Red Mosquito

Please calm down.

He has a point. Are you worried about what this person who you’ll never meet thinks of your personally? Cuz otherwise, they’re simply asking for too much money. Open and shut.

Let them think what they’re gonna think, that’s their issue. It’s out of your control.

If it still weighs on you, schedule a phone screen and focus on the salary, and let them decide if it’s something they want to pursue. But only if you think they’re a possible good employee.

I’ll spare you the context but I was recently asked how I would incorporate DEI into pay levels and I said that I would not. The job is the job.

spike wrote:He has a point. Are you worried about what this person who you’ll never meet thinks of your personally? Cuz otherwise, they’re simply asking for too much money. Open and shut.

No, not me personally. I’ll never have contact with the person. Just don’t want them to think that was the reason they were turned down.

bodysnatcher wrote:Let them think what they’re gonna think, that’s their issue. It’s out of your control.

Thanks

Bammer wrote:I’ll spare you the context but I was recently asked how I would incorporate DEI into pay levels and I said that I would not. The job is the job.

Why would that be worked into pay levels? In what way would they expect it to be?

Yeah I’m curious about that too bammer

wease wrote:

spike wrote:He has a point. Are you worried about what this person who you’ll never meet thinks of your personally? Cuz otherwise, they’re simply asking for too much money. Open and shut.

No, not me personally. I’ll never have contact with the person. Just don’t want them to think that was the reason they were turned down.

Man they really got their claws into you.

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:I’ll spare you the context but I was recently asked how I would incorporate DEI into pay levels and I said that I would not. The job is the job.

Why would that be worked into pay levels? In what way would they expect it to be?

It was about paying a higher amount so that the job would be attractive to a more diverse candidate pool. Basically paying FT salary and full benefits package for a PT job.

(There are plenty of people interested in the job, this is not for lack of interest)

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:I’ll spare you the context but I was recently asked how I would incorporate DEI into pay levels and I said that I would not. The job is the job.

Why would that be worked into pay levels? In what way would they expect it to be?

It was about paying a higher amount so that the job would be attractive to a more diverse candidate pool. Basically paying FT salary and full benefits package for a PT job.

(There are plenty of people interested in the job, this is not for lack of interest)

More money isn’t going to attract a more diverse pool of applicants. It would more than likely attract a larger pool but I would T think it would be more diverse.

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:I’ll spare you the context but I was recently asked how I would incorporate DEI into pay levels and I said that I would not. The job is the job.

Why would that be worked into pay levels? In what way would they expect it to be?

It was about paying a higher amount so that the job would be attractive to a more diverse candidate pool. Basically paying FT salary and full benefits package for a PT job.

(There are plenty of people interested in the job, this is not for lack of interest)

More money isn’t going to attract a more diverse pool of applicants. It would more than likely attract a larger pool but I would T think it would be more diverse.

Again my answer was that I wouldn’t support this idea to incorporate DEI into pay scale.

The idea actually makes a little bit of sense on one hand if you had the full context, but on the much stronger other hand it’s a part time job that commands part time pay.

You don’t pay more than the work is worth, period.

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:I’ll spare you the context but I was recently asked how I would incorporate DEI into pay levels and I said that I would not. The job is the job.

Why would that be worked into pay levels? In what way would they expect it to be?

It was about paying a higher amount so that the job would be attractive to a more diverse candidate pool. Basically paying FT salary and full benefits package for a PT job.

(There are plenty of people interested in the job, this is not for lack of interest)

More money isn’t going to attract a more diverse pool of applicants. It would more than likely attract a larger pool but I would T think it would be more diverse.

Again my answer was that I wouldn’t support this idea to incorporate DEI into pay scale.

Right. I was explaining my agreement with you.

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:I’ll spare you the context but I was recently asked how I would incorporate DEI into pay levels and I said that I would not. The job is the job.

Why would that be worked into pay levels? In what way would they expect it to be?

It was about paying a higher amount so that the job would be attractive to a more diverse candidate pool. Basically paying FT salary and full benefits package for a PT job.

(There are plenty of people interested in the job, this is not for lack of interest)

More money isn’t going to attract a more diverse pool of applicants. It would more than likely attract a larger pool but I would T think it would be more diverse.

Again my answer was that I wouldn’t support this idea to incorporate DEI into pay scale.

Right. I was explaining my agreement with you.

So you can sleep at night after passing on that applicant you’re all wound up about.

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:I’ll spare you the context but I was recently asked how I would incorporate DEI into pay levels and I said that I would