Your replies make me think you’ve never had a job with coworkers. You’re so caught up in the anti-capitalist mindset and apparently don’t realize there’s a HUMAN BEING struggling.
Just let someone struggle for an hour instead of taking 2 minutes to help. That’s how we do things here on the left, right?
Forgive me, I thought you were the guy I’ve been arguing with who has been throwing insults toward people willing to help.
But still, saying no to helping a coworker for 2 minutes is not the same thing as setting a work/life boundary in the slightest. No one in this thread is arguing for overtime.
It depends, I know people that would be glad to help on the work but will not tolerate out of work pondering. Gaps on the résumé are sort of more of the latter, imo
You know what I do when someone casually asks me a question I don’t want to answer? I keep it vague and give them a chance to pick up the hint. I don’t give them a stone cold “I’m not going to answer that.” like a defensive weirdo.
Feels like a lot of people in this thread don’t realize an interview is a conversation. Or they just don’t know how to have a conversation…
Seems like they think conversations involve certain spells and invocations to force it to go the way they want. Like if you have a legal right, you must aggressively invoke it so your opponent realizes you’re a legal mastermind and hands you the job to avoid lawsuits.
Feels kinda like that advice for interacting with cops that sounded more like “how to be legally right while escalating interactions with the police”. Or the sovereign citizen version that drops the “legally right” part entirely.
It ignores the reality that anyone can judge you for any reason and that it’s practically impossible to prove or even know why they reject you after an interview, so it doesn’t even matter if they did it for an illegal reason as long as they didn’t outright tell you (or each other in writing if you do try to sue, which btw if you sue someone over how a job interview goes, few will want to even interview you if they know about it, even if you’re completely in the right).
Also displaying dominance when you don’t have it just shows that you won’t be a pleasant person to interact with regularly. And the people trying to argue this point with you are proving the point more than anything else by treating the pushback of “you don’t need to state that so defensively” as “forget your worker rights and boundaries, you’re going to be a slave!”
While workers rights can be a trump card, you don’t pull them out in an interview as most trump cards aren’t in play yet.
I think a more productive and empathetic approach would be to probe such a person on practical job-relevant hypotheticals of a similar nature, in order to actually get an idea of how they would handle those situations - if that’s really what you’re worried about. Why be so quick to label people negatively based solely on personal boundaries? Do you think it’s better to skirt one’s way around an issue than to address it?
Because time is limited and they’re not the only candidate.
based solely on personal boundaries?
Literally nothing to do with them HAVING boundaries. Why are so many replies acting like I’m not talking about their attitude? Replace the question with anything the interviewer doesn’t have the right to know.
“I see you’ve mostly worked in [other state], what brought you out here? Certainly not the weather, haha”
“I am not required to disclose my whereabouts or reason for travel outside of my work hours”
Sounds like a person I’d want on my team for sure.
That sounds to me like someone who doesn’t want to be stepped all over in the name of having a career, and it also sounds like you’re impatiently skipping over people while also paradoxically expecting to understand everything about who they are from a singular and very limited interaction.
During a job interview, you evidently see people as an abstract mesh of characteristics that you believe you can deduce their entire identity from, and similarly they mostly see you as a mere abstract mechanism of the company. I’m sure that such a candidate would be happy to answer more personal questions over a stress-free cup of coffee, feeling like they’re chatting with a person instead of having to win over a corporate proxy.
I don’t think anyone goes to a job interview expecting to be applying for friendship with the interviewer, but to have their relevant skills evaluated first and foremost. It’s perfectly normal to find anything else extremely weird and needlessly intrusive and to reserve one’s right to privacy and go look for another, saner workplace.
It’s just about the same issue as with chat control. You also haven’t addressed my other points, so I assume that what you actually value in the workforce is half-truths and facades.
Part of interviews are about seeing if you can mesh with the team and the boss. It’s not about friendship, but determining if you fit for amicability. They’re going to have to work with you as a boss or coworker. It’s much better for them personally to get along with you somewhat.
