Hacker News Reader

You have employees with outstanding arrest warrants and domestic violence issues? It kind of sounds like you also need to reevaluate your hiring practices...

Edit: I'd like to encourage people responding to this to consider the context: an article about why someone doesn't want to employ a certain category of people, and a response to that article about how there's lots of value to be found in that category, if only the author had better hiring practices. E.g. "somebody's gotta hire them" would apply equally to the article's female employees, and thus is also a criticism of hiring practices that exclude those "problem" people, which presumably includes the parent. IOW, the premise here is that you want to hire people maximally useful to your business. Maybe you don't think that's should be the point, but then you're having a different discussion.

Manufacturing is like that. I've bailed my guys out of jail (enough to get a quickie card from the bondsman), separated fights, etc. It goes with the territory.

If this is the case, then this is hardly a fair comparison. Reason 1 being women in manufacturing are typically in office jobs and Reason 2 being that, compared to the kinds of men who typically work the floor, just about anyone will look reasonable who works in the office, man or woman.

It probably isn't an equal comparison. The original poster might be in a completely different hiring situation from the blog writer. However, I've hired women to work on the floor in manufacturing and I prefer them. As the original poster said, less BS from the women, more reliability. On average, of course. There are no 100% shortcuts.

We have plenty of women in manufacturing, on the floor, occupying both lower level jobs as well as skilled trade jobs. I am not comparing guys on the floor with accountants.

> Reason 1 being women in manufacturing are typically in office jobs

"Nimble fingers" was one sexist reason to employ women, at lower pay rates, than men in many industries including auto seat making (because of the sewing) and electronic assembly (because of all those fiddly little components).

There are, and have been since the industrial revolution, very many women involved in manufacturing and industry on the shop floor.

This is still true in developing countries. e.g. FoxConn prefers women over men for assembly, but these days they can't be so picky. Most of those died in the recent Bangladesh factory tragedy were women.

Yep. The machinists and welders I've seen are often very, very colorful people.

The outstanding arrest warrants are caught in our recruiting process, prior to a formal hire. We usually work with the candidate to try to resolve them before bringing them on board (it is possible to have an outstanding arrest warrant and not be aware of it, for old nonviolent offenses).

Domestic violence you cannot catch in a background check, unless it's progressed to felony levels obviously. Domestic violence often evolves over time. That is a very challenging situation and we wound up parting ways. Ideally we would have caught symptomatic behavior in the interview process but typically people with those problems can be very good at masking it. Our process certainly isn't perfect, but as we continually fine-tune it we have fewer and fewer of these issues.

I have no doubt that all sorts of stuff slips through the cracks in all sorts of ways. I've certainly had really problematic hires. My issue is I'm trying to square "you have problematic female hires? I bet you just have bad hiring practices" with "our employees sometimes beat their wives". I'm not even saying you're wrong on the narrow point-- maybe the article's author is really bad at hiring women-- but I'm not sure you're in a great position to judge the effects of hiring process quality. Maybe figure that stuff out at hiring time is just hard, for both her and for you?

You're right, it is hard, at least for me it is. But I think how a manager reacts to errors made in the hiring process is important. I try to be introspective, and evaluate how we could have better identified that potential issue preemptively, and adapt our process for the future.

But I don't think that banning some incredibly broad demographic that includes 51% of the applicant pool is a sign that someone is really taking time to think about and fine tune the hiring process. I mean, I accidentally hire some people with drama issues, so my conclusion is don't ever hire women? That's the best process change I can think of? Not asking about conflict resolution experiences, or maybe a teamwork test, but just ban an entire gender? I just don't see how a good hiring process can come out of that kind of thinking. What if then you hire some men who don't communicate as well as they should -- then do we ban all men as well?

Basically, I think hiring is hard and so process based on simplistic rules of gender or skin color or whatever don't usually work well, and besides begin illegal in the US they're also usually a sign of a process that hasn't really been thought out.

By the way -- I re-read your comment, and if I understand it correctly it seems that your stance is because I've made hiring mistakes (even if they are subsequently and promptly corrected) that I should have no credibility to comment on this blogger's hiring process of banning women. I guess it's your prerogative to have that standard -- only those who haven't made any mistakes have credibility -- but, if we assume that anyone who's done a lot of hiring has made mistakes, the only people with credibility in your eyes are those who have done little to no hiring. Personally I wouldn't find that approach useful.

> it seems that your stance is because I've made hiring mistakes (even if they are subsequently and promptly corrected) that I should have no credibility to comment on this blogger's hiring process of banning women

Not at all. I've certainly made significant hiring mistakes and yet I have all sorts of opinions on hiring process. I'm only saying it seems like you would be less inclined to believe the fault must all be hers if your hiring process (which I'm assuming you put real energy into optimizing) also ends up giving you actual criminals sometimes. I'm not criticizing your criticism of her ban; I'm criticizing your diagnosis of hiring as the source issue.

