Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[EuchreJack]

news person on tv somehow sounding sad/disappointed about some retail chain having to cut prices due to reduced demand

like wow, how terrible, some chain store ripping people off less, such an unfortunate thing, sad, sad

...

To be vaguely fair, it did occur to me when I started typing this they might have stock in whatever the company was, or they were depressed over something else or whatever, so maybe there's some sort of reasonable cause to it, but... still. Still.

You forget that retail chains heavily advertise on TV. The News Person probably was told to drum up sales for Wal-Mart, our major advertiser, or else.

[None]

It's, erh, a Korean TV drama. Let someone enjoy it for what it is, yah?

[Vector]

Or let someone who knows more about S. Korea answer the questions ...

[JoshuaFH]

Anyway, yeah, you can eyeball the easy definition of nepotism to see it extends to friends as well as family, and extends to both power and influence -- it's not just a rich person thing by a country mile (pointedly, out here in the country it's wildly rampant even among folks operating below the poverty line). Corruption related to that is rooted fucking deep in the US hiring process, to the point I've regularly gotten just flat out incomprehension from folks when pointing out that, yes, favoring friends or family or even just acquaintances in the hiring process is, in fact, corruption and/or nepotism, even when the person being selected is largely or entirely qualified. Hire competence doesn't change that you're passing over people that may be just as, or more, qualified based on personal familiarity and whatnot. So on and so forth.

The extent that kind of behavior is tangled into everything (largely everywhere, it's not unique to the US even a little, just much worse than we like to admit over here) makes it a messy and complicated issue.

I see, it never occurred to me that that kind of small scale nepotism would even BE corruption, if only because it starts to massively overcomplicate the hiring process if the Employer just so happens to know a lot of people, and therefore it could be argued in any hiring decision made he was being nepotistic in a "Six Degrees of Separation" kind of way. Like, if hiring a friend is nepotism, and hiring your friend's daughter is nepotism, there what degree is it not nepotism? Would a friend of a friend be nepotism? Would your friend's 2nd cousin twice removed be nepotism? Would your friend's ex-wife's adopted son be nepotism? Perhaps the argument could be made that it is, if the definition is simply any familiarity or connection whatsoever. Would the hiring process then be to group up all qualified candidates then assign the positions at random somehow? Go through an obligatory double blind process that strains out all identifying information of the actual applicant? Do no actual hiring yourself, but rather extend the position to a neutral 3rd party hiring agency, or union, or something like that, that will decide who gets the position on your behalf? I'm certainly all for sticking it to shitheaded at-will businesses, and securing a greater deal of fairness and security for employees, but I'd be very concerned over how businesses would be able to have control over their own culture, or how to select for 'intangible' qualities that are difficult to put into writing but are important nonetheless.

So yeah now I can see why it's a "messy and complicated issue".

[Mathel]

By definition, it is nepotism if the familiarity plays a role.

You can hire people you know. In fact, not hiring people because you know them would also be nepotism.

You knowing them has to not play a role in their hiring. And yes, it is unfeasable to achieve that completely, so long as the hiring people have to choose from candidates of similar skill.

[EuchreJack]

Nepotism is probably too complex a topic for the WTF thread, honestly.
EDIT: I created a new thread to discuss Nepotism, if nobody wants to hunt down another thread.

[EuchreJack]

Or let someone who knows more about S. Korea answer the questions ...

If you're not that person, STFU maybe?

It's, erh, a Korean TV drama. Let someone enjoy it for what it is, yah?

Point taken.

[JoshuaFH]

By definition, it is nepotism if the familiarity plays a role.

You can hire people you know. In fact, not hiring people because you know them would also be nepotism.

You knowing them has to not play a role in their hiring. And yes, it is unfeasable to achieve that completely, so long as the hiring people have to choose from candidates of similar skill.

I see, I didn't know that part either.

Nepotism is probably too complex a topic for the WTF thread, honestly.

You know, yeah.

Wow.  Where do I begin?
1) Lawyers have been on the Autistic Spectrum for years. I'm not talking just new-generation, recently graduated and outed Autistic. I'm talking guys in their 60s who CLEARLY are somewhere on the spectrum (Asperger's as one admitted and could explain the others, if you want to get technical).
2) Made for TV, for the most part.  Specialization is just as you described in the US, and probably the same in South Korea.  BUT, litigation is still litigation, and being able to argue something in a courtroom is a skill with some transferability.  In a larger law office, they can designate some attorneys to litigate all cases in Court, where the people that actually specialize in the particular areas prep the cases and give the litigation lawyers all the stuff they need for Court. And, hey, if the client thinks their attorney can handle it, and the attorney thinks they can handle it...eh it happens.
(there are also snake oil salesmen calling themselves attorneys, and polymath attorneys that can do it all)
3) As for that bullshit about people losing their shit over nepotism: See it for the hypocrisy it is, please.  The main character made the dual mistake of being related to authority and admitting weakness in the form of a diagnosis, and is getting attacked over it under the neoptism flag.  She'll figure it out eventually, and Netflix will probably hammer it later on (probably with a true nepotism story).

