MeFites agree, don't report your boyfriend to HR.

December 13, 2005 10:02 AM

Almost unbelievable. It is hard to believe, but we have an issue on which just about all mefites agree.
posted by oddman to MetaFilter-related at 10:02 AM (66 comments total)

Also, is this the longest AskMe thread ever?
posted by oddman at 10:02 AM on December 13, 2005

I think either she should bust his ass, or the question is as fake as fake gets, and Pretty_Generic is probably behind it. I simply can't believe anyone would ask this, else we really are in Ted Rall's 2024.
posted by Rothko at 10:08 AM on December 13, 2005

I didn't post to that thread because of all the handshaking thank-god-we-all-have-the-same-answer shit. I somewhat agree with kindall in that thread; as long as they both work there, it'll be a point of tension in their relationship. Just "no, don't turn him in" doesn't really accomplish anything. The tension and unresolved relationship-vs-job conflict is still there.

But, hey, thank god so many MeFites agree, no?
posted by Plutor at 10:11 AM on December 13, 2005

That thread is so gay.
posted by Witty at 10:12 AM on December 13, 2005

obligated? to tattle on some 20 year old shit? that doesn't matter anymore? i think she should bust him just so he knows what an incredibly anal douchebag she is before he marrys her or something. and if mo nickels ACTUALLY thinks this is a "peach of a dilemma" he's a douchebag too.
posted by quonsar at 10:17 AM on December 13, 2005

Since when do we have replays when the match is still on?
posted by dash_slot- at 10:19 AM on December 13, 2005

Almost everyone agreed on the concussion AskMe also.
posted by matildaben at 10:19 AM on December 13, 2005

So, when are we going to see websites sporting banners like "Three out of four MeFites agree, this IS good!"?
posted by mystyk at 10:26 AM on December 13, 2005

Since when do we have replays when the match is still on?

You haven't watched much sports as broadcast in America have you?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:30 AM on December 13, 2005

maybe it's a fake question
posted by matteo at 10:32 AM on December 13, 2005

pollomacho:
we are aiming higher than that though, aren't we?
posted by dash_slot- at 10:40 AM on December 13, 2005

Well, the consensus on "say nothing, do nothing" is nice. The posters (not all of them, not even a majority mind you, but still too many) bashing entire groups of people based on the feelings of one individual member of that group is pretty ugly. Far from AskMe's best moment.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:43 AM on December 13, 2005

And this metatalk thread was started why?
posted by crunchland at 10:49 AM on December 13, 2005

pollomacho:
we are aiming higher than that though, aren't we?

Does that actually require aim?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:52 AM on December 13, 2005

That thread is so gay.
posted by Witty at 10:12 AM PST on December 13 [!]

Why yes it is. But not as gay as MetaTalk.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:52 AM on December 13, 2005

I loves me a good pile-on. 'Specially when you throw the word "cunt" in there, and when you have hincandenza going after kindall for something kindall has on his blog (what a helpful "answer" that is!) As DevilsAdvocate says, not AskMe's finest moment.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:00 AM on December 13, 2005

Well, the fact this is in MeTa just made me more apt to comment on it. I know we're all old and jaded on MeFi, but I thought it was a reasonable question about the woman's conscience in the long term. There are a lot of awful comments about the woman's motivation in there who make her seem less than human just because she's smart enough to recognize when something will bother her and is intelligent enough to deal with it. I can't say that I like the stated options, though.

People have their moral consciences set at different levels. It depends on whether you believe she'd be a liar by omission and whether it's ever ethical to lie when your position is based on your judgement and trust.
posted by mikeh at 11:02 AM on December 13, 2005

maybe it's a fake question

Mo Nickels has been a member here since dinosaurs roamed the earth. No way it's fake.
posted by gleuschk at 11:02 AM on December 13, 2005

i dunno, it sorta smacks of fakeness...

like, as evidenced by the responses to the question, does anyone here know anybody for whom this would be an actual dilemma?

i sure don't.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:08 AM on December 13, 2005

I do, but then again, I'm a lawyer.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:13 AM on December 13, 2005

pollo:
well, I confess my worries- have you seen the front page lately?
posted by dash_slot- at 11:16 AM on December 13, 2005

It was 20 years BUT he lied on his job application recently. Let me put it this way, if my girlfriend did something bad 20 years ago, I wouldn't care, but I would care if she looked me in the eye and lied about it.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:20 AM on December 13, 2005

Concussion AskMe? Were we for 'em or agin 'em?
posted by klangklangston at 11:21 AM on December 13, 2005

Prior to AskMe people submitted fake questions to Ann Landers. One notorious question came from a purported young bride seeking advice about her new husband, a mortician, who wanted her to first lie in a bath of ice water for five minutes and then lie motionless on the bed during sex.
posted by caddis at 11:22 AM on December 13, 2005

does anyone here know anybody for whom this would be an actual dilemma?

i sure don't.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:08 AM PST on December 13 [!]

