|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
To cycle is to live dangerously...[
On 11/1/2017 10:22 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 7:59:58 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote: On 11/1/2017 5:41 PM, Doug Landau wrote: HR lady does not see herself as less valuable in the selection process than the manager or teammates... in fact, the other way around. She thinks she is a professional in her field just like the engineers and the manager are in theirs, and should be an equal player in the process. In fact she sees herself as more insightful into people and personalities than the social zeros that the manager and engineers are, and therefore her responsibility to shepherd them a bit, and compensate for their inability to see who's "a fit with the company" like she can. There is nobody in the organization that I think less of than HR lady. Bad enough but an ex who is a college instructor reports that the hiring committees of small colleges are made up of staff who are ex HR ladies. It obviously varies from school to school. I've seen almost total faculty control of qualification requirements, department faculty rating all applications, choosing whom to interview, ranking those who made it as far as the interview, etc. There was input from HR on things like wording of advertisements (you've gotta say you won't discriminate), there were rules like if a rejected candidate was a minority or veteran, you had to fill out a form to explain the rejection. And final hiring decisions come from above. But overall, department faculty had very significant influence on the entire process. Which was good, because it helps if a new hire is someone respected by the faculty. - Frank Krygowski Once, yes. In today's "higher" education industry, administration has staff numbers and dollars which dwarf mere faculty. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
To cycle is to live dangerously...[
On 11/2/2017 9:33 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/1/2017 10:22 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Wednesday, November 1, 2017 at 7:59:58 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote: On 11/1/2017 5:41 PM, Doug Landau wrote: HR lady does not see herself as less valuable in the selection process than the manager or teammates... in fact, the other way around.Â* She thinks she is a professional in her field just like the engineers and the manager are in theirs, and should be an equal player in the process.Â* In fact she sees herself as more insightful into people and personalities than the social zeros that the manager and engineers are, and therefore her responsibility to shepherd them a bit, and compensate for their inability to see who's "a fit with the company" like she can. There is nobody in the organization that I think less of than HR lady. Bad enough but an ex who is a college instructor reports that the hiring committees of small colleges are made up of staff who are ex HR ladies. It obviously varies from school to school. I've seen almost total faculty control of qualification requirements, department faculty rating all applications, choosing whom to interview, ranking those who made it as far as the interview, etc. There was input from HR on things like wording of advertisements (you've gotta say you won't discriminate), there were rules like if a rejected candidate was a minority or veteran, you had to fill out a form to explain the rejection. And final hiring decisions come from above. But overall, department faculty had very significant influence on the entire process. Which was good, because it helps if a new hire is someone respected by the faculty. - Frank Krygowski Once, yes. In today's "higher" education industry, administration has staff numbers and dollars which dwarf mere faculty. I agree that college administrations have exploded in size and cost. I don't know why this is never mentioned when tuition increases or faculty contract negotiations occur. But AFAIK that hasn't changed the hiring procedures. Speaking of administration growth: I recall one year our program was up for re-accreditation - a big event, requiring a huge report with tons of documentation. Of course, we'd done the job six years prior (we were one of the few programs of our type in our state to get a full six year accreditation), and of course we had a lot of the "program history" sections, etc. saved on computer for re-use. Anyway, I put the final touches on the report just before the deadline and was ready to walk it to the mail room when I got word that "nothing is allowed to leave the University until the new officer of ******* proofreads it." What the hell! That was never a rule before! So I called up said officer and explained this 100+ page report needed to go out within the next day or two. She asked me to bring it over immediately, which I did. I walked into her office, and saw her sitting at a perfectly clean desk. Not one piece of paper was in view. When I see an empty desk, I think it's much more likely to be evidence of nothing happening, instead of super-efficient filing. That's just me. In any case, she found something like an apostrophe out of place in the text we had used six years ago, so I guess she considered her input valuable. And I've worked with her since (she's a very nice person) but her writing is certainly more error-prone than mine. I'm now friends with the current holder of her position. He too is a very nice guy. But I wonder what he actually does on the job. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
To cycle is to live dangerously...[
