Think of this as an IQ test of a potential employer. If one brings it up, point out to them, in detail, how easy it would have been to determine this wasn't you, then walk out of the interview and be thankful you've dodged a bullet.
Unfortunately, in reality, if any employers do see this as an issue, they'll never bring it up. They'll just refuse to interview you in the first place, or fail to make you an offer after your interview.
If you ask, you'll get a vague response like "We don't think you're a good fit".
Most employers will never give you specific reasons for turning down your application, largely as a CYA move.
Exactly. While I definitely agree that this could be a litmus test of sorts to weed out poor employers, the problem is you won't be able to determine why they didn't touch base for an interview.
That being said, I don't think there's anything you need to do to "fix" this problem. The fact of the matter is that this will simply be one of quite a few possible reasons a company doesn't hire someone. I honestly don't see this as hurting your overall chances of finding work. If it really bothers you (and I can understand why it would), then take the advice of others and create a web presence of your own.
Either way, best of luck to you.
Oh, I wouldn't go so far to label it a conspiracy, just an obvious conflict of interest.
The fact that they themselves sell software that benefits from the results of a study that they themselves conduct just degenerates the whole thing into the realm of the ludicrous.
Oh, yes. That good old American myth that the world would be safe if everyone and their dog were packing some heat. I guess I'll have to move to Baghdad or Mogadishu, which must be the safest places on Earth, since everybody there is armed to the teeth.
Actually, it has nothing to do with safety, but rather the ability to defend one's liberty, and the fact that safety isn't worth the loss of liberty.
I don't think that's the issue at hand.
It isn't about disregarding an applicant's merit and favoring US citizens, it's about companies exploiting the H1B system for profit. The H1B system isn't supposed to be a facilitator of cheap labor, but it has been demonstrated that this is often exactly what it is used for, which is the concern behind TFA.
The H1B program would be fine if fair wages could be enforced. They can't, which has caused the program to be abused by unscrupulous employers.
I'd like to see some discussion from someone more versed in the case and its legal proceedings before I make up my mind on this. I read TFA, and a couple of other similar articles, but also read the filing itself. Nothing from it led me to believe that the Obama administration was explicitly siding with Bush on this case, only that it was asking for a stay in proceedings until the appeal filed by Bush was handled. That seems reasonable to me, as the appeal had already been issued.
My questions for those more educated than myself on the matter is, would it have been more appropriate for Obama to ask that the appeal be dismissed outright and for the case to proceed? Would that cause more trouble for the case than simply reiterating that the case continue on the track that it had been when Bush left office?
When I hire people, I don't really care if I'm at a company that's business casual or shorts and a t-shirt. I dress up, and expect the candidate too as well. Discrimination? EEOC lists age, disability, equal pay, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, retaliation, sex, and sexual harassment as this that can violate EEO rules. I didn't see anything about dress code. You are right though, there are probably a lot of companies that expected you to wear a tie that you are not a good match for.
Absolutely. I bear no malice against them at all. I just wouldn't want to work in that sort of environment.
They expect a certain amount of class and respect from someone who seeks employment at their firm. I never expect a low level help desk guy to wear a full suit (although many do) - but a shirt and a tie is nice, and a pair of slacks with a pressed button down shirt is a bare minimum. Want to come work at a senior level? Find a sports jacket and show me you want to make a good first impression.
That's where I have to differ in my opinion. I can understand why a dress code is viewed by many as a sign of respect, but I don't feel that way, and I wouldn't want to work at a place that does either. Simply a personal preference.
My first interview was at the age of 16 for a company that sold windows (vinyl windows, not the computer kind). I knew very little about interviewing, but wore a button down shirt, tie, and a pair of slacks. Why? I had enough respect for the interviewer.
I dressed up in the first interview I had as well, also out of respect. It occurred to me after doing this a couple of times that I really wanted a company to hire me for who I was and what I knew, not how smartly I could dress. I feel I'm doing both the company and myself a better service by dressing as I would come to work and take the measure of each other from there.
Were there not a Google (or internet equivalent), I wouldn't sit back in my rocking chair, exclaim "Oh, well," and have a cup or two of tea. Instead, I'd get in my car and drive to the library to look whatever it was up in a reference book, or search the catalog for a book I could borrow on the topic.
In that way, Google (or equivalent) saves energy.
Now that said, I expect Google to do their best to minimize energy consumption. Given that their electricity costs directly hit their cost of doing business, I suspect they agree with this goal.
I'm inclined to agree. It's impossible to determine whether using Google results in a net savings or loss of energy/carbon/etc. when compared to the actions that would replace using Google. The article does go on to state that a relative comparison is more important than absolute values, but does so after a lot of rather accusatory language that sets the tone. Unfortunate.
The nation that controls magnetism controls the universe. -- Chester Gould/Dick Tracy
