Re: Summary of Testing Disc.--afterthought

["Robert W. Jones" <shaka -at- NETCOM -dot- COM>]

You missed my argument completely. I stated that most of the tests that I
have seen were *not* made by experts and that makes them easily challenged
in court. Most law suits regarding employment are class action law suits,
and that makes a better case in court. They are occuring more frequently.
If you are waiting for the states or our USA government to make tort
suit reform I strongly advise that you do not hold your breath. Most of
our law makers are lawyers! And what are they going to do when they leave
office?, practice law. Here in San Francisco, two major employers lost
cases involving labor law. I can recall a supermarket lost a law suit
because of questions asked by a manager of applicants. He asked
applicants if they were pregnant or if they were planning on having
children. Perhaps his intentions were sound ones, but after court review of
the hiring and promotions practices of this manager he was fired. The
store chain lost millions in a class action suit and the store chain was
required to provide better training for all managers. We let experts test
that urine or blood sample. Why, because we know that we would have a
better case in court if sued. We let experts make those, medical,
lawyer, Civil Service testsand tests for teachers. Why, because we want to lower
 the risk of going
to court. Because those tests are often created and sometimes graded by
experts. I do belive in the legal system. I expect that employers should
respect the labor rights of applicants and employees. I believe that it is
often the duty of lawyers and the courts to protect and defend the rights
of workers and wanna be workers. Why, should employers have all the fun?
Yes, the legal process is a long and painful one, but money can sometime
make the pain worth it if the applicants have been wronged. This is the
only system we have until a better one comes along.

On Sun, 5 Mar 1995, John Gear wrote:

> >Most writers, however, hate the idea of tests, and generally find the process
> >degrading, insulting, and ultimately inconclusive. Many writers, in fact, say
> >they refuse to take such tests.

> I think it would be more accurate to conclude that some of the writers
> responding to this thread disliked *overt* tests and that some of them
> refuse to take same.

> But, as Sue Gallagher's perceptive and thoughtful list of interview
> questions shows, there's a test going on.  It's just one in which only one
> side knows which conversation is "testable" and which is just
> conversation/getting-to-know-you.

> The folks responding against overt testing express a preference for a system
> in which they prosper--not a surprising result.  Most people hired through
> the interview/writing sample process find it to be a pretty fair and decent
> process for finding the right people for the job ... after all, they were
> hired!  ;^)

> >Another whole group brought up legal issues around testing. The consensus
> >here is that these tests, unless developed under strict scientific scrutiny,
> >would not hold up in a court of law, and possilby subject the employer to
> >legal action.

> This is, IMHO, a red herring dragged across the trail.  We no longer
> threaten each other with the "evil eye" -- we say "lawyer!"

> Under our legal system, companies can (and do) require urinalysis exams,
> with the "right" to random exams down the road; entire agencies exist to run
> down derogatory information on candidates, including whether or not they've
> *ever* filed a claim for workplace injury compensation or treatment.  (Can
> you say carpal tunnel, eyestrain, or lower-back problems?  I knew you could!)

> Just about the only people who argue that it's "easy" to "have a company for
> lunch" over hiring practices are bottom-fishing lawyers trying to drum up
> business---everyone else saying this is using it like an incantation, hoping
> it will work.  It is *not* easy in any state to take a company to court over
> hiring practices.  Nor would the result be swift.  Nor would you be likely
> to want to work there when you were through, if you won.  And if the British
> rule is adopted ("loser pays") as many industry groups fervently desire,
> taking a company to court means betting your entire life's earnings against
> the odds of a company, represented by lawyers specializing in such cases,
> not being able to convince *one* juror in twelve that a hiring practice was
> *not* unfair.

> Now let's discuss the "insult" of an overt writing test.

> P.S.:  Points well taken from all who had lengthy tests sprung on them and
> who suffered tests running into the hours etc. etc.  Of course, long,
> wandering interviews going nowhere are just as wasteful of our time, and are
> probably as common.  It's not the idea of a test that's necessarily flawed
> in those cases, it's the company using it.  I only *wish* that my last firm
> had been that way during the hiring process--since, *except* for the hiring
> process, that is pretty much how they treated people.  In some ways you were
> blessed to experience a hiring process that accurately reflected the value
> the company placed on treating people as having any inherent worth and
> dignity.  It gave you some real valuable information.

> John Gear (catalyst -at- pacifier -dot- com)
> "Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of
> selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless." -- Sinclair Lewis