Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I recently started training for a city job as a bus driver. I wasn't guaranteed the job unless I could pass a test after a few weeks of training. Last night I come home to an email for an interview working for the USPS. Now I've been trying to not only get a job for the post office for years but within the last say...... Four or five months I've been called in for testing and passing background checks. So now if I nail this interview the job is mine.Here'S my catch, I can't reschedule the interview and I can't miss 5 minutes of this class.

I've decided to jump in the deep end and am going for the post office as the pay, benefits and hours are much better than the city bus job. I went back and forth for hours on this. It's too late now either way but I thought if you lot shared your "What the hell do I" situations I can stop chewing my bottom lip off

Best of luck whatever

... perhaps phone in with a sudden and unexpected emergency with regards to the test ...?

 reds8n wrote:
Best of luck whatever

... perhaps phone in with a sudden and unexpected emergency with regards to the test ...?

What this man said. Always hedge your bets! Kids are a great excuse for this sort of thing.

Best of luck!

Good luck. Its always hard to think what is best in your situation KC.

My really hard choice almost destroyed my family. It had to play out the way it did though and is ultimately leading to a stronger bond. Cant elaborate too much more on this but shows that the hard choice is sometimes (often) the best one.

"My Recruiter called....."

Best of luck to you, seriously. I hope it works out.

Hard choices are a bit of a thing in my line of work. I chose to do my duty, get on that plane and fly to the desert knowing it would ruin my marriage. I didn't want to, but I swore the oath, and therefore did what I promised I would do. that third deployment was the toughest of my life.

In the end, we got our stuff together, and became a stronger family, once we realized that's what we wanted.

 KingCracker wrote:

I've decided to jump in the deep end and am going for the post office as the pay, benefits and hours are much better than the city bus job. I went back and forth for hours on this. It's too late now either way but I thought if you lot shared your "What the hell do I" situations I can stop chewing my bottom lip off

USPS has the better uniforms.

 d-usa wrote:


USPS has the better uniforms.

Spoiler:

A snappy uniform does make the decision easier.

Yes, but does the post office have a snappy little sing-song?




FYI, I can't believe I actually found this ad on youtube. It was airing way back when I was at the Presidio of Monterey.

 feeder wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


USPS has the better uniforms.

Spoiler:

 Breotan wrote:
Yes, but does the post office have a snappy little sing-song?

Indeed they do!

Be honest and tell them that you had a prior application in to the PO,

worst they can say is no job for you, but it's not impossible that they'd let you try the test later of the PO doesn't offer(after all they've trained you already so it's easier for them than looking for somebody new)

Go for the post office job, most Americans will be happy to see you on the first and third day of each month

 Chute82 wrote:
Go for the post office job, most Americans will be happy to see you on the first and third day of each month

This cracked me probably shouldn't but it did

I had to choose whether or not to read this thread and that was pretty rough.

#thestruggleisreal

Butter or Parkay

#tough

I'm in the middle of deciding if I want to go to college for my field and get thousands of dollars in debt, or just work from the ground up, make less money, but not worry about the debt and the 4 years of school. In which case I'd ultimately never get a higher management job like I want, but make about the same for the most part.

It is not a fun choice and feels like a lose/lose honestly especially since I've yet to meet a person in the NPS, Forest service, or BLM who is legitimately making more because of their degree that wasn't over 40, and therefore hadn't spent near that much in school.

That and being a straight white guy gives you pretty much the worst odds of getting hired in those kinds of jobs right now, which is fun. If you think I'm lying I've had people in charge of the hiring tell me that TO MY FACE. Its absolutely infuriating. Combine that with the fact that government agencies hire based on computers sorting through resumes, you have high odds of the recruiter never even seeing your application because you got a 97 instead of a 98% in desirability.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
That and being a straight white guy gives you pretty much the worst odds of getting hired in those kinds of jobs right now, which is fun. If you think I'm lying I've had people in charge of the hiring tell me that TO MY FACE. Its absolutely infuriating. Combine that with the fact that government agencies hire based on computers sorting through resumes, you have high odds of the recruiter never even seeing your application because you got a 97 instead of a 98% in desirability.