1) I mean, I don't doubt there's folks in the spectrum working high-end professions. I was just commenting that it seemed a little on-the-nose for a representation.
2)That's cool to learn, I do like to peek into the lives of how professions like doctors or lawyers go about their day to day business. I'm subbed to a few youtubers like that and they never stop being interesting.
3) The specific case in the story is made doubly complex due to the character having autism, and the fact that there's anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discriminating against those with disabilities. Despite that Anti-discrimination law however, our Main Character was not able to get hired anywhere due to her autism, so were it not for the nepotism (and the possible scheming of the CEO on an unrelated matter), she wouldn't have gotten hired anywhere at all, despite graduating with near perfect scores from her prestigious law university.

[EuchreJack]

3) The specific case in the story is made doubly complex due to the character having autism, and the fact that there's anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discriminating against those with disabilities. Despite that Anti-discrimination law however, our Main Character was not able to get hired anywhere due to her autism, so were it not for the nepotism (and the possible scheming of the CEO on an unrelated matter), she wouldn't have gotten hired anywhere at all, despite graduating with near perfect scores from her prestigious law university.

That is interesting!

[Dunamisdeos]

I do some hiring in the US, so imma go ahead and do an [exposition]. Tis' firmly in the realm of opinion.

Nepotism in the US isn't a problem because someone hired someone they are already familiar with outside of the workplace. It's a problem when someone hires someone because they are familiar with them outside of the workplace, or as a priority over their actual qualifications.

If I have candidate A candidate B, and they both have the *same qualifications, and I have worked with B in the past or have a solid pre-existing relationship with them that leads me to believe they would be trustworthy/competent in that role, I am going with B. That's not corruption, that's common fukkin' sense. Firsthand experience with a candidate is a legitimate qualification. You can say that it's somehow unfair that B has an advantage, but the other way would be to deny B a job because I know them. That's ass too. In this case it's equally shitty to say that B only got a job because they knew someone, despite their qualifications.

Note: That's a common shitty reaction to women being hired for leadership roles. Clearly they only got hired because they know someone, somewhere.

Spoiler: * More in depth wall of text (click to show/hide)

Now where the corruption comes into it is when they are both NOT equal, which is obviously the overwhelming majority of cases, and someone takes candidate B over a more qualified A. As someone who has handled hiring and is NOT a shitty manager (Says me), I would prioritize any demonstrated or listed qualification over previous friendship. In fact the only time I've ever recommended someone I knew for a job was for entry level stuff where the sole qualification was "can press button on phone" and "can confirm firsthand that this guy shows up to work". Those positions are basically crapshoots for hiring where we have 1000 candidates on file. I don't think I'd be comfortable recommending someone into say, a leadership role. That where it can and does get shitty, because Chad from high school is gonna be super cool to hang out with in the break room, but it turns out his role as a shift lead at McDonalds did not qualify him to be CFO, and him and the 1000 people underneath him all get blamed for his incompetency and the incompetency of the guy that hired him. Usually its a "well if the lazy plebs (who have been here for 12 years and all said this was a stupid idea in the first place) underneath Chad worked harder to make up for Chad then it wouldn't be a problem now would it" sort of bullshit.

We do have nepotism laws for PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND STATE/FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS, but to my knowledge we do not for private business.

[JoshuaFH]

Thanks for the insight there Duna, I appreciate it.

[EuchreJack]

I also threw together something in the Nepotism thread, for what it's worth.

[Frumple]

they have wireless heated plates now

and not, like, old school just-heat-up-something-that-holds-heat wireless

actual wireless electronics stuff going on

in a plate

to keep food warm while it's sitting on a table or something

[ChairmanPoo]

Eh, to me what you are describing is a very clear example of nepotism. That being said, if anyone doesn't believe it's omnipresent in society, I've a bridge to sell you. Thriving is in no small measure a matter on who you know. Actual "merit" takes a backseat. It will have a bigger impact on what you make of the opportunities you are given though.

[Dunamisdeos]

Both are technically true, IMO. Nepotism is, by its most literal definition, favoring someone you have a previous relationship with for hiring. It is not, however, an intrinsically negative concept.
 
But, as in my wall of text, most applicants are not equal. Nepotism is usually used (quite correctly) to refer to cases of unfair hiring, especially in federal/state positions. It's still shitty to use it as a blanket term to hate on people who got helped out by a friend to get a job they were fully qualified for, and for which the prior relationship was an indicator of further qualification. Having proved firsthand in the past to a potential employer that you are trustworthy/personable/skilled/etc is in fact a legitimate merit.

Whoever said this isn't meant for the WTF thread is right though, my bad.