Oakland Business Solutions
HR director Frank Steves
Applicant Barton Guster
HR: Mr. Guster, thank you for coming in today.
BG: My pleasure.
HR: I was quite impressed with your resume and application, and I think we have a position
tailor-made for a man of your talents.
BG: Great! When do I start? (laughs)
HR: (laughing) I like your attitude...Bart? May I call you Bart?
BG: Sure-all my friends do.
HR: Okay, Bart-I just have a few questions-if I make these interviews too short, my boss thinks I'm not
working hard enough, y'know?
BG: I hear you, Frank-ask me anything. Open book.
HR: Okay! Just a few points to cover...on your application, on the line covering
arrests, whether you had ever been in trouble with the law, you wrote none. Is that true?
BG: Well...I had a few speeding tickets back in high school, but nothing since then.
HR: I see. Just driving a bit too fast. When we're kids, we gotta get everywhere in a hurry, don't we?
BG: Yeah, heavy foot syndrome-that's what my Dad called it.
HR: Heavy foot syn...so, nothing since high school?
BG: Straight and narrow, Frank.
HR: Good to hear, Bart. You know, when you came in to drop off your resume the other day, I thought I
knew you from somewhere. Blue streak?
BG: Excuse me?
HR: Didn't you used to have a blue streak in your hair, Bart? I see that you keep it shaved now.
BG: Um...yeah, a few years ago in college I did have blue in my hair.
HR: I thought so! You! You were that guy in that Occupy Wall Street group- a spokesman for the
movement!
BG: Um...
HR: Sure it was you! I remember you pouring red paint on that Cadillac. You and your buddies were
carted off to jail!
BG: Charges were dropped, Frank. We were...
HR: Yup! I remember-charges were dropped, as the company you were protesting didn't want any more
bad press. You wouldn't start any trouble here at OBS, would you?
BG: No!
HR: Guster, you know how tight the job market is-I have a plum position available that 80% of this year's
college graduates would kill just to interview for-they never put paint on a car or protested anything-
why should I hire you?
BG: I...I...I can't believe this.
HR: Believe what you like. Why should I hire you? Why should I take a chance on someone who has
been a troublemaker in the past?
BG: Mr. Steves, please-I need this job! I can't believe you would...
HR: Believe I would what? Blackball you? You blackballed yourself. Actions have consequences, Mr.
Guster, and I think my boss would consider this interview to be long enough. Have a good day.
Sammy's Grinders and Subs
Shift manager Jim W.
Applicant Barton Guster
JW: You get three plastic aprons a week, $6.50 taken out of your first check for the hat. We'll start you
on the deep fryer.
BG: Thank you!
18 comments:
I know, I know- I tried fixing the HTML, but the composition was screwy.
This post came about from wondering about Occupy Wall Street people-if they want to live in America, someone has to hire them. If they hate Corporate America, what would they do?
They can't all teach.
They can't all work for the government.
SOME of them will have to apply to the big mean public sector for jobs, and OWS might be a detriment to their resume.
Of course, I was only having with the names-Steve Franks created Burton Gusser as the co-lead on the show "Psych", which I enjoy.
'Gus' is in no way the model for Barton Gusser in my piece...except for the (nearly) shaved head. Dule'
Hill is great in that role.
Fun for fun, but seriously, being a part of OWS is going to be a black mark on many young people's careers. They won't be activists forever-eventually they will need jobs. Biting the hands holding the paychecks is not smart, and who hires dumb people? On purpose?
So we shouldn't protest social injustice lest we anger the oppressor?
Here's the part where you explain to me that it's not really social injustice and we're not really oppressed. Well, anyone who lives in this country is less oppressed than most, I'll give you that. And you go up against the moneychangers and you could get hurt, I'll give you that too. Yet it's still injustice, and the question remains.
Hi Lu-always the contrarian, eh?
What you define as 'social justice' I see as class warfare. There is nothing unjust in being expected to make our own way in the world rather than expecting that the world "be fair".
The world isn't fair.
Pitting the poor against the rich keeps Liberals in the 'social justice business' which, ironically, is quite lucrative. How many billions of dollars have Liberal activists made out of fronting for the poor?
The Conservative ideal is that each one of us is capable of standing on our own, making our own way in the world by the sweat of our brow.