In each of their questions there’s a socially acceptable way to politely say “hey, this is a topic I’d prefer to not discuss” without setting a hard boundary and asserting that you know your rights. Going directly to the hard boundary is seen as escalation especially in response to questions meant to try to get to know a bit about you. And people who go directly to hard boundaries in response to small talk in an interview become employees/coworkers you have to walk on eggshells around lest you find yourself in regular chats with HR/their union steward.
I am not required to disclose my opinion on the last question of your previous comment. Please move on to the next question and do not use this robotic refusal as a clue to my character.
It’s your rightful choice, and it leaves me with my assumptions, but I just ask that you remember that this is still a casual conversation that we’re having, and that I have no ulterior motives, and that my questions were on topic and driven by genuine curiosity in your way of thinking instead of a need to tick boxes. I don’t know any side of you other than the one you’re currently showing me; however, I understand that it most likely does not reflect the better part who you really are.
The point is that there’s a dozen other ways to say you’re not sharing without sounding like you’re guilty and talking to a cop. If they can’t feign a bit of positively for an interview, I don’t want to know what they’re like on a Monday.
No, it’s because of how they choose to respond to a tiny bit of friction.
They’re the type of person who wouldn’t take 2 minutes to help you with something that’s not explicitly outlined in their job description.
Yeah.
Boundaries.
A completely inflexible person.
Someone who isn’t willing to be taken advantage of.
Someone who thinks helping out with something is “being taken advantage of”
Someone with a persecution complex.
Professional victim.
The type of person called their mom hitler growing up because she told you to clean your room.
Someone who thinks that working off the clock is “helping out with something.”
I’m a bit embarrassed…I thought you were talking to me and the point I was making.
So what else did the strawman say that you want to get mad about?
I thought constructing strawmen was what we were doing.
Every description I gave was for the type of person who would say “that’s not in my job description” if a coworker asked to help them with a task.
You know, the specific example I’ve been talking about in this entire comment chain?
Don’t show up in my replies arguing against a point I’m not making and then act like I’m the one off base.
Acting their wage.
Helping out your coworkers on a one-off thing is just a thing normal people do. People like you are insufferable
People who live to work are insufferable. People who set work/life boundaries are not.
Your replies make me think you’ve never had a job with coworkers. You’re so caught up in the anti-capitalist mindset and apparently don’t realize there’s a HUMAN BEING struggling.
Just let someone struggle for an hour instead of taking 2 minutes to help. That’s how we do things here on the left, right?
Get a grip, man. Join us in the real world.
How do you know I don’t help coworkers? You’re blindly jumping to conclusions because I won’t let my job take advantage of me.
I never said anything about coworkers.
Forgive me, I thought you were the guy I’ve been arguing with who has been throwing insults toward people willing to help.
But still, saying no to helping a coworker for 2 minutes is not the same thing as setting a work/life boundary in the slightest. No one in this thread is arguing for overtime.
It depends, I know people that would be glad to help on the work but will not tolerate out of work pondering. Gaps on the résumé are sort of more of the latter, imo
You know what I do when someone casually asks me a question I don’t want to answer? I keep it vague and give them a chance to pick up the hint. I don’t give them a stone cold “I’m not going to answer that.” like a defensive weirdo.
Feels like a lot of people in this thread don’t realize an interview is a conversation. Or they just don’t know how to have a conversation…
Seems like they think conversations involve certain spells and invocations to force it to go the way they want. Like if you have a legal right, you must aggressively invoke it so your opponent realizes you’re a legal mastermind and hands you the job to avoid lawsuits.
Feels kinda like that advice for interacting with cops that sounded more like “how to be legally right while escalating interactions with the police”. Or the sovereign citizen version that drops the “legally right” part entirely.
It ignores the reality that anyone can judge you for any reason and that it’s practically impossible to prove or even know why they reject you after an interview, so it doesn’t even matter if they did it for an illegal reason as long as they didn’t outright tell you (or each other in writing if you do try to sue, which btw if you sue someone over how a job interview goes, few will want to even interview you if they know about it, even if you’re completely in the right).
