Employers suck, and aren't "fair" at all.

[JadedStar]

live in a country, in a culture, in a society in which organized religion calls me a sinner, government calls me a taxpayer, businesses call me a consumer, and employers call me a human resource. I'm of value only to the degree that I grovel, work, pay taxes, and buy stuff. You'll have to forgive me if I find it difficult to have anything nice to say in these matters.

 

Who cares? YOu can't control mindsets. All that matters at the end of they day is who YOU think you are. I can see your beef is not just iwth corporations, it is with ANY organized group. And that is just a cross to bear as it is what it is.

[Batya33]

It is typical in all of the places I have worked.

 

I'm sorry you have so much anger and hostility and have had bad experiences in the work place.

 

my comments above are the ones in italics. sorry if it was confusing

[FortunateOne]

It is typical in all of the places I have worked.

 

I'm sorry you have so much anger and hostility and have had bad experiences in the work place.

 

my comments above are the ones in italics. sorry if it was confusing

 

So we come full circle to the OP's originally given advice; A positive paradigm shift to let go of the anger that comes from the frustration of not being in control which is a beginning trait of narcissistic tendencies.

[srvcrow]

QUOTE=CoffeeGirl84;1616681

 

Are you a person that just has this "screw the system" attitude???

 

Absolutely not and bravo for having the courage and insight to ask such a pointed question!

 

What I am, who I am, right at this very moment, is exactly as I have been for as long as I can remember. Bluntly: I'm simply fascinated and curious regarding just about everything in life (excluding the mind-numbing distractions such as so-called reality-TV--most of TV in general, actually...those sorts of extraneous things). I've always been fascinated by those most basic questions in life: Does God exist? Why is the sky blue? And so forth.

 

True story to let you know exactly WHEN this all began:

 

I was nine years old, third grade. I asked the teacher why the woman, and not the man, changed her name when they got married. I have never, ever forgotten that moment. Her answer set the stage for my "relationship" with so-called authority figures for the rest of my life. She simply said, "Randy, I don't know. All I do know is that it's a tradition."

 

There! A perfectly straight-forward and honest answer to a simple question. No patronizing and condescending tones or hints of "you're just a kid, you wouldn't understand," and all the rest of the crap that usually accompanies such questions.

 

That completely innocuous event also set the stage for my relationship with my "peers" for the rest of my life. Here's why:

 

The whole classroom erupted into laughter.

 

I've had 46 years to ponder this and have experienced the same thing over and over (although often the "laughter" is replaced with anger, name-calling, and every other emotional outburst known to the human condition). And it's this simple: The other kids laughed for only one of two reasons. Some laughed because they couldn't believe anyone was so stupid that he/she didn't already know it. Those are the pathetic souls who go through life with that air of "superiority" I hate with every ounce of my being.

 

The rest laughed because they hadn't thought of the question themselves, but in order to "fit in," to "belong" with the rest, they joined in the laughter. They are even more pathetic and tragic than the first bunch.

 

As I said, I've played this out thousands of times in hundred of situations among thousands of people, often one-on-one, more often in groups. It's always the same. These days, I do it just to continue to "test" my conclusions. As has been shown in this discussion, I'm never wrong.

 

Most people--old people, young people, and all in between--care far more about "fitting in" and/or demonstrating their "superiority" than seeking "the" final or even "a" truth, regardless of the topic.

 

Go back through this thread. Read all those questions I asked, all fair and legitimate questions. Now see how few times (if any) any of those specific questions were answered directly. I rest my case.

 

People fear one thing in life more than anything else--and YOU know exactly where this is heading (because among the many things I've ACCOMPLISHED in the past--all caps for those who believe "accomplishments" are the golden calf within corporate America--among those things is a whole bunch of preaching back in the '70s)....so the ONE thing people fear more than anything else is a healthy dose of "truth."

 

No, I'm NOT suggesting "absolute" truths because truth is, as corny as it sounds, just like that onion, layer upon layer, or put another way: Line upon line....

 

All I do in these discussions is present "a" truth, or "some" truths, things we all agree as being "true" regarding working in this country. But let me add a few questions along the way and you see how quickly all hell breaks loose.

 

I'll sum it up this way, then shut-up and go away:

 

All my life I have preferred what is known as the "solitude of the soul." The overwhelming majority of people prefer the "distractions" of daily life, things like sports, TV, anything and everything that serves to "distract" them from the obvious truth that life is not all THAT great to begin with. They lose themselves in their careers in the pursuit of wealth and material abundance convinced that in some strange fashion this might alleviate the "emptiness" they know all too well.