I don't doubt that it's in at least some part her fault and I completely understand the impulse to write it all off as that (for example, it also does not jive at all with my experiences in working with women, who have always been super professional towards me), but it's hard to see how one could really come to that conclusions about her hiring process without knowing her, the nature of her business, how she treats women, the pool of candidates she has available, and--possibly most importantly--almost anything about her hiring process. Maybe she's an idiot, maybe she had bad luck, maybe she has jobs for which women, for unspecified reasons, aren't well suited for, maybe she has a terrible work environment, maybe her male hires are weird in a way that skews her view of things, or maybe she's even right, or whatever. I just don't see how you can conclude much about hiring practice from "Wow, I've had really bad female employees."

I should also be clear that I'm not defending her decision to no longer hire women. That's also a poor conclusion to make from her observations. If the overall point here is, "she should be thinking harder about how to create an environment in which women can thrive", then I agree.

Edit: it occurs to me that I may have misunderstood "I think this anonymous blogger should evaluate her hiring practices." I was taking that to mean, "you've ended up with bad women because you suck at hiring, and if you fix that, you'll have good female employees" But rereading your responses, it sounds like you might have just been saying, "you shouldn't be adding this ban on hiring women". If so, then probably this whole discussion has been a frustrating miscommunication.

The poster works in manufacturing.

So? The point of the post is that they think the article's author must have poor hiring practices and cites their own experience hiring as evidence. That's a perfectly reasonable line of argument and I'm not even defending the article on that point. But to the degree to which that evidence is applicable to the business described in the article, the parent's own employee issues are also comparable. If you want to say that manufacturing hiring is simply completely different than in...whatever the article's author does, then sure, but then what's the point of the comparison again?

I'd also point out that I don't quite understand why manufacturing hires should involve wanted criminals...

Somebody's gotta weld pipe, turn metal, and crank wrenches. I don't see Ivy leaguers applying. A guy who chose the wrong parents and learned to make bad decisions instead of good ones can get these jobs because no one else wants them, and they don't require that much skill.

Not quite. They do require just enough skill and just enough technical learning to filter out most of the non-college educated population, but not enough to attract any college grads. So you end up hiring the people with the skill who are generally intelligent but don't always (as you said) make smart life decisions. Usually pretty awesome people with a few issues.

Disclaimer: Family business (that I am not part of, but do tend to frequent) is a machine shop.

> require just enough skill and just enough technical learning to filter out most of the non-college educated

Ok, fair enough, although I submit that is pretty much the lowest working definition of a tradable skill.

I was, am, in the Navy. Have had to go to the jailhouse with sailors, and have had contract work finished late because the pipe fitters, welders, etc, put valves in backwards, forget to weld before charging the system, etc.

Are you sure that world where such people are unemployable is better? It is better for all of us if they can find employment somewhere. Otherwise they have no other choice then collect social checks or steal.

>You have employees with outstanding arrest warrants and domestic violence issues? It kind of sounds like you also need to reevaluate your hiring practices...

so, nobody should hire "problem" people? Typical "holier than thou attitude".

Why should they? It doesn't mean that they're classist, or snobbish or anything. If the "problems" affect their work life, and as a consequence the profitability of the business, then it's a purely practical decision to make.

Now, some people choose to give people more chance than they deserve because they're nice. Nothing wrong with that. But make no mistake, someone who brings their "problems" to work doesn't deserve that job because they're not willing to put in effort to separate the two. There are dozens of willing, able, and motivated candidates who will do better.

You can be nice and have problems.

You're not nice if you let your problems affect your work to a large extent. There is only so much we can expect an employer to bear. And to be honest, that largely depends on your usefulness to the employer. Unfortunately, that means that since lower-paid workers are more easily replaceable, that the employer is less willing to bear with the problems.

Exactly. Clearly I don't support domestic violence, but the alternative is to have them on the street or living on government assistance. Someone's gotta hire them.

Haha, do you think manufacturing is staffed by people who aspire to work in factories, or those who can't get hired anywhere else?

What do you mean by "aspire to work in factories?" When your job prospects are Fast Food, other Restaurant, Retail, or Factory / Warehouse job, is it "aspiring to work in a factory?"

I ask because I worked in Factories and Warehouses before going to college and becoming a programmer. Working in those places wasn't a "lifelong dream" but they were better than almost ALL alternatives for what skills I had. Better as in pay, benefits and not having to deal with people(customers) directly.