I do. I think that many of us know people like this regardless of whether we call them friends. I cant help but think you live in an insular world.
posted by vacapinta at 11:25 AM on December 13, 2005

think that all you want. i'm too busy with my insularity to care.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:30 AM on December 13, 2005

And this metatalk thread was started why?
- crunchland

Because I thought that the near unanimous consensus was interesting in and of itself. But if that isn't enough for you. how about this: We are so used to having such divergent view points on Mefi that it is noteworthy to see how many of us agree on questions of applied ethics. It shows that although we often disagree on an abstract level, when we get low to the ground we're basically all very similar.

And your snark was posted why?
posted by oddman at 11:34 AM on December 13, 2005

if mo nickels ACTUALLY thinks this is a "peach of a dilemma" he's a douchebag too.

What's the correct response to that? "I am what I eat." "That means I'm more into pussy than you are." "I'm for the pink and you're for the stink." I dunno.

"Peach of a dilemma" means that by defining the rules as she has, she's set herself up with no-win predicament. It doesn't mean it's going to be a 50/50 divisive issue on the order of gun control, abortion, or capital punishment.
posted by Mo Nickels at 11:53 AM on December 13, 2005

I loves me a good pile-on. 'Specially when you throw the word "cunt" in there
posted by pardonyou? at 11:00 AM PST on December 13

It's okay to say cunt, and it's okay to say "shut the fuck up" if you've been a member long enough. Some comments, however, will be deleted with no notice and for no stated reason. Them's the breaks! :)
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:59 AM on December 13, 2005

What's the correct response to that?
posted by Mo Nickels at 11:53 AM PST on December 13

You ask him to post a hilarious inline image of an elephant.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:05 PM on December 13, 2005

don't think of an elephant!
posted by matteo at 12:50 PM on December 13, 2005

or, if you can't help thinking of an elephant, whatever you do, don't imagine it pissing!
posted by Hat Maui at 12:52 PM on December 13, 2005

i just lost the Game.
posted by Marquis at 1:08 PM on December 13, 2005

I just lost the game, too. I was doing so well.
posted by oddman at 1:39 PM on December 13, 2005

quonsar ftw
posted by shmegegge at 1:40 PM on December 13, 2005

And your snark was posted why?

Oh look! We all agree on an agreed no-brainer of a dilemma. I'm sure world peace can't be too far behind.

The best thing to come out of this metatalk post is the fact that you won't be able to post another one for a couple days, oddman.
posted by crunchland at 1:46 PM on December 13, 2005

he's into the pink, i'm into the stink!
posted by quonsar at 1:48 PM on December 13, 2005

We are so used to having such divergent view points on Mefi

That's about the most absurd thing I'd read here today. Are you so insulated that you fail to see the echo chamber here? The same lame jokes, the same one-liners, the same "winners of threads", the same political topics and opinions of, etc etc.

Don't kid yourself. There's a reason they call MeFi a "community". Community implies conformity.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 1:52 PM on December 13, 2005

I will agree with one thing, though: there are a vast # of "things" being discussed here at any given time. But the reaction to said "things" is formulaic.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 1:53 PM on December 13, 2005

I would have considered it fake if not for the handful of people (kindall, konolia, I Love Tacos) who do seriously seem to consider not telling an employer about a 20-year old crime to be a sackable offense. What the hell? They all must live in a strange, scary, unstable world, given what I've told some of my bosses about my past at office parties. I guess I just don't understand that kind of "corporate loyalty" and fear of the capitalist overlords, and I for one am very happy to see most other Mefites feel similarly.
posted by Jimbob at 1:56 PM on December 13, 2005

SeizeTheDay: I knew you would say that
posted by cyphill at 1:57 PM on December 13, 2005

I'm still trying out figure out what she'd be reporting him for. She never actually says.
posted by lodurr at 2:08 PM on December 13, 2005

Community implies conformity.

Community also implies pie, but I never get the fucking pie. Will we disband then, so as not to conform?
posted by Divine_Wino at 2:18 PM on December 13, 2005

Uh, reporting him for not revealing he was arrested and convicted when hired, which he lied about on his application.
posted by Mo Nickels at 2:29 PM on December 13, 2005

I am also a Lawyer. *shows certificate*
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:59 PM on December 13, 2005

I would have considered it fake if not for the handful of people (kindall, konolia, I Love Tacos) who do seriously seem to consider not telling an employer about a 20-year old crime to be a sackable offense.

