2010 at 07:29 PM.
GenghisTron is offline   Reply With Quote