Not to detract from your point that highly skilled college graduates aren't flocking to factory jobs, just pointing out that those of us that have been there actually have actively sought those jobs out. I guess you could say I was "aspiring to work in a factory." Hell, when the average job everywhere else was 6-7 dollars an hour, a 15 dollar an hour factory job was a hot commodity.

You hit the nail on the head, factories can't be picky about who they hire because anyone who has a better option takes it, it was mostly about the idea that a factory could hire people with out warrants and still have employees.

I worked in a warehouse after high school too, nothing provides 'inspiration' to code like the alternative being stacking boxes.

I know it makes me sound like a bad person, but it wasn't even the effort or boredom of stacking boxes, but the dead looks in employees eyes that had been there for decades. I didn't want to end up in a loveless job. I love what I do now and would do it even if I were independently wealthy (well, not put up with PMs, etc), and that's more than I ever hoped to achieve while working in a factory or warehouse.

This is exactly what I was thinking when I posted, those people.

Did you happen to call them lifers? That's what we called them, I was pretty sure that their primary goal in life was to spread their misery to others.

I felt like Coolhand Luke there, one of the lifer managers really seemed to hate me because it was just a stop along the road for me, and made it pretty much his mission to make my life miserable which I countered by not being miserable, as an example one night he started by giving me 4 hours extra overtime, he was looking for me about 5 minutes before my 12th hour, so ducked around the racks for a few minutes before making it to the break room for my 30 minute paid break after 12.

He found me in the break room and I thanked him for the overtime, he was not impressed, then I asked if I could show up late the next day due to all the overtime I worked, he flatly refused and started telling me that first thing tomorrow I'd be sweeping the docks on the driveway.

So I get there the next day at 7 AM in full freezer gear (more OT because the stupid fuck was so caught up that he forgot about the 8 hours between shifts rule) find him and complain about having to sweep the docks, he smiles hands me the broom and tells me to get to work, get outside, beautiful day, take off my gear, throw my freezer jacket in a puddle, and start sweeping.

About noon, he finds me with a smile on, and I let him know I just got paid time and a half to sweep, and didn't even have to work freezer on this beautiful day, so he sends me to the freezer, and I refuse because my jacket is soaked.

Funny thing is he ends up getting in shit the next pay cheque cuz I'm way over on pay and way under on cases.

Yep, lifers, that is indeed what they were called. My last gig before I decided to go to college was a "corregated board" factory. 100+ degree (F) temps (pretty hot in the winter too), second shift type work (printing and cutting), and I played the "points" game with sick days/leave. Union job, so us noobs got stuck with the manditory overtime if the older guys didn't want it. You could use points to not have to work over, but you only got so much. I played it badly and they let me go. I was signed up for classes that next day.

I think part of the problem is that both you and the blogger are talking about hiring interchangeable bottom-level workers. I assume you're not talking about skilled labour like electricians and millwrights. You're talking about unskilled workers. Highschool-educated guys.

The blogger mentioned secretaries. Not somebody who has credentials they've honed and invested in.

Even without an education, a professional needs to build success to make the difference between a "job" and a "profession". People who don't have any credentials like that are basically used as interchangeable parts in the job market - one CSR or one stock-room worker is replaceable with any other.

And likewise, they can (and should) treat their employer as just as interchangeable. Everybody needs customer service workers. Everybody needs guys who'll push a cart and lift stuff.

I used to do software for steel warehouses. I met brilliant electricians and accountants and whatnot, but I also dealt with the truckers and the gals who worked the desk with the truckers. And that's where the difference was.

It's hard to discuss this stuff without being really, really classist, because I don't think it's about "class" so much as the investment a person makes in their career. But I think that this "investment" is what makes this difference - is it a job or a career?

It's true, there can be many issues with lower level workers. But in skilled trades it is common to find people who have interesting quirks to their personality, despite being very good at their job technically. I see this often in skilled machinists, welders, machine maintenance people, etc. Some people may call the quirks "unprofessional" but it can come with the territory.

Quirks are fine as long as they aren't destructive to others or to the common goal. Sometimes it does make it a challenge though because there just aren't that many people out there with the necessary skill and experience, especially in more specialized areas, so you wind up having to choose between someone with a fantastic attitude but limited skill and a very skilled tradesperson that takes a little more hands-on management (in the sense that you have to help them develop more empathy, to not quarrel, to communicate better with colleagues, etc).

It's definitely a fine line. Somebody with great skill can still cause too much havoc within a team and make it an undesirable place to work. You have to take action on that, because ultimately it needs to be a happy place to work. And it's not a pay issue either, we've hired people well into the six figure range who at the end of the day just couldn't develop functional relationships with others.

Yeah it's the difference between living to work, and working to live.

