Hacker News Reader

Comment by joebob42 | Hacker News Reader

I was referring to the family / kids but more than the 10 years.

If what you're saying is "that's what I'm looking for but I wouldn't say it..."

I dunno, that seems like exactly the sort of thing people would complain about.

So ... you have issue with people maybe having kids (whether their own / adopted, etc) or perhaps having family in an area (cousins, parents, etc) ?

This seems odd to say the least.

As I stated, for longer termed positions that require some stability matching the duration of a capital build project we look for people that have had exposure to a variety of past experiences and some demonstrated ability to stick something out coupled with some indication they making long term plans.

Which bit of that goes agin your HR policy?

The problem is favoring candidates based on non-professional features, like their families, as you admitted to doing.

That's not what was said ...

Some positions require a degree of intelligence, there are many things that can demonstrate levels and types of intelligence.

Some positions demand a certain amount of physical endurance, there are many things that can indicate physical ability.

Some positions demand a level of stability and commitment to time scale, there are many different factors that can indicate that.

Some comments require a certain ability to read qualifiers and nuance in the English language, there are many that breeze right past such things and imagine things unwritten.

What rubbish, the only commitment for employees is to work to professional standards in lieu of money. If you need such long term commitments then hire like executives with retention, i.e. if you let go the employee before the term (except for misconduct/fraud etc.) then agreed compensation must be paid as per written contract, but you won't do it.

> ie maybe kids, perhaps a new house, maybe family in the area, etc.

None are in any way indicators of professional capabilities.

They are indicators of time commitments to the area. Re-read the thread slowly because you’re incorrectly equating “having kids means they are more likely to be stable” with “they must have kids to be stable”.

You are both unprofessional and violating the law by discriminating against people based on legally protected parameters, like having children or not. Furthermore you're posting this on HN like an absolute fool. This is great evidence for people that claim discrimination is real in the tech industry.

> discriminating against people based on legally protected parameters, like having children or not.

Perhaps you might like to re-read what was written, slowly and very carefully.

Some people struggle with parsing meaning from English and jump to rash interpretation.

I think he/she misread but one could argue what you wrote is anti-DEI in terms of those who don’t have kids, etc but I can’t imagine anybody proving it.

FWIW your approach is the most sound one I read on this thread and how most successful companies probably do it. I do feel it is slightly discriminatory though against those with un ordinary paths

Reply on news.ycombinator.com