Then perhaps we should refuse to identify our gender and skin colour when submitting applications and resumes. Use a gender neutral nickname in place of your forename. For instance, my Dad's nickname for me as a kid was JoJo which is typically a feminine name but I'm male. (other nicknames were Jehoshaphat and Lord Fauntleroy ).

I typically make a point of refusing to answer diversity questions about my religious beliefs and sexuality when making job applications, educational applications and registering with services and organisations in general, because they're not relevant and very intrusive. I only answer questions relating to things that I can't hide in person as they're self evident, such as gender (male), my age and ethnicity. But perhaps even that is too much information.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
That and being a straight white guy gives you pretty much the worst odds of getting hired in those kinds of jobs right now, which is fun. If you think I'm lying I've had people in charge of the hiring tell me that TO MY FACE. Its absolutely infuriating. Combine that with the fact that government agencies hire based on computers sorting through resumes, you have high odds of the recruiter never even seeing your application because you got a 97 instead of a 98% in desirability.

Then perhaps we should refuse to identify our gender and skin colour when submitting applications and resumes. Use a gender neutral nickname in place of your forename. For instance, my Dad's nickname for me as a kid was JoJo which is typically a feminine name but I'm male. (other nicknames were Jehoshaphat and Lord Fauntleroy ).

I typically make a point of refusing to answer diversity questions about my religious beliefs and sexuality when making job applications, educational applications and registering with services and organisations in general, because they're not relevant and very intrusive. I only answer questions relating to things that I can't hide in person as they're self evident, such as gender (male), my age and ethnicity. But perhaps even that is too much information.

Insane... If someone has a 98% compatibility with their skills, an you have 97% then YOU DON'T DESERVE THE JOB unless you expect your privilege to kick you over the top... Which is what happens. A Lot. 'If only I could get a face to face, they would see me and KNOW I am good with the secret handshake and a wink!' The reason they have gone to high volume computer programs to parse and rate credentials is because the bias which was pervasive in hiring. Especially in government agencies, that type of oversight and anonymization of tens of thousands of positions, it is better than the 'good old boy' network which controlled hiring.

A Black College Student Has The Same Chances Of Getting A Job As A White High School Dropout
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/06/25/3452887/education-race-gap/

And there is a reason why people 'whiten' their names. Asian and East Indian regularly have american Nick-Names. If you think you need to disguise your 'white-sounding name' because you are being actively discriminated against, you are insane. People regularly send the same resume with multiple names and the 'white sounding' names get drastically higher callbacks.

And Religion and Sexual orientation (and a few other things like age and marital status) are illegal for them to ask... so you don't provide them because it is illegal for them to ask about them. It doesn't mean they can't figure some of those things out, and sometimes people with loose lips will let things slip but they shouldn't be considered... Even though they still are like hiring a young female who is freshly married so high chances she will be having a baby in the next 2 years, people discriminate because they don't want to hire someone, train them and then have them out or quit. It is pretty easy to figure that out and make snap judgement even though they shouldn't be.

Long story short... No one is discriminating against white males... if anything, they are finally being treated equally as their peers and the loss of their advantage feels like discrimination after decades of special treatment. If you are really worried, change your name to Jamall and enjoy your new-found jobs you find via reverse discrimination if that is what you believe...

The double think in your post is insane. You're simultaneously claiming White males are never discriminated against...whilst advocating "positive" discrimination.

Employers should be colour blind when hiring employees. NO consideration should be given to skin colour either way. Which is why I understand and sympathise with people who use American sounding nicknames - they're worried that they'll be rejected based on their ethnicity. Thats a reasonable fear.

But hiring a black candidate over a white candidate when they're both equally qualified but the employer has some diversity quota to meet is racism too. Its literally the same thing - white people are worried that they'll be rejected based on their ethnicity because the employer is following a policy of positive discrimination and favouring certain people based on their skin colour. No amount of cognitive dissonance on your part is going to change that.