If everyone did that, there would be no poor, and Liberals would have to earn an honest living along with the rest of us.
I could be considered 'poor' if you judge me by the amount of money I have, the money I will make in my lifetime. I've earned every penny. I don't need some activist railing against 'the rich' to make me feel better about my situation, because I am pleased with my situ.
"So we shouldn't protest social injustice lest we anger the oppressor?"
A false premise in your question, Lu-I am not oppressed. I do not see someone else making more money than I am to be 'social injustice' and if you actually believe in that stuff (which I doubt-I think you just like being contrary)then I ask you-will you ever be happy?
Does the fact that others make more money than you do actually seem unjust?
Does it bother you that Brad Pitt makes millions of dollars standing in front of a camera? Isn't that unfair to all of the other poor artists who never caught a break?
Should they picket in front of his next movie premiere?
Ridiculous. Someday all of the idealistic Occupy Wall Street people will grow up and have a spouse, a mortgage and 2.3 kids.
They will thank God for the jobs that they have...or at least for their credit cards.
No, it doesn't bother me that some people make more money than I do for standing in front of a camera, or throwing a ball, or writing books that mangle the English language but still sell zillions of copies, or singing not much better than I can (and there's a reason I have a day job). It does bother me when elected officials are in the pockets of lobbyists and Wall Street robber barons come up with ever cleverer ways to separate the rest of us from our money while paying a much lower tax rate than you and I do. The 99 percent, that's you and I, have invested our money in 401k plans for a very select few to gamble with. (I work for a company that makes securities trading software, so I have some familiarity with the subject.)
Since you seem disinclined to answer my question, let me pose another one: today I was out canvassing for a political candidate, one you would never vote for, and she's probably also anathema to the Republican CEO of the company that employs me. If I happened to knock on his door and ask for his vote, would it be OK for him to fire me? (As far as I know I'd have no legal recourse: the First Amendment prohibits only government infringement of free-speech rights. Note, however, that I broke no laws, and I certainly didn't vandalize anything.)
Nice long comment eaten by the system.
No, Lu-it wouldn't be right.
Interesting. I wish I could read that long comment. Why would it not be right if he saw me as working against his interests by trying to get a Democrat elected? There are probably legions of real American loyal Republicans out there wishing they had my job. (Well, OK, but there must be at least one.)
"Why would it not be right if he saw me as working against his interests..."
Does your strawman boss live in Nazi Germany, perhaps? The S.A. would arrest citizens for not saluting them properly.
In this country, as you are well aware, Lu, you could pass out literature, bang a drum for the opposition, get on a megaphone denouncing your boss's candidate...and still he would not
be able to fire you.
Freedom of Speech is a wonderful gift, isn't it?
My manager is a Democrat-we maintain a fine relationship by never arguing politics.
The missing comment had something to do with the negative coloring of Wall Street by your denouncing their industry leaders as 'Robber Barons'. So 17th Century, Lu.
Also interesting that your outrage towards big salaries doesn't extend to entertainers in Hollywood or sports.
So-if they entertain you, they are okay...but if they try to make a profit while keeping our country's economy going...they are evil and greedy?
Without a strong economy you won't have the means to go to a ball game or show. You and I need a strong economy more than we need disposable income outlets.
My strawman boss (actually my boss's boss's boss, I think -- I may have missed a boss in there) is not a strawman but an actual real live person who, to his credit, put up his house to finance a startup that now, about 15 years later, employs over 400 people. I have tremendous respect for him and other entrepreneurs like him, but that doesn't keep me from believing that they should pay their fair share. My CEO makes roughly 200 times as much a year as I do. Shouldn't his tax rate be at least as high as mine? (Not absolute dollars paid, rate.) Some CEOs are indeed evil, some aren't, and I don't care to grade them on a moral scale even if I could, I just want them to have to pay their fair share. (OK, and I do want better laws against fleecing people and better enforcement of the ones already in place. Doesn't the Bible say something about usury?)
There is nothing in the Constitution that says my boss can't fire me for expressing political opinions that he doesn't like. The Constitution only says that the government can't keep me from expressing any political opinion whatsoever. I agree that my boss's firing me on such grounds wouldn't be right, but, as far as I know, it would be legal. (He can't fire me or refuse to hire or promote me because of my race, creed, ethnicity, national origin, or sex, but I don't believe political opinions or activities are protected. It does seem like they should be, doesn't it? Further research is required, and I cordially invite you to cite the law(s) that I've overlooked. Of course, if he were to fire me I'd have a lot more time for political work, which might not be what he had in mind.)