Those “know your rights” videos are exactly what came to mind. Not only is it unnecessarily combative, you’re showing your whole hand.
Knowing your rights is important. Telling someone you know your rights when they’re not pressing you to abandon them is something else.
Also displaying dominance when you don’t have it just shows that you won’t be a pleasant person to interact with regularly. And the people trying to argue this point with you are proving the point more than anything else by treating the pushback of “you don’t need to state that so defensively” as “forget your worker rights and boundaries, you’re going to be a slave!”
While workers rights can be a trump card, you don’t pull them out in an interview as most trump cards aren’t in play yet.
I think a more productive and empathetic approach would be to probe such a person on practical job-relevant hypotheticals of a similar nature, in order to actually get an idea of how they would handle those situations - if that’s really what you’re worried about. Why be so quick to label people negatively based solely on personal boundaries? Do you think it’s better to skirt one’s way around an issue than to address it?
Because time is limited and they’re not the only candidate.
Literally nothing to do with them HAVING boundaries. Why are so many replies acting like I’m not talking about their attitude? Replace the question with anything the interviewer doesn’t have the right to know.
“I see you’ve mostly worked in [other state], what brought you out here? Certainly not the weather, haha”
“I am not required to disclose my whereabouts or reason for travel outside of my work hours”
Sounds like a person I’d want on my team for sure.
That sounds to me like someone who doesn’t want to be stepped all over in the name of having a career, and it also sounds like you’re impatiently skipping over people while also paradoxically expecting to understand everything about who they are from a singular and very limited interaction.
During a job interview, you evidently see people as an abstract mesh of characteristics that you believe you can deduce their entire identity from, and similarly they mostly see you as a mere abstract mechanism of the company. I’m sure that such a candidate would be happy to answer more personal questions over a stress-free cup of coffee, feeling like they’re chatting with a person instead of having to win over a corporate proxy.
I don’t think anyone goes to a job interview expecting to be applying for friendship with the interviewer, but to have their relevant skills evaluated first and foremost. It’s perfectly normal to find anything else extremely weird and needlessly intrusive and to reserve one’s right to privacy and go look for another, saner workplace.
It’s just about the same issue as with chat control. You also haven’t addressed my other points, so I assume that what you actually value in the workforce is half-truths and facades.
Part of interviews are about seeing if you can mesh with the team and the boss. It’s not about friendship, but determining if you fit for amicability. They’re going to have to work with you as a boss or coworker. It’s much better for them personally to get along with you somewhat.
In each of their questions there’s a socially acceptable way to politely say “hey, this is a topic I’d prefer to not discuss” without setting a hard boundary and asserting that you know your rights. Going directly to the hard boundary is seen as escalation especially in response to questions meant to try to get to know a bit about you. And people who go directly to hard boundaries in response to small talk in an interview become employees/coworkers you have to walk on eggshells around lest you find yourself in regular chats with HR/their union steward.
I am not required to disclose my opinion on the last question of your previous comment. Please move on to the next question and do not use this robotic refusal as a clue to my character.
Annoying, right?
It’s your rightful choice, and it leaves me with my assumptions, but I just ask that you remember that this is still a casual conversation that we’re having, and that I have no ulterior motives, and that my questions were on topic and driven by genuine curiosity in your way of thinking instead of a need to tick boxes. I don’t know any side of you other than the one you’re currently showing me; however, I understand that it most likely does not reflect the better part who you really are.
The point is that there’s a dozen other ways to say you’re not sharing without sounding like you’re guilty and talking to a cop. If they can’t feign a bit of positively for an interview, I don’t want to know what they’re like on a Monday.
Its a conversation that determines whether you can collect enough credits to have food and shelter. Defensiveness seems like a natural reaction, no?
I mean if you put it that way… No? Why would your natural reaction be to sabotage yourself?
Are you this honest when they ask what your greatest weakness is?