7 ms·

As pointed out below, there are some states where politics are protected. I looked it up because I do plan to use that information in hiring decisions going for

As pointed out below, there are some states where politics are protected. I looked it up because I do plan to use that information in hiring decisions going forward. I wouldn't surprised if I get downvoted for this, but I intend to ask anyone I interview in the future (not currently in a role that involves hiring) if they voted for Trump in 2020. And a yes will be a disqualifying answer on the basis of poor judgement. (It's also a question I will be asking any potential employer I interview with, going forward, for the same reason.) Yes, I will lose some diversity of thought as a result. Yes it means I can't hire employees in California. Yes, there will be potential bad PR. No, I won't feel guilty about it at all. And yes, I will also run it by appropriate lawyers before actually implementing it.

ThrustVectoring 6y ago
For what it's worth, as an engineering candidate being asked that question would disqualify the asking company from consideration. I do not want to work at a company that is so politically active that the question is allowed. I would also tell my point of contact exactly why I was withdrawing my candidacy and who was responsible.
- andrewacove 6y ago
  That’s totally reasonable. And there are companies that have publicly taken positions that align with this. It wasn’t clear in my comment, but I’m not presenting this from a middle management perspective. I wouldn’t arbitrarily be adding new requirements to some employer’s hiring. This is me speaking about how I’ll act for any company I start next (having been a founder and CEO before).
esja 6y ago
Something to ponder given the topic of this thread... your comment says very clearly that you're willing to make decisions which impact a company negatively, provided they benefit you emotionally. That's disqualifying for most positions involving hiring or any other management responsibility, and it's connected to your real identity.
- andrewacove 6y ago
  It may not have been clear from my comment, but it’s not an emotional benefit for me. And I don’t agree that it’s necessarily a net negative for the company. There are a lot of factors that impact a company’s overall performance.
  - esja 6y ago
    If it’s not an emotional benefit, what are your rational grounds for this? You propose to exclude tens of millions of people because you believe their vote proves they have poor judgement. Yet you are displaying poor judgment by making this proposal.
- LarvaFX 6y ago
  "Impact a company negatively" is your opinion as much as the reversal seems to be the opinion of the parent commentor.
  - esja 6y ago
    It’s not an opinion, it’s basic logic and arithmetic. Shrinking the hiring pool by eliminating both Trump voters and also the non-Trump voters who don’t like the implications of the question. That’s a very large negative and is based on math, not opinion.
    - LarvaFX 6y ago
      You are making a quantitative argument for a case that can very well be a qualitative one. Your statement is not sound and it does not follow. Maybe it consider this an opportunity to educate yourself in logic?
      - esja 6y ago
        You're being needlessly patronising, but I'll answer in good faith in case you are actually interested. Ceteris paribus, reducing your hiring pool is a negative. Can qualitative factors counteract that? Sure, it's possible. But there is no evidence for it here, only assertion. And the quantitative problem is very large, so those factors would need to be very powerful. Aside from that, it's naive to believe that the qualitative factors will only work in the positive direction. Whatever is gained from excluding the wrong-thinkers could easily be dwarfed by legal or reputational problems, blowback from boycotts or other "cancellation", inability to address the whole market due to a lack of diverse viewpoints, etc.
gnicholas 6y ago
> It's also a question I will be asking any potential employer I interview with, going forward, for the same reason. This would be a very strange question to be asked of an interviewer. > Yes it means I can't hire employees in California Per the article I linked to up-thread, it's not just CA: California, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia, Seattle, Ann Arbor, and Madison. Maybe you don't care about some of those locations, but CA, CO, and Seattle seem like pretty important ones in the tech world.
- andrewacove 6y ago
  It would be a strange question, depending on the scenario. You can imagine I probably don’t anticipate being in interviews where I’m asking that of somebody who isn’t the primary executive. (In other words, I wouldn’t want to work under someone whose judgement I don’t trust, and this would be a dealbreaker on judgement.) You’re correct that it rules out some important locations in tech, and I do think geography will continue to matter to a degree. I think there’s also some appeal to a company that has strong, publicly stated principles that can benefit recruiting, but it remains to be seen. But when I consider potential future ventures, these are things I’ve considered and intend to apply.
  - gnicholas 6y ago
    IMO it would show exceedingly bad judgment to ask someone how they voted in an interview. I wouldn’t categorically refuse to hire such a person, but it would be a strike against.
    - andrewacove 6y ago
      I understand that perspective, but it doesn't affect my position. I'm free to choose who I work for, and I wouldn't choose to work for someone who found the question disqualifying. I get to define my own utility function.
      - gnicholas 6y ago
zo1 6y ago
You should probably put that on your job-listing ads! Also, how do you plan on phrasing the question? And if you're not fully within the power to "disqualify" the candidate, what other steps are you planning on taking to prevent them from being hired by your employer? Have you discussed it yet with your employer's HR department yet?
- andrewacove 6y ago
  Ha, yes, the intent is that it would be an open and stated part of the hiring process. There's no reason to surprise people with the question. I'd rather let candidates self-select them out, as much for this question as for any other mis-alignments. I did a poor job in my first comment of explaining my role relative to hiring. I'm speaking from a position of having been a founder and CEO, and likely being one again. The question about how this would play it with HR is understood, but isn't applicable to me personally. I believe (as I suspect you do) that in most organizations, this would be a hard thing to instill retroactively or individually and would meet lots of resistance, unless it were a very philosophically aligned company.
  - DenisM 6y ago
    Would you consider listing this preference on your linked-in profile then? It's the same deal as a job ad.
    - andrewacove 6y ago
      If I were looking for work, I would consider it.
      - goatcode 6y ago
        I'd genuinely recommend just letting such things be a permanent fixture of your profile. It would save you a lot of headaches and wasted time dealing with people who'd ultimately not want to interact with you, and likewise with whom you'd not want to interact.
giantDinosaur 6y ago
The reason the secret ballot is even a thing is exactly because of people like you. Thank goodness you aren't in a role that involves hiring given such politicisation of the hiring process. I sincerely hope you never get such a position again.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ThrustVectoring 6y ago