I learned something today-thanks, Lu.
Looking up the First Amendment stuff, I discovered that an employer can indeed fire a worker for political affiliation...in the work place.
"If I happened to knock on his door and ask for his vote, would it be OK for him to fire me?"
No-in the public arena, on the street where he lives, on your own time, your rights of free speech are well protected.
But If you marched into his office on company time and called him a Bush-Loving Toe Tapper while extolling the virtues of voting Democrat...different story.
Here-try this one on for size:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_thought
Are you sure? The wikipedia article doesn't specifically discuss workers' rights of political speech. I found this article that says there's no federal law against firing an employee of a private business for political speech in or out of the workplace (#5). You're only protected if your employer violates your rights as a member of a protected class, and political affiliation isn't a protected class.
On the other hand, I found this post that says "...an employer who discriminates against an employee for his political views can be subject to legal liability." But it doesn't say in what circumstances or if this is under federal or state law.
Then there's this article, which talks about what political speech may be protected under labor law.
Only that last article cites any specific law; of course if it's true that there's no federal law against getting fired for political speech (again according to what I read that applies to private employees only), that makes it hard to cite anything.
So, if you can find a specific law that says my boss can't fire me for political speech outside the workplace, you'll prove me and several Internet experts wrong, always a good day's work.
P.S. There's some interesting discussion of political-speech rights (or lack thereof) in the comments on this post which links to the first article I cited above.
I love doing a good day's work, and I don't need to state anything beyond the 1st Amendment. It's not just about what the government can or cannot do with regard to your freedom of speech; the example you gave, Lu, of you arriving on your boss's doorstep on your own time to me constitutes you exercising your right to speak freely about anything political or otherwise. That is public discourse.
You are free to express whatever you want (except yelling fire in a crowded theater)wherever you want to in PUBLIC.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Here is the part which protects you:"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
Your boss cannot do something which the 1st Amendment doesn't even allow the government to do-he cannot void your right to free speech or assembly.
Remember, Lu-you are the one who set the example with your boss not in the workplace, but at his front door on your own time. So arguments about protection of political speech in the workplace are not part of the equation.
Look back at the end of that 1st Amendment:"and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Those aren't simply grievances against the government-if your boss DID violate your rights to freedom of speech or assembly, you would have the right to petition the government against him to protect your rights. In other words, you could take him to court and win.
I followed the links, Lu, and mostly they talk about workplace rights. Not to put too fine a point on it, your example doesn't fit.
I will share a story, though. At one job interview I went to, the supervisor said, "I can't ask this question, but I'm going to anyway: Do you drink? Because we've had quite a problem lately with workers who have drinking problems."
I understood completely-and my being a non-drinker probably helped me get that job.
Alcoholism is quite a problem in the 'culinary' profession.
As I lived onsite at that resort, I had to deal with drunk fellow employees who didn't show up for work, who made noise and trouble and caused damage.
Bottom line- I've been fired unfairly more than once. I looked for a better situation, and found it, though I believe that God ultimately directs our steps and that He puts me where He wants me to be.
I am happy to work where I do, for the company that is happy to have me.
But...
Once upon a time, some Scripture packets were left in our breakroom, and, as one of the few Christians in residence, I was accused of putting them there. I hadn't, and I wouldn't proselytize
on company property in the workplace-I understand that that is not acceptable. But-if I were out knocking on doors, witnessing to the Gospel and I visited my boss's door, I would be within my rights to share the Gospel with him (until he slammed the door in my face).
I didn't bring up politicking in the workplace, you did: If you marched into his office on company time and called him a Bush-Loving Toe Tapper while extolling the virtues of voting Democrat...different story. And the first link talks about political speech in or out of the workplace.
Once again, the First Amendment (like the rest of the Bill of Rights) lays out what rights the government can't abridge. I don't think private employers are subject to those rules, though maybe they should be. Case in point: when I started my current job, as a condition of employment I signed an agreement that forbids me to work for a competitor while working there and for a specified time thereafter. I also can't make certain investments, and under company policy I can't moonlight for any other employer or as an independent contractor without my boss's permission. All of which would be clear violations of my constitutional rights if they applied to private industry. Yet noncompete agreements are common, moonlighting restrictions somewhat less so but by no means unheard of.
