I find myself unable to process the job advertisements in a way that actually translates into tasks you would actually be performing. I don't know how many times I've heard of people talking about they applied for a job that read like they wanted an entry level person, and come to find out they ended up hiring people who were 10 and 15 years above the experience level it sounded like they were asking for.

My dad just recently got a job, the position he applied for was road maintenance.....fixing pot holes basically and then in the winter plowing snow. They sent him an offer letter, no details of actual job activities. He needed a job and he had been looked over for stuff in other jobs for not repeating himself in each category, one applicant assessor told him he should put "Asphalt" in front of "Paver Operator" because they don't know if a paver is the same as an asphalt paver...and that he should have repeated that in every section that left room for entering your own info. So after dealing with that for over a year, he took this job....thinking he's finally got something that is at least in his ballpark and they have some sort of reasonable job description where the guy isn't performing the job duties of six people. After he went through his orientation and got the gear they required him to have for safety.....he was put on a weed eater. That's all he does all day is run a weed eater.....which was never mentioned in the job description he applied for. Never mentioned in the orientation, never mentioned in the offer packet......basically just never mentioned.

So......all I have to say to that is. Employers are their own worst enemy. You get people into jobs through networking or lieing, as the process that is in place is pure deception based on both fronts. If you answer questions honestly and try not to exaggerate or guess what they want, you look like you are unqualified by a large margin. So you get people who have drastically less experience and do things that are very dangerous because they don't know know any better....because they exaggerated/lied on their applications.

It's like when I read the resumes of my highest paid friends. I know they can't do what's on their resume, I even ask them if they can. And they pretty much preface anything by saying "I could learn how to do it.".....which to me, if it's a core job task you're looking at it's an unacceptable answer. Because you don't know if you could learn it to the level you would need for that job. And that's on top of the crazy list of skills they ask for when most of them are not even slightly used by their company.

Basically they need to figure out what they actually need/want so they can find a fair market price to ballpark on their job ads.

There's still a company in my area that advertisers for a specific job all year round, and has done so for 3 years. I find it impossible that they have not filled an entry level job position adequately in 3 years with 2 universities located in the same town and a even larger universities located just an hour away. I believe they want to marginalize their staff, so they can plug anyone in at any time for as close to minimum wage as they can manage....or they are using it as a tool to say "Look we've interviewed countless individuals and we have no filled that position."

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
^Joe, your reply missed the point. The system looks after itself. Of course the courts are going to rule with local law enforcement authorities, that has a long tradition. The courts also approved separate but equal facilities, then reversed their decision years later. Their decisions aren't always entirely based in legal precedent, but in the predominate social norms of the time. I was talking about the plain and simple fact that the intractable difference in the phrasing of the constitution and the foundation of these types of laws. Of course these laws exist, I already said that. What concerns me is the erosion of our base of freedom.
A man with a sign does nothing to impede movement on the sidewalks away way. This is a technicality, but a valid one. An ordinance that doesn't take that into consideration first thing sounds like a thing made to stop protests first, and keep the sidewalks clear second.



No, you are missing the point and in this rare circumstance, I agree with someone 100%. I know the example I am about to give will be extreme, however, even if extreme, by your reasoning, congress could make NO LAW every prohibiting it...

A man rapes a random woman/passerby because he wants to protest women's rights. Per the NO LAW, ever, clause you mention, this would be a lawful act. Even the laws on the books about rape could not prohibit this man from his wrong doing because, since he is protesting and using free speach, he is immune from prosecution.

Like I said, that example is extreme. However, the law, strictly read, is extreme as well. So there SHOULD be SOME leeway in there. You need a permit? The state cannot discriminate so apply for one and it will be granted. This does not, in anyway, stop a protest by a concerned, non-lazy citizen...

Also, who are these tards to ask for ID, say it is required, and not give their own info? Is it required? Because I don't think it is required of rent-a-cops or other private sectors... I know Florida's courtroom security is run by a private corporation...