Certainly being caught lying to get a job when you know they might well not have hired you if you hadn't lied is grounds for being fired. Most employers are not so rigid that they'd necessarily just up and sack an otherwise good employee, but it is definitely grounds.

If you claimed you had a degree you didn't have, and you were later found out, wouldn't you expect to be sacked? An undisclosed felony conviction is pretty much the same thing.
posted by kindall at 3:02 PM on December 13, 2005

In the meantime, this reminds me of why I've hated just about every HR person I've ever had the misfortune to deal with. (scody)

haha! I totally agree.
posted by scarabic at 3:05 PM on December 13, 2005

If you claimed you had a degree you didn't have, and you were later found out, wouldn't you expect to be sacked? An undisclosed felony conviction is pretty much the same thing.

I dunno. One's qualifications can be directly relevant to the job at hand. One's character/history/record are not, necessarily. Nor is ever having had an abortion, one's level of alcohol consumption, one's religion, or a host of other moral/character related criteria.

Anyway, it's disingenuous to just say "it's the same thing as this other crime, and that's clearly wrong." That's not much of an argument.
posted by scarabic at 3:15 PM on December 13, 2005

An undisclosed felony conviction is pretty much the same thing.

Maybe you're right, but I've never been asked about any criminal history at any job I've ever taken. Maybe things are different in the US - they seem to be, with all the drug tests and background checks I hear they do on the peons over there. And given the dishonesty and mistrust so many employers show to their workers (You've got five minutes to clean out your desk then security will escort you to the door) I guess I don't feel they necessarily possess the moral high ground in the employer-employee relationship.
posted by Jimbob at 3:21 PM on December 13, 2005

I'm glad this was posted, because otherwise I would have missed that amazing thread. I shouldn't have spent so much time there, but I couldn't resist.

Do I have to report myself to Mo Nickel's friend now?

Oh, and knock it off with the "fake" shit. I know Mo, and there's no way he'd pull anything like that.
posted by languagehat at 3:39 PM on December 13, 2005

Hey crunchland did you work really hard to be a complete asshole or were you just born that way? I made a post to metatalk because I found the thread on AskMe to have an interesting slant. You can disagree with me if you like. But that doesn't give you carte blanche to piss all over my reasoning.

In fact, your inability to articulate your disdain in any fashion besides obvious and lame insults speaks an awful lot to your lack of character and maturity. As for your glee at the fact that I won't post in metatalk for another few days, well I'm glad that this post brought at least a little happiness into your pathetic and mean little life.

May all of my future posts bring as much joy to you. In fact, at first I was sort of unsure whether or not I should even make this post, but now that I see how much happiness it has caused you, you've inspired me to continue posting and to continue to bring joy and happiness to the old, obviously senile, curmudgeons on MeFi.
posted by oddman at 4:46 PM on December 13, 2005

I'm glad this was posted, because otherwise I would have missed that amazing thread. I shouldn't have spent so much time there, but I couldn't resist.

Same here.
posted by starscream at 5:22 PM on December 13, 2005

Maybe you're right, but I've never been asked about any criminal history at any job I've ever taken. Maybe things are different in the US - they seem to be, with all the drug tests and background checks I hear they do on the peons over there.

I've been filling out a lot of forms lately so I can get a job over the winter break and almost all of them ask that you disclose any prior felonies and some ask after misdemeanors too. This has all been for retail jobs mind you, so I can say if this is the case for corporate jobs and such.
posted by kosher_jenny at 5:49 PM on December 13, 2005

But that doesn't give you carte blanche to piss all over my reasoning.

Sure it does. I have a "post comment" button, too. Are you implying that I don't have a right to criticize your post, but you can criticize me for doing it? The fact that you admit that you almost didn't post this thread, along with your defensiveness about my criticism indicates that you probably should have gone with your first instinct.
posted by crunchland at 6:17 PM on December 13, 2005

Here's another question where nearly all MeFites are in agreement that the asker is an utter dolt.
posted by gleuschk at 7:10 PM on December 13, 2005

Criticism implies critical analysis and useful comments. To date you've contributed nothing but snarky remarks. That does not qualify as criticism. Not by a long shot. It is nothing more than heckling. By all means heckle away, but please don't be so disingenuous as to suggest that it is criticism instead of barely junior high level humor.

As to my supposed defensiveness, I think you need to realize that defending oneself is not the same as being defensive. Yes my initial response contained a snark. But, you will notice that it was well more than that. I attempted to provide an honest account of what I found interesting enough to post to metatalk.

True my second response to you was mostly just a disparaging and sarcastic retort to your continued base comments. I truly wish that my patience had been greater. So much the worse for me for coming down to your level.