 

And the irony is this:

 

The only "antidote" for living this way is to find a something or someone to LOVE. These people who so vehemently defend corporate America and the pursuit of greed and money at the expense of obeying and conforming and all the rest probably won't live long enough to figure out something that became obvious to me before I got out of elementary school.

 

I'm rich beyond your wildest imagination. There's just not much appreciation for that in a society which places the emphasis on "wealth."

 

And the ONLY "point" I've tried to intimate through all this, always stopping just short of just coming out and saying it, is this:

 

There is, in the final sense of the word, only one true "authority figure" in your life. It's not your boss, not your supervisor, not the CEO. It's YOU! You and you alone have the final say in the direction your life takes.

 

What burns my * * * * * is the predictable litany of excuses and echoes of the same ol' crap about "I have a family to feed" and "that's just the way it is" and everything else that men have been saying since the beginning of time to rationalize and justify the use and manipulation of some for the benefit of others.

 

Frankly, I just wish Americans would have the honesty and integrity to admit the obvious: Capitalism is the religion of this country and we're all expected to worship at the feet of companies and employers and the degree of that worship is acknowledged and rewarded with money.

 

And we call this bondage and servitude to our employers "freedom"?

 

It's madness. And people say *I* have a bad attitude.

 

I probably do. But I've not sold my soul to the devil for a few pennies.

[Batya33]

It sounds like the one with the superiority attitude is . .. . you.

 

I disagree that working for a company is servitude in the USA or any similar country. It is a choice, there is compensation, if the compensation isn't fair there are choices to be made there as well. The picture you paint in your post is very black and white, it unfairly uses the advantage of reading into words on a screen to suit your own biases and resentments, and it has this whole slippery slope the sky is falling feel because if you don't go to the extremes you do all you are really saying is that you do not believe that a hierarchal structure in business is fair or promotes individuality. I respectfully disagree with you. What I think is probably going on is that instead of looking internally to evaluate why you were not able to work well with others and why you didn't have the motivation or courage to leave a setting where you weren't a good fit and find a new job, you've decide to place blame on "them" and "the corporate world."

 

If you truly had found a better way to live I don't think you'd come accross as so angry and hostile and hyperbolic about the corporate world and invoke the tired cliche of "servitude" when referencing people who get paid to do a job that they choose to do.

 

But I am only reading words on a screen.

 

I can tell you that because of corporate america I've been able to enrich and improve so many people's lives - both from company support for the charities I contribute to and work with and because my training allows me to give back to my community. And, the work I do helps many people.

[RelaxByWater84]

Just out of curiosity, how old are you???

[TheRedQueen]

Correction: People suck, and aren't "fair" at all.

 

Such is life CG...such is life.

[JadedStar]

What I think is probably going on is that instead of looking internally to evaluate why you were not able to work well with others and why you didn't have the motivation or courage to leave a setting where you weren't a good fit and find a new job, you've decide to place blame on "them" and "the corporate world."

 

 

what she said!

[RufusDawes]

Terms like cultural fit have been cited and documented as excuses for discrimination, such as for, race and socio economic background. A person could be deemed to not culturally fit in because they went to a poorer highschool or a lower university despite recieving similar grades in a similarily structured course. The article described ways for people from lower economic backgrounds to get overcome discrimination amd it was mostly aimed at graduates.

 

If you demand a cultural fit you are demanding that a person be hired for reasons other than their ability to perform the job. It leaves open the opportunity to hire at a whim of favouritism and discard the most worthy applicant simply because of personal dislike. I cannot think of anything less professional than allowing your personal likingness to a person get in the way of getting the best job done.

[Batya33]

We just have different definitions of cultural fit. I mean the particular way work is done at the company. Someone who might fit well in an environment that is very laid back, with a focus on socializing during the day and going to happy hour every thursday might not fit well in an environment that was ultra conservative, closed doors, never a raised voice and very intense.

 

I do not mean at all culture in terms of "old boys club" or anything that even suggests that people should be from similar backgrounds. Perhaps I should have said "environment" instead of "culture."

 

And, yes, I do want to work with people I click with on a professional level. When I interview someone it is to see not only if they have the skills but their tone, body language, if they seem interested in the work and the company, and their general attitude. If I didn't care about that I could just avoid the face to face interview all together.

 

As far as on a personal level - sure that's nice I guess but not a job requirement. There are people I love working with who I would never have an interest in socializing with - nothing in common in that way - and I am sure there are people who feel the same way about me.