"Positive" discrimination is still discrimination. You cannot solve racism by inverting it and deliberately discriminating in favour of minorities and against the majority. You haven't solved it, you've just reversed it.

I was responding to someone who said he was explicitly told by recruiters that white candidates are rejected in favor of non-white candidates despite being equally qualified. The remark about "only have 97% desirability instead of 98%" was a completely separate point, and you're conflating it with the point he made about positive discrimination. But by all means, keep beating that Straw Man if it makes you feel better.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Answer me this: are you one of those people who believe in the modern sociological definition of Racism:

Racism = prejudice + power?

Do you think only white people can be racist, that its impossible for non-white people to be racist, and therefore white people can never be discriminated against? It would explain a lot, if you share that mindset.

I'm not denying that black people and other ethnicity minorities are discriminated against in employment. Of course they are. What I'm saying is that the methods you favour as a solution, are inadvertently discriminating against White people. Such a method merely perpetuates the problem.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Do you think only white people can be racist, that its impossible for non-white people to be racist, and therefore white people can never be discriminated against?

Everyone can be discriminated against, but right now, institutionally, white males are not being discriminated against in whole. And often the claim of 'reverse discrimination' is actually being treated equally and loss of privilege. They see things being worse for them personally than 'before' as a bad thing because before they had extreme benefit of the doubt and advantages not due to them via their merit. And they claim every interview they 'lose' must be affirmative action.

And I seriously question what was said by so-called recruiters as such a thing. And illegal statements by bitter people who don't understand employment law may also be conflating 'equal treatment' with 'reverse racism' because they miss the good old days of their old recruitment techniques which were bias. So they tell a candidate they are supposedly being discriminated against because their white due to the ignorance or bias of the interviewer, but in truth that isn't what is happening... And the myth perpetuates.

No one is discriminating against people for white-sounding names. There are micro aggression where people are discriminating against names which fit the interviewers pre-conceived biases which are a problem. But by all means... If someone feels like they are being kept down by PC thugs discriminating against white people... Feel free to use an alias to try to cloak his ethnicity. Whatever floats his boat and feeds his ego to give him an excuse why he is not getting hired.

Ideally, people shouldn't consider 'race-sounding names' in picking candidates for interview, but it happens, and disproportionatly against minorities and women. So while the 'system' needs to be changed, and individual biases of people in power (the hiring people) need to be changed, that doesn't help people NOW who need a job... If you wanted to play the odds, your resume saying 'Michael' is going to better for you than 'Jamall' or 'Abhishek' or 'Chaoxiang'. I can't blame people for guerrilla tactics to try to get equal treatment in a society which is not treating people fairly due to institutionalized racism.

nkelsch wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
That and being a straight white guy gives you pretty much the worst odds of getting hired in those kinds of jobs right now, which is fun. If you think I'm lying I've had people in charge of the hiring tell me that TO MY FACE. Its absolutely infuriating. Combine that with the fact that government agencies hire based on computers sorting through resumes, you have high odds of the recruiter never even seeing your application because you got a 97 instead of a 98% in desirability.

Then perhaps we should refuse to identify our gender and skin colour when submitting applications and resumes. Use a gender neutral nickname in place of your forename. For instance, my Dad's nickname for me as a kid was JoJo which is typically a feminine name but I'm male. (other nicknames were Jehoshaphat and Lord Fauntleroy ).

I typically make a point of refusing to answer diversity questions about my religious beliefs and sexuality when making job applications, educational applications and registering with services and organisations in general, because they're not relevant and very intrusive. I only answer questions relating to things that I can't hide in person as they're self evident, such as gender (male), my age and ethnicity. But perhaps even that is too much information.

Insane... If someone has a 98% compatibility with their skills, an you have 97% then YOU DON'T DESERVE THE JOB unless you expect your privilege to kick you over the top... Which is what happens. A Lot. 'If only I could get a face to face, they would see me and KNOW I am good with the secret handshake and a wink!' The reason they have gone to high volume computer programs to parse and rate credentials is because the bias which was pervasive in hiring. Especially in government agencies, that type of oversight and anonymization of tens of thousands of positions, it is better than the 'good old boy' network which controlled hiring.