Now, of course anyone can make you sign anything, drawn up all pretty and in impeccable legal language, and that doesn't mean it will hold good in court. That hold-harmless clause in your lease, and the blurb on the back of your circus ticket that says you can't sue them if the lion mauls you? Void and unenforceable. Here is an article discussing the enforceability of noncompetes, the bottom line being that if the restrictions are considered "reasonable" they will probably stand up in court, with no mention of the First Amendment or any other constitutional rights.
"I didn't bring up politicking in the workplace"
"today I was out canvassing for a political candidate, one you would never vote for, and she's probably also anathema to the Republican CEO of the company that employs me. If I happened to knock on his door and ask for his vote, would it be OK for him to fire me? (As far as I know I'd have no legal recourse: the First Amendment prohibits only government infringement of free-speech rights. Note, however, that I broke no laws, and I certainly didn't vandalize anything.)"
Your argument, Lu, as I pointed out, has you knocking on your boss's door at home, not his office door.
And you continue to miss the point that the First Amendment protects you not only from what the Government can do to you, but also any other citizen (your boss) as you have legal recourse to sue to protect your rights (outside of the workplace).
I once had to take a lie detector test (a real one-hooked up to the machine, asked questions) as a condition of employment, and took a second one a few weeks later when some equipment went missing.
It was probably unconstitutional, but I didn't mind, as I had nothing to hide.
I'm saying that a business can make any law that they want, that you can be compelled to accept if you want to continue to work there.
...a business can make any law that they want, that you can be compelled to accept if you want to continue to work there.
No. A business can't discriminate on the basis of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. It's subject to various laws regulating business activity, as well as to laws that all of us have to obey: UPS drivers can't speed, for instance. You may have to take a business to court to get it to comply with a given law, and in court even an apparent slam dunk may not be (as Lilly Ledbetter famously discovered).
But I really don't think businesses (or private individuals) are subject to constitutional guarantees in the same way the government is. I haven't been able to find anything online that says otherwise. There's an easy way to prove me wrong: find one legal ruling where someone successfully challenged a noncompete, nondisclosure, or other such agreement on free-speech grounds (or on any other constitutional ground). It might not be easy, as most businesses, like all of us, let a lot of things slide because life is too short, but if you're right such a case should exist.
I'll continue to research this one in my copious free time; I don't have a dog in this particular fight, and I'd be just as happy to learn that you were correct.
Update: I just read a story about a woman who was kicked off an American Airlines flight for wearing an offensive t-shirt. Since you would find both the language and the message on the shirt offensive, I won't link it, but you can Google it if you like. Bottom line: as a private company an airline can enforce a dress code, including banning what they consider offensive words on clothing, or in other words speech.
sorry, Lu-as I have shown good evidence of your rights being protected by the Constitution and you continue to ignore that evidence (no matter what you can or cannot find online) I refuse to keep arguing this point.
"there is none so blind as she who will not accept reality."
Sigh-okay, one more time:
"Look back at the end of that 1st Amendment:"and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Those aren't simply grievances against the government-if your boss DID violate your rights to freedom of speech or assembly, you would have the right to petition the government against him to protect your rights. In other words, you could take him to court and win."
The courts are your protection, your place to redress grievances if anyone, including your boss attempts to take away your constitutional rights.The courts are your protection, your place to redress grievances if anyone, including your boss attempts to take away your constitutional rights.The courts are your protection, your place to redress grievances if anyone, including your boss attempts to take away your constitutional rights.
Once again, I understand what you're saying, but I think you are wrong: private businesses aren't bound by the Bill of Rights in the same way the government is. Your continuing to cite the words of the Constitution isn't evidence to the contrary. Employers have a degree of control over what their employees and ex-employees say and do, and businesses have a degree of control over what their customers say and do. I've given you an example of each. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one unless you can find me an example of a successful legal challenge to these rules on free-speech or other constitutional grounds.
I just thought of another one: remember Martha Stewart's insider-trading trial, or any insider-trading trial for that matter? If businesses were bound by the Bill of Rights the way you think they are, no one could ever be prosecuted for insider trading or sued for disclosing confidential info under any circumstances.
Post a Comment