By Jobless - 07/09/2010 23:27 - Canada
Add a comment - Reply to : #
52- That's discrimination, and they can get in a lot of shit if their boss finds out they refused to hire someone for aesthetic reasons. OP- Hopefully it's because you didn't have the required credentials or you didn't meet the criteria.
95- According to the law, everyone has the right to fair treatment. Meaning, they can't be refused at an interview because they're of a particular race, gender, orientation, etc. The only reason why a person may be refused like that is because they were dressed unprofessionally. It's a universal unspoken rule that one must dress modestly and appropriately when going to an interview. 97- Please refer to the latter half of my previous paragraph.
Ouch. Were you dressed unprofessionally or something? Without more info I can't decide if YDI or FYL.
What was the point of staying for the interview then, I wonder....
That's when you say "I'm actually a common-law attorney investigating allegations of incorrect labour practice. I'll listen to your excuses now, but I'm not going to believe any of them."
No you're not. You're 21 years old. You may be training to be a common law lawyer, but you're not one yet. The interviewer doesn't have to hire anyone he doesn't want to, plus your country is so fucked up with political correctness that he was probably forced to employ a black, muslim, midget, lesbian with a limp and a hump. Just to fill demographics!
@24 Congratulations, you managed to turn a hypothetical rebuke into an advert for the dangers of idiocy and ignorance in the space of one statement. I envy your dedication. And by dedication, I mean lack of comprehension for the concept of contextualisation. And by that I mean you were being a damn idiot.