For what it's worth, as an engineering candidate being asked that question would disqualify the asking company from consideration. I do not want to work at a company that is so politically active that the question is allowed. I would also tell my point of contact exactly why I was withdrawing my candidacy and who was responsible.

andrewacove 6y ago
That’s totally reasonable. And there are companies that have publicly taken positions that align with this. It wasn’t clear in my comment, but I’m not presenting this from a middle management perspective. I wouldn’t arbitrarily be adding new requirements to some employer’s hiring. This is me speaking about how I’ll act for any company I start next (having been a founder and CEO before).

esja 6y ago

Something to ponder given the topic of this thread... your comment says very clearly that you're willing to make decisions which impact a company negatively, provided they benefit you emotionally. That's disqualifying for most positions involving hiring or any other management responsibility, and it's connected to your real identity.

andrewacove 6y ago
It may not have been clear from my comment, but it’s not an emotional benefit for me. And I don’t agree that it’s necessarily a net negative for the company. There are a lot of factors that impact a company’s overall performance.
- esja 6y ago
  If it’s not an emotional benefit, what are your rational grounds for this? You propose to exclude tens of millions of people because you believe their vote proves they have poor judgement. Yet you are displaying poor judgment by making this proposal.
LarvaFX 6y ago
"Impact a company negatively" is your opinion as much as the reversal seems to be the opinion of the parent commentor.
- esja 6y ago
  It’s not an opinion, it’s basic logic and arithmetic. Shrinking the hiring pool by eliminating both Trump voters and also the non-Trump voters who don’t like the implications of the question. That’s a very large negative and is based on math, not opinion.
  - LarvaFX 6y ago
    You are making a quantitative argument for a case that can very well be a qualitative one. Your statement is not sound and it does not follow. Maybe it consider this an opportunity to educate yourself in logic?
    - esja 6y ago
      You're being needlessly patronising, but I'll answer in good faith in case you are actually interested. Ceteris paribus, reducing your hiring pool is a negative. Can qualitative factors counteract that? Sure, it's possible. But there is no evidence for it here, only assertion. And the quantitative problem is very large, so those factors would need to be very powerful. Aside from that, it's naive to believe that the qualitative factors will only work in the positive direction. Whatever is gained from excluding the wrong-thinkers could easily be dwarfed by legal or reputational problems, blowback from boycotts or other "cancellation", inability to address the whole market due to a lack of diverse viewpoints, etc.

gnicholas 6y ago

> It's also a question I will be asking any potential employer I interview with, going forward, for the same reason. This would be a very strange question to be asked of an interviewer. > Yes it means I can't hire employees in California Per the article I linked to up-thread, it's not just CA: California, Colorado, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia, Seattle, Ann Arbor, and Madison. Maybe you don't care about some of those locations, but CA, CO, and Seattle seem like pretty important ones in the tech world.

andrewacove 6y ago
It would be a strange question, depending on the scenario. You can imagine I probably don’t anticipate being in interviews where I’m asking that of somebody who isn’t the primary executive. (In other words, I wouldn’t want to work under someone whose judgement I don’t trust, and this would be a dealbreaker on judgement.) You’re correct that it rules out some important locations in tech, and I do think geography will continue to matter to a degree. I think there’s also some appeal to a company that has strong, publicly stated principles that can benefit recruiting, but it remains to be seen. But when I consider potential future ventures, these are things I’ve considered and intend to apply.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  IMO it would show exceedingly bad judgment to ask someone how they voted in an interview. I wouldn’t categorically refuse to hire such a person, but it would be a strike against.
  - andrewacove 6y ago
    I understand that perspective, but it doesn't affect my position. I'm free to choose who I work for, and I wouldn't choose to work for someone who found the question disqualifying. I get to define my own utility function.
    - gnicholas 6y ago

zo1 6y ago

You should probably put that on your job-listing ads! Also, how do you plan on phrasing the question? And if you're not fully within the power to "disqualify" the candidate, what other steps are you planning on taking to prevent them from being hired by your employer? Have you discussed it yet with your employer's HR department yet?

andrewacove 6y ago
Ha, yes, the intent is that it would be an open and stated part of the hiring process. There's no reason to surprise people with the question. I'd rather let candidates self-select them out, as much for this question as for any other mis-alignments. I did a poor job in my first comment of explaining my role relative to hiring. I'm speaking from a position of having been a founder and CEO, and likely being one again. The question about how this would play it with HR is understood, but isn't applicable to me personally. I believe (as I suspect you do) that in most organizations, this would be a hard thing to instill retroactively or individually and would meet lots of resistance, unless it were a very philosophically aligned company.
- DenisM 6y ago
  Would you consider listing this preference on your linked-in profile then? It's the same deal as a job ad.
  - andrewacove 6y ago
    If I were looking for work, I would consider it.
    - goatcode 6y ago
      I'd genuinely recommend just letting such things be a permanent fixture of your profile. It would save you a lot of headaches and wasted time dealing with people who'd ultimately not want to interact with you, and likewise with whom you'd not want to interact.

giantDinosaur 6y ago

The reason the secret ballot is even a thing is exactly because of people like you. Thank goodness you aren't in a role that involves hiring given such politicisation of the hiring process. I sincerely hope you never get such a position again.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]