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 06:34:44 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote: On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 3:42:38 AM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote: On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:28:05 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote: Making the apocalyptics look foolish since I was a precocious teenager with a column in a national newspaper and the apocalypse du jour was the hole in the ozone layer, which I'm still waiting to be shown. "New threat to ozone layer found" http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/new-threat-ozone-layer-found Are you ready for the war on dichloromethane? Even the other environmentalists are sneering at them with faint praise: "quite important". Just follow the funding, which usually follows things that are "quite important". NASA Ozone Watch: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov NASA who? I wish them luck. The more false prophets there are, with the more scare stories tripping over each other, the more bruised egos in that community, and the greater the growth of disbelief in scientism among the taxpayers. Few will agree with a science that produces results against their best interests or cherished biases. However, they will follow false profits errr... prophets, when the cause is just and politically correct, often against their instincts and best interests. Most of these trashy clowns seeking notoriety all the better to sink their snouts into the public trough now realize that global warming is dead (laugh at how they're trying to morph it into "sudden climate change") and that they need a new "cause" to have any impact on policy, which is the end aim. Morphing "global warming" into "climate change" was inspired by a presidential advisor (who's name I can't seem to recall) that adviced the Republican party to change terms so that it would appear to be less threatening. This was done and "global warming" disappeared from the Republican vocabulary. As for funding, climate change research is big money and climbing: https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary "Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009." Show me that hole in the ozone layer. I'm asking for the 2137th time. Well, the NASA site shows the decrease in ozone concentration in parts of the southern hemisphere. NASA Ozone Watch: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov Australia seems to consider UV exposure a problem: http://www.bom.gov.au/uv/index.shtml "Sat tracking of ultraviolet light shows increase since 1979" https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/17/sat-tracking-of-ultraviolet-light-shows-increase-since-1979/ Melanoma (UV responsible for skin cancer) in Australia is high and was on the rise until recently. At the same time, non-melanoma skin cancer rates are flat: http://wiki.cancer.org.au/skincancerstats/Skin_cancer_incidence_and_mortality -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
To cycle is to live dangerously...[
On Friday, November 3, 2017 at 3:31:46 AM UTC, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
Melanoma (UV responsible for skin cancer) in Australia is high and was on the rise until recently. At the same time, non-melanoma skin cancer rates are flat: http://wiki.cancer.org.au/skincancerstats/Skin_cancer_incidence_and_mortality Poker game in Adelaide, South Australia, circa 1975, not a single native-born Australian in the room. In the break while we're grabbing a drink and a sandwich one guy, a doctor, says to another guy, an insurance agent, "Those Irish you keep selling insurance to, they've got a suicide gene. They've never seen the sun before, they get here, they see the sun, they rip their shirts off and don't put them back on until they have a melanoma the size of my fist on their back." The insurance guy says, "Be difficult to give them up. They're about three-quarters of my commissions." Years later i heard the insurance guy was in trouble with his bosses at the insurance company for insuring too many Irishmen on whom they had to pay out for melanoma-related fatalities. The rise and fall of Australian melanoma statistics has much to do with the origins of their immigration and little or nothing with any notional hole in the ozone layer. Andre Jute A lifetime under hats keeps me looking young |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
To cycle is to live dangerously...[
On Fri, 3 Nov 2017 16:30:16 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote: The rise and fall of Australian melanoma statistics has much to do with the origins of their immigration and little or nothing with any notional hole in the ozone layer. Unfortunately, the skin cancer incidence statistics for Australia http://wiki.cancer.org.au/skincancerstats/Skin_cancer_incidence_and_mortality didn't bother breaking down the numbers by country of origin, so I can't determine if what you say is true. According to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Australians 7,000,000 (30% of the Australian population of partial Irish ancestry) 80,000 (by birth, 2011) 2,087,800 (self-declared Irish ancestry, 2011; 10.4% of the Australian population) The population of Australia in 2016 was 24.13 million. You might be right. I would guess(tm) that Irish immigration might be sufficient to skew the skin cancer incidence rate. "Ireland ranks 14th highest for skin cancer" https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/ireland-ranks-14th-highest-for-skin-cancer-1.2720851 Andre Jute A lifetime under hats keeps me looking young -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cyclists: Stop riding dangerously ! | MrCheerful | UK | 40 | March 24th 16 12:30 PM |
Pavement cyclist denies riding dangerously | Mrcheerful | UK | 11 | July 17th 15 12:15 PM |
crack down on people driving dangerously on the pavement.” | Mrcheerful | UK | 107 | November 15th 13 10:15 PM |
Lambeth Bridge's 'dangerously narrow' cycle lane to be widened | Simon Mason | UK | 0 | August 29th 11 12:22 PM |
cycle accident captured live | pk | UK | 4 | March 22nd 09 09:12 PM |