 

Part of my corporate environment is promoting and maintaining diversity and that is the kind of environment I am the most comfortable in.

[RufusDawes]

Its not me who says cultural fit = discrimination, its a lot of people. It happens its a fact its a problem.

[Batya33]

Well, no, I have my own definition of cultural fit that I gave above. I am sure there is discrimination in certain workplaces - it is an issue globally I bet and many people work very hard to prevent and eradicate it, including me. I've been discriminated against, too but I refuse to let that keep me back or get me down/cynical. There of course will be those who use the term "cultural fit" but really want to discriminate, just like people use FWB instead of using the much more crude term. But please don't lump me or anyone else in with those who discriminate - that in itself is generalizing and discriminatory.

[srvcrow]

QUOTE=JadedStar;1616685

 

Who cares?

 

Me.

 

YOu can't control mindsets.

 

I know. But isn't that the point? I.E., it's about the opposite--being free from that "control" imposed on us by others.

 

All that matters at the end of they day is who YOU think you are.

 

Absolutely! But all the "they's" in the world will never know that if I "play the game" and create a personna necessary to, for example, get that "perfect" job.

 

I can see your beef is not just iwth corporations, it is with ANY organized group.

 

Your insights serve you very well indeed!

[srvcrow]

QUOTE=Batya33;1616686I

 

my comments above are the ones in italics. sorry if it was confusing

 

Not the least bit. Just one question if I may:

 

A couple of times you said "...in my country...." I'm presuming that means not the United States?

[srvcrow]

QUOTE=MoneyGod;1616755

 

So we come full circle to the OP's originally given advice; A positive paradigm shift to let go of the anger that comes from the frustration of not being in control which is a beginning trait of narcissistic tendencies.

 

Well that's an interesting observation and conclusion:

 

(1) A young man with a "bad/rebellious" attitude is told to "let it go," to accept the situation as it is, something over which he has no control, and to do so in order to become part of a "system."

 

How am I doing so far?

 

(2) Obviously, once he's done that, once he's moved beyond the "frustration of not being in control," he will live and work in a world in which he is in a position of subservience to those who DO have "control" over him.

 

(3) thereforeeee, those who DO have that "control" over HIM must be the ones who never did "let it go," right? And

 

(4) thereforeeee, those who have control over us must have "narcissistic tendencies."

 

Narcissism, from link removed:

 

1. inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.

2. Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

 

(5) Interesting. You've just concluded that those with the "control" over our lives are "infantile" in terms of character development.

 

So do you really mean to suggest that all those CEO's, all those human resource managers, all those military leaders are truly "infantile"?

 

(Personally, I hope so because I do SO agree!)

 

Ah, but here's the paradox:

 

Everyone started out by telling this young chap to, in essense, "grow up" if he is to "succeed" in the business world. What you've now told him is that IF he does that, if he does "work hard" and all the rest required to be in positions of control and authority over others--IF he does all that, you've now told him that by virtue of nothing more than having that "control" over others THAT he is NOW there because he did NOT "grow up" and "let it go."

 

(Again, I hope that's exactly what you meant! In my experience, those "at the top" are NOT the ones who "grew up." They merely "gave up.")

[srvcrow]

QUOTE=Batya33;1616965

 

It sounds like the one with the superiority attitude is . .. . you.

 

Nope. I'm just an average guy with tons of questions. That's all. Questions I've been asking all my life. Questions that rarely get answered with anything other than "that's just the way it is," "get over it," "life isn't fair," and all the rest.

 

I'm not oblivious to the reality of the thing. I simply question WHY it "has" to be that way. Are you telling me that you think humankind is incapable of doing better?

 

I disagree that working for a company is servitude in the USA or any similar country. It is a choice

 

No, it's not a "choice" to "work." It's what we MUST do. I get that, as well.

 

there is compensation, if the compensation isn't fair there are choices to be made there as well.

 

Agreed.

 

The picture you paint in your post is very black and white

 

Yes, done so ONLY to get to the underlying philosophies and motivations behind the thing.

 

it unfairly uses the advantage of reading into words on a screen to suit your own biases and resentments,

 

Words are how we communicate (okay, there's guns and bombs and dollar signs and lots of other ways). And words mean things, do they not? I speak words; I read words. If the conclusions I reach based on one's words are wrong or innacurate, it's a very simple matter of saying, "You misunderstood."

Doing that suggests a shared interest at getting to the "truth" of the thing as opposed to leaving the impression it's about "winning" the argument.

