Dictating your life to get the job

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Consider today's economy.

Consider Phread.

Bacon needs no reason.

Phread applies for a job, which exists. In other words, there is an actual job opening. Pread is qualified for the job. Phread can and will do the job. Phread wants the job. The company wants to hire Phread. Phread, so far as the job itself is concerned, is the perfect applicant.

Phread even gets along with everyone. I said so far as the actual job goes, he's perfect.

By now you readers familiar with my work should know Phread doesn't get the job, despite exactly meeting the requirements needed to perform the job.

Why doesn't Phread get the job?

Phread, BTW, is a real person, albeit not as perfect as I make him appear to be here. His name is changed.

I reiterate - As far as actual job requirements go, Phread is perfect. The person in charge of hiring even wants to hire Phread. Heck, the company CEO wants to hire Phread. The Board of Directors wants to hire Phread.

This really should be more bacon.

But he doesn't get the job.

Any guesses why?

What if I tell you Phread is not hired because of something beyond Phread's control and yet within his control? (I explain this later). What if I tell you Phread is not hired because of something that has zero to do with how or why Phread (or anyone else) can do the job?

You have all the information you need to make a decision. At least I think so. But I'm gonna complicate matters.

Gheorghe is hired instead of Phread. All things (and I do mean all things) are equal except:

Gheorghe is slightly less qualified AND Gheorghe meets the single other item that has NOTHING to do with Gheorghe or Phread being able to do the job.

What do you think?

Highly skilled people are always in demand

Is this fair? Equitable? What do you think should be done?

OK, I'll obfuscate a bit more. The single item that sets Gheorghe and Phread apart is a requirement imposed on the potential employee which has NOTHING to do with how well that person can do the job.

Now what's your opinion? What? You want to know what the item in question is?

Fine, fine fine. The requirement is: To be an employee at the company, the person must agree to become a Mason. Phread objects. Gheorghe is willing to be a Mason. I told you the requirement is both within Phread's control and out of his control. Phread can't do anything about the requirement to be a Mason to work at the company, i.e. out of his control. But he can decide to be a Mason or not be a Mason, i.e. within his control.

Opinions? Thoughts? Observations? What do you think should be done to the company? The CEO? The Board of Directors?

You're doing it wrong.

Monkey wrench incoming! The requirement to be a Mason is not a policy the CEO or the BOD particularly wants. They'd get rid of it if they could. But, they can't.

Would you become a Mason in order to get the job? (this presumes you 1) want the job and 2) are not already a Mason). Change Mason to Christian, Bhuddist, Mormon, Loyal Order of Water Buffalos, a certain kind of haircut, a non loyalty/security-based oath; drink a glass of pink lemonade each day (allergies are irrelevant as this is just a concept), throw a pickle slice against a wall, not say the word "it," or a whole bunch of other things I could list. You may, at any point, call this ridiculous, I certainly feel it is, but it's also reality.

The point is the missing item is pretty much a personal ethic or personal code of honor matter which has zero to do with how well the person can do the job.

Job requirement: You have to wear a turtle on your forehead.

Is it fair to demand an employee drink a glass of pink lemonade each day? Or any of the other items I so list?

You sure? Your answer may be used in an attempt to knock your rose colored glasses off.

All those items I list are merely euphemisms for Employee Unions. That's the unknown item. It's also real. People are not allowed to have a job across this nation on a regular basis because they will not join a union. People are not hired because they won't join a union.

Still think it's unfair?

If you support the right to unions to dictate employees must join the union, I ask what's the difference between being required to a join a union to get a job and all the other items I listed?