> The blogger mentioned secretaries. Not somebody who has credentials they've honed and invested in.

Have you ever worked with a good secretary? It sounds like you haven't.

Hi everyone! Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I am the author of the post Clarissa ran on her blog. To clarify, every single employee I have is university educated. My secretary had a Master's Degree (she was young so the role was a stepping stone into a very different position). Not sure if that changes anything, but thought I would point it out.

"she was young so the role was a stepping stone into a very different position"

In the old days the secretary position was a vocation in itself. Now I see two types of people: - someone who actually wants to do something else. They tend to at least not be stupid, but they aren't going to give a ton of time to honing their secretarial skills either and are going to leave as soon as they get the job they really want. - someone who frankly just isn't very bright. Secretarial work is unfortunately not very high status these days. People who are ambitious and intelligent don't generally chose to be secretaries.

But you can't swing a cat without hitting an executive assistant three years out of college and using it as a stepping stone. The value proposition of being the boss's calendar-keeper has been reversed.

That username wasn't taken before today? Colour me shocked!

It was - I added a 'dash' ;)

A space and a dash and it would have been perfect!

I've worked with great men and women in every field, secretaries included. But the blogger was talking about secretaries, so secretaries are obviously a pain-point for her. My point is just that you run into more sources of trouble in those jobs that have no barrier to entry - no investment needed for it.

"No barrier to entry" for secretaries?

That's a failure of people hiring secretaries, not of secretaries.

Take, for example, typing. Many people on HN will have fast typing speeds. But we also see that many people on HN want to wear headphones or have separate areas for work. There is talk of "flow". A secretary does not have these luxuries. They have to produce fast typing, with high accuracy, in combination with constant interruption. Good secretaries can type a letter while talking to someone.

Have you ever tried shorthand? Take a look at Pittman Shorthand. Take a course. Tell me it's not a barrier to entry.

The blogger mentioned secretaries. Not somebody who has credentials they've honed and invested in.

Some secretaries are awesome, though.

It could be an income level thing. Not that I like making generalizations (and this is just the observation of other people's experience, I don't agree with this personally as I have no personal data to support the majority of observations which lead to it):

* At low incomes, women are responsible workers, men are irresponsible workers.

* At higher incomes (middle class), men are responsible workers, women are irresponsible workers.

It could come from the confluence of privilege and feminism, lower income female workers think they have to go the extra mile to prove they deserve the job, because feminism isn't ingrained in them, the communities they live in often force women into gender roles (they just happen to be the more responsible roles). Upper income female workers have ingrained feminism, but society still treats (via media, social interactions, etc) them like their old gender roles (ever see girls on teen TV shows? It's the most sexist shit I've seen on TV). This means they believe they are equal to men (which they are) but they also believe (due to society) that they can behave like society expected them to 50 years ago, which they can't if they want a job in the modern work place.

Again, I blame society.

This might be because you are male. Woman are likely to interact with you differently than they might interact with another woman.

Many of our managers are also female. There isn't much drama between them and other female managers, or female employees. We work hard on getting the right people on board, and correcting the mistakes when we don't.

This is rather apples to oranges. Blue collar manufacturing work where women run at only 25% of the workforce and men have higher than national average crime rates --- you are bound to have more problems with the men.

Not to endorse the author's view, but compare the above to your typical white collar environment with a more even distribution of men and women doing similar, non-physical work. Easier to judge the gender differences there.

You'd like her to reevaluate her hiring practices and yet you make a very similar claim to hers:

If anything I have had fewer melodrama issues with women.

I addressed that. I do not make hiring decisions based on it because I do not believe there is a causal relationship that can (either functionally, legally or morally) be used as the basis for a hiring decision. Other factors are far more important.

  >outstanding arrest warrants, inability to resolve past DUI
  >offenses with the courts, domestic violence that spreads into
  >the workplace, absenteeism, etc. -- all actual issues we have
  >had to deal with.

Umm...maybe you just need to pay higher wages. Pay monkey wages, get monkeys.

Most of our production workers earn over $21/hr, up to $45-50/hr depending on the position. There are a few doing very basic manual labor (stacking small objects) that are more in the $14/hr rate, but I'm not really referring to them in the post.

It's a common mistake to think that in the skilled trades, people automatically behave much more professionally. Often very skilled welders or machinists have some interesting quirks to them, but they still get paid well and do a good job. We would only let them go if they started creating a dysfunctional team environment for others, and could not correct it.

I hope you're just Russian and incorrectly composed an aphorism. "Pay peanuts and you get monkeys" is I think what you were going for. Unfortunately, it came off as extremely classist.

That said, even your central thesis, pay higher wages, misses the fact that in a functioning market economy, higher wages isn't always possible, or even productive.