 

and it has this whole slippery slope the sky is falling feel because if you don't go to the extremes you do all you are really saying is that you do not believe that a hierarchal structure in business is fair or promotes individuality. I respectfully disagree with you.

 

That's fine that you disagree. If I may, I would make just one subtle distinction, like this: Corporate and business environments do NOT promote "individuality." They do promote "individuals." But ALL invovled ARE expected to conform, to "play the game" in varying degrees. Wouldn't you agree? (And contrary to the conclusions being reached, I have no problem with "rules" and structure and so forth.)

 

What I think is probably going on is that instead of looking internally to evaluate why you were not able to work well with others

 

I work very well WITH others. It's working FOR someone who, as I say, confuses his "authority" with being "superior" in some way. And rare is that man who doesn't fall into that trap. It's not just a cliche that "power corrupts...."

 

and why you didn't have the motivation or courage to leave a setting where you weren't a good fit and find a new job

 

Hello? I'm at job #51, remember? I wrote the book on knowing when and why it's time to leave and move on.

 

you've decide to place blame on "them" and "the corporate world."

 

No. On the contrary, I'm saying that it's MY life and *I* am the one in control. It's when the "they's" of the world seek to usurp my personal "authority" over my own life that I do, as you say, pack it up and move on. I blame the corporate world for one thing, and one thing only: Placing profits above any consideration of the human factor involved.

 

If you truly had found a better way to live

 

"....a better way to live...." What does that mean?

 

I don't think you'd come accross as so angry and hostile and hyperbolic about the corporate world

 

Ah, but see? You and nearly everyone else see that it's far more an "appearance" than the reality. I.E., I'm not "that" angry and hostile about the thing. Again, I simply question WHY it is the way it is (and we ALL agree there's room for MUCH improvement) and WHY "we" don't do something about instead of continuing perpetuating the same old problems.

 

and invoke the tired cliche of "servitude" when referencing people who get paid to do a job that they choose to do.

 

No, the only cliches involved are "to get a good job, get a good education," "work ethics," "hard work pays off," and all the rest. The cliches are coming from the "other side of the aisle."

 

Blue-collar folks like me will tell you every single time that at the end of the day, when not one "manager" has taken the time to say, "Hey, job well done. Thanks," but chooses instead to say "your pay is our way of saying 'thanks,"--every blue-collar WILL tell you that it IS "servitude."

 

And you know what? That's fine.

 

The anger you perceive comes from THEM wanting to keep it strictly "business" while demanding that I display some "humanity" and "play nice." The problems are, again, on THEIR side of the aisle, not mine and not that of everyone else who works for a living (which is just about everyone of us).

 

But I am only reading words on a screen.

 

Me, too. That's why I love actually talking about these things with people. It's then that even the most "rich and powerful" types can and will acknowledge that the whole thing really is a mess and they, sometimes more than me, would love to "change" it.

 

I can tell you that because of corporate america I've been able to enrich and improve so many people's lives - both from company support for the charities I contribute to and work with and because my training allows me to give back to my community. And, the work I do helps many people.

 

Ah, but most of the people of whom I write and speak aren't nearly that fortunate. Most are working and earning enough to "just get by." They, too, would love to be able to help in that way.

 

But that leads to a whole other and new round of rants on my part: When did people (like me, who don't have a lot of "money") decide that the ONLY way to "help" others was by giving money? It's as if the whole world has forgotten how much "help" there is to be had by nothing more than a warm smile and friendly greeting! And not one true "act of kindness" ever costs a penny, does it?

[srvcrow]

QUOTE=CoffeeGirl84;1616976

 

Just out of curiosity, how old are you???

 

I'll be 55 on 08.02.

[srvcrow]

QUOTE=RufusDawes;1617342

 

I cannot think of anything less professional than allowing your personal likingness to a person get in the way of getting the best job done.

 

You get one big tip of my ol' Tilley hat on that one!

 

It's telling, to me, that according to the "experts" in these matters, the decision to hire or not hire is usually made within the first five-to-ten minutes of the interview.

 

In my experience it comes down to who they like, or perhaps dislike the least. And y'all should know, by now, that I'm not bashful about these things. I've asked nearly every employer I've ever had "why" they hired me instead of someone else. Sure, they admit that they were convinced I could "do the job" and so forth, but each said, "I liked you."

 

And I'm NOT saying that's a "bad" thing. Hell, it practically falls under the catergory of that whole "human nature" thing. But to refuse to give serious consideration to someone for just giving off "negative vibes" is just plain self-defeating, I would think, from a business standpoint.