A Black College Student Has The Same Chances Of Getting A Job As A White High School Dropout
http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/06/25/3452887/education-race-gap/

And there is a reason why people 'whiten' their names. Asian and East Indian regularly have american Nick-Names. If you think you need to disguise your 'white-sounding name' because you are being actively discriminated against, you are insane. People regularly send the same resume with multiple names and the 'white sounding' names get drastically higher callbacks.

And Religion and Sexual orientation (and a few other things like age and marital status) are illegal for them to ask... so you don't provide them because it is illegal for them to ask about them. It doesn't mean they can't figure some of those things out, and sometimes people with loose lips will let things slip but they shouldn't be considered... Even though they still are like hiring a young female who is freshly married so high chances she will be having a baby in the next 2 years, people discriminate because they don't want to hire someone, train them and then have them out or quit. It is pretty easy to figure that out and make snap judgement even though they shouldn't be.

Long story short... No one is discriminating against white males... if anything, they are finally being treated equally as their peers and the loss of their advantage feels like discrimination after decades of special treatment. If you are really worried, change your name to Jamall and enjoy your new-found jobs you find via reverse discrimination if that is what you believe...

First, this will the only post I do on this. I've already radically dragged the thread off topic unintentionally so I'm only doing this out of courtesy. Second thanks to painkillers those two separate points I made are blending together a bit. Them mixing together like that is my fault, I was in a lot of pain and on painkillers, so my bad. I already hit the yellow triangle on my post so the mods can be ready to nip it if they have to.

If you would like to hash this out, we can take it to PM. A very much TL;DR for the people in the thread though is that the government is trying to hit diversity quotas of sort in many fields. Believe it or not, a prairie reserve in North Dakota has a very hard time convincing non white males to work out there for example, so they will prioritize minorities if they see that theyre in the pool. They still have to pass the initial test, but if I have a 98 and he has a 98, he WILL be hired. I've been told this in several different places. Refusing to answer my demographics is moot and many require you to fill it in anyways.

As for the computer thing, the whole 97 knocks you out, 98 gets you in, thing. It's infuriating because these aren't tests. These are 30 minute questionnaires where they pretty much ask you "how good do you feel you are at the job". Nothing quantitative is asked. They don't ask if you know how to read a lean on a tree, or how much practical experience you have, they ask how you rate yourself as a Sawyer. It's annoying because if you click anything but "I'm so good I put Paul button out of a job" for example, odds are the computer phases you out. But then you get to the hiring process and they'll just act normally and say "oh don't worry we'll teach you." It's the idea that I need to lie to the computer because everyone else clicks "I'm the best" just to get an interview that annoys me there.

So yeah, there you go. I've dragged this off enough, let's just chillout and get back on topic, if you want to keep talking we can take it to pm.

An aspiring police officer in the Boston area didn’t hesitate to alert the authorities after he thought that a civilian broke the law — even though the civilian in question was his father.

Six-year-old Robbie Richardson made a call to 911 after his father, Michael Richardson, turned right on a red light on a trip to the car wash. Robbie told the Quincy police that he knew that red lights meant “stop,” and had even warned his father that he was going to call 911.

The older Richardson told his son that turning right on red was legal, but the pint-sized police hopeful wasn’t convinced, so he proceeded to call the authorities, making sure to note his emergency succinctly:”Daddy went past a red light.”

The Quincy police station posted the hilarious audio from the call on its Facebook page Wednesday, along with the caption, “Every day we answer numerous 911 calls. Often times, these calls are from individuals who are in need of immediate assistance. Sometimes, it’s a simple misdial. Then there’s Robert’s 9-1-1 call.”

Robbie told the media that he still wants to be a police officer when he grows up, to uphold the law — something he’s still not sure his father does.

As he told the Boston Globe, “Everyone follows the rules, but not my daddy.”

You can listen to the full audio of Robbie’s call below.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/6-old-boy-called-911-154455369.html?nhp=1

Freaking Awesome