Only now (much too late) do I realize that I've been feeding a troll by taking your snarkiness to be covering up a useful point. Ah, well I admit my mistake. I shall not respond to any further of your posts. Continue to post your drivel as you see fit.

I'm glad that some (it seems most) of the rest of you found this interesting.
posted by oddman at 7:15 PM on December 13, 2005

I suspect Mo Nickels of trying to move in on the GF.

Uh, reporting him for not revealing he was arrested and convicted when hired, which he lied about on his application.

You seem awfully keen to make the BF out to be a baddy, Mo.
posted by Joeforking at 7:23 PM on December 13, 2005

You seem awfully keen to make the BF out to be a baddy, Mo.

But he did. He intentionally said he was never arrested or convicted for a felony, when, in fact he was. Is that in dispute?
posted by Snyder at 7:46 PM on December 13, 2005

"But that doesn't give you carte blanche to piss all over my reasoning."

Your reasoning sucks. This isn't what meta is for. Recently, for some strange reason, "chat" meta threads have been sneaking in, but there's a long history of moderation by Matt that makes it clear that meta isn't for chatting about this or that thing just so long as it's regarding metafilter. A press mention? That makes sense. A metafilter user outed as a con-artist? That makes sense, too. What mefites like to eat for breakfast? Nada on the sensa.

This was a "hey, look, isn't it interesting that most people are agreeing in askme?" wank. There could be three-hundred meta posts like this every day.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:10 PM on December 13, 2005

Hey, Optimus:

cunt site:metafilter.com, Google - about 169 results
cunt site:metafilter.com, Yahoo - about 436 results

"shut the fuck up" site:metafilter.com, Google - about 138 results
"shut the fuck up" site: metafilter.com, Yahoo - about 631 results

Apparently, you haven't heard that Yahoo kicks Google's ass when it comes to searching Metafilter. You're welcome.
posted by mediareport at 11:41 PM on December 13, 2005

Are you being deliberately obtuse, Snyder? For your sake I hope so.
posted by Joeforking at 2:16 AM on December 14, 2005

Jimbob: Maybe you're right, but I've never been asked about any criminal history at any job I've ever taken. Maybe things are different in the US - they seem to be, with all the drug tests and background checks I hear they do on the peons over there. And given the dishonesty and mistrust so many employers show to their workers (You've got five minutes to clean out your desk then security will escort you to the door) I guess I don't feel they necessarily possess the moral high ground in the employer-employee relationship.

You may be right, that it's different here; if you actually fill out an application form (which I haven't done in several years, but have often had to do for professional jobs), there will usually be a section that asks for information about convictions. It's my understanding that they aren't permitted to ask you about arrests, but both misdemeanors and felonies are fair game. But the wordign is invariably vague: When I've asked about that blank (I have two moving violations), they've told me "minor violations [e.g., traffic violations] don't count." The wording, though, is generally absolute: Any convictions have to be revealed.

I would not be surprised if the vague wording was originally done on purpose, as bait to give an employer "cause" for termination when they need it. Do HR people see it that way? Probably not. That's not the kind of rationale you usually talk about openly, and so it probably doesn't get communicated clearly.

Anyway, all that being said, the discussion reveals that most mefites don't have confidence in the ethical behavior of corporations. They think the company is out to screw them, and guess what? At an institutional level, it is. That's one of the ways that late capitalism works. It's about "negotiating" the best deal for labor power.

Me, personally: I would never date someone who came in on the corporate side of that "negotiation." I think mo's friend's boyfriend should get clear of her as fast as he can -- but get another job, first, because she can't be trusted not to do the human thing and not blow him in.

But since that information is useful to mo's friend's bf, and not to mo's friend, I'll offer it here and not in the green.
posted by lodurr at 3:50 AM on December 14, 2005

Clarification: The wording is precise; the intent is vague. HR people usually rattel off a few examples of convictions that "dont' count" (e.g., non-DUI moving violations, parking warrants). But the applications I've filled out rarely if ever spell out the exceptions clearly. I'm saying that I believe the creators of the forms and processes to have done that intentionally.
posted by lodurr at 4:50 AM on December 14, 2005

So much agreement it makes my head hurt.
posted by caddis at 7:02 AM on December 14, 2005

(In much of the US, traffic tickets are citations and not misdemeanors. They aren't considered to be crimes at all. So it makes sense that you wouldn't report them if you were asked about criminal convictions.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 7:11 AM on December 14, 2005

Apparently, you haven't heard that Yahoo kicks Google's ass when it comes to searching Metafilter. You're welcome.
posted by mediareport at 11:41 PM PST on December 13

Yahoo is everybody's one-stop cunt-searching source. :)
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:23 AM on December 14, 2005