 

As I've said before, the BEST co-workers and employees I've EVER known are inevitably the grumpiest people you'd ever meet. But they're there to DO the work. They don't care about the rest. (But move beyond that facade of "grumpy" and they're always great people!)

[srvcrow]

QUOTE=Batya33;1617350

 

And, yes, I do want to work with people I click with on a professional level. When I interview someone it is to see not only if they have the skills but their tone, body language

 

But how can you make those judgments in a situation in which MOST people are very uncomfortable? Very few people are at their "best" during a job interview.

 

if they seem interested in the work and the company

 

You might be an exception. But here's the scenario:

 

You're just talked to a "candidate." You've told him/her that you will be conducting interviews for another week or ten days and then you'll make your decision.

 

Now, you've said you want them to show "interest." First, they wouldn't be there if they weren't "interested." And second--and most important--did this person conducting the interview (that's why I said you may be different) bother to take any sorts of notes regarding this particular candidate? I mean, he's going to talk to, say, fifteen more applicants. How can one who does the hiring expect the applicant to show "interest" while the applicant watches the interviewer take no notes, no reminders of any kind, and knowing that the chances of being "remembered" are slim to none?

 

and their general attitude.

 

But don't you agree that the "attitude" during an interview rarely has anything to do with their "real" attitude"? You could interview me and (assuming I had all the qualifications) and you'd swear to the high heavens your company couldn't survive without me. AFTER you'd hired me, you'd learn WHO you had REALLY hired: ME! (You'd better laughing here!)

 

If I didn't care about that I could just avoid the face to face interview all together.

 

I sometimes think THAT might the best thing to do. Or we could at least give it a "test" run, don't you think? I do know that employers struggle with getting the best people and I don't envy you of that, not one little bit. Everyone wants a job but few want to work! (Oh, if you think I'm down on employers, you do NOT want to get me started on employees!)

 

Part of my corporate environment is promoting and maintaining diversity

 

But here's the rub: There's not much tolerance and acceptance regarding "diversity" in, for lack of a better way to say thing, differing business philosophies and attitudes. For example, you may have concluded I positively hate "employers" and because of that "attitude," I wouldn't be able or willing to "get along" and be a good employee. Absolutely nothing could be farther from the truth.

 

Again, I don't envy you one bit. I've done my share of hiring. It's a crap-shoot, it really is.

[Batya33]

I didn't read all of your responses but it seems like your perspective is that we should do away with interviewing because people are not at their best on an interview and because we shouldn't judge a person based on the presentation he gives and the answers he gives, the questions he asks, how he behaves, when meeting the people he might be working closely with. I completely disagree and find it patronizing to assume that people do not know how to conduct a fair interview (of course people get nervous, just as they do in any kind of first impression situation, and in many jobs it's essential to see how a person reacts in that kind of situation -- comes up in my job all of the time).

 

There's a balance between fairness and ethics in the work place - and the bottom line of the company. We just disagree where the line is drawn and you start with the premise that the workplace is a place of servitude and that employers get rich at the expense of and to the disadvantage of disenfranchised employees. It don't agree that it works that way in the U.S. (or other similar countries but I can't comment on that)

 

I believe my approach is a reasonable balance between the rights and needs of employees and the need of the company to stay afloat and profitable. I odn't think it's the employer's job, for example, to coddle its employees which is how I see your suggestion of doing away with the interview process because - gasp! - people get nervous on an interview!

 

Of course there should be changes and constant evaluation of how things are done - often, I believe that certain laws, rules or policies might give too much flexibility in the workplace and feel the opposite about other situations. From my perspective, "corporate america" has been good to me because I paid my dues (without resentment), worked my tail off and got the training I needed both on the job and in school and all of that has paid off nicely for me. Also paid off nicely for many others since I'm able to give to charity and do work in my community with homeless people.

 

I stand by all I said earlier and I apologize for not having time to read all you wrote.

[srvcrow]

QUOTE=Batya33;1617705

 

I didn't read all of your responses but it seems like...

 

And this becomes a perfect analogy for my comments in general, and in this case, limiting it specifically to a job interview.

 

You're basing judgments on extremely limited information, I understand that, but placing the emphasis on how well one "performs" in the interview.

 

I completely disagree and find it patronizing to assume that people do not know how to conduct a fair interview.

 

Well, with all due respect, most simply do not! They conduct an interview as if it were an interrogation!

 

And you're faced with even greater problems! By law and corporate practice (either or both, doesn't matter) employers won't ask questions about things that REALLY matter: Things like family, personal interests, and so forth. After all, those are seen as "irrelevant" to the position. But then six months after hiring me, you learn the new guy has a wife who's dying from cancer and suddenly he's missing every other day and now YOU would be the one getting all sideways because it's affecting the daily operations of your company. Had you asked about these things, you would have known. But wait: You "can't" ask because THAT can be perceived to be "discrimination."

 

ALL I'm saying is that the "hiring process" leaves very much to be desired.

 

And if you really want to know what burns me about it all, it's this:

 

It's not asking too much for you to tell the people you do NOT hire that they did NOT get the job! HERE is where it becomes a matter of nothing more than common courtesy and human decency. They've shown up, gone through the interview, leave, and far more often than not, the only who hears anything afterward is the one who gets the job. The rest never know if it was something they said, didn't say, overqualified, not enough qualifications, and so forth.

 

But "corporate America" continues to tell people like me that I'm to "trust" this process. It'll never happen.

 

(of course people get nervous, just as they do in any kind of first impression situation, and in many jobs it's essential to see how a person reacts in that kind of situation -- comes up in my job all of the time).

 

Right. And do you truly believe for one minute that that "first impression" is an actual and trustworthy indicator of what that person is REALLY like? Are you, personally, open and completely honest with the people you interview about who and what YOU are?

 

The answer is "No!" It's a game, a charade, and I didn't make it that way and neither did you but at the very least have the integrity to admit that it's just a "formality" one must endure in order to get a job.

 

Put this way: With the abyssmal turnover rates companies have, there's definitely something wrong somewhere, right?

 

(I know: Right here is where we blame the workers. But no, wait. You can't, or shouldn't do that simply because THEY were once called the "best" and the "ideal" candidate! They went though all this and got hired, didn't they? So you tell me what the problem is!)

 

There's a balance between fairness and ethics in the work place

 

Ideally, YES YES YES! The reality of it is that such is very rare these days!

 

and the bottom line of the company.

 

Which has become THE only thing that matters. Or have you not heard about "downsizing" and moving operations overseas to cut labor costs and increase "profits"?

 

We just disagree where the line is drawn

 

Yes. And that's perfectly acceptable.

 

and you start with the premise that the workplace is a place of servitude and that employers get rich at the expense of and to the disadvantage of disenfranchised employees.

 

Well, unless and until they stop calling me a "resource" I will never, ever see it any other way! Repeat after me: I am NOT a damned RESOURCE!

 

It don't agree that it works that way in the U.S.

 

Are you kidding? This country wrote the book on corporate greed!

 

I believe my approach is a reasonable balance between the rights and needs of employees and the need of the company to stay afloat and profitable.

 

In theory, absolutely. I'm not discussing mere theory and erudition; I'm talking the reality of the thing.

 

I odn't think it's the employer's job, for example, to coddle its employees which is how I see your suggestion of doing away with the interview process because - gasp! - people get nervous on an interview!

 

Ah, now wait a minute!

 

A person coming in for an interview is NOT an "employee"!

 

What I AM saying is that I'm tired of employers painting that "rose-colored" picture of how great and wonderful they would be to work for when the reality is it IS "just a job," never that much better or worse than anywhere else. And simultaneously, stop demanding that *I* pretend to be someone I'm not simply in order to bluff you into believing I'm the "ideal" candidate.

 

From my perspective, "corporate america" has been good to me

 

Then that's great for you! But please don't presume for one minute that it plays out the same for everyone else! It doesn't.

 

I apologize for not having time to read all you wrote.

 

No worries at all, Sir.

[Batya33]

Please see my responses above - I am done responding as it sounds like you're just wanting to vent. Good luck to you.

[srvcrow]

QUOTE=Batya33;1617809

 

Please see my responses above - I am done responding as it sounds like you're just wanting to vent.

 

Then you misunderstand and I regret that.

 

Good luck to you.

 

Thank you. Nothing but the best to you as well.

[JadedStar]

It is clear the corporate world is not for you srvcrow. There are plenty of construction jobs out there that would probably be more suited to your untamed nature. I can't think of many other job types that will afford you the type of lax and unstructured atmosphere you are seeking.

 

But beware, even those jobs have rules!

[srvcrow]

untamed nature

 

Interesting choice of words, I think. "Untamed" like a "bad dog" that won't obey your commands, or "untamed" like a bird that's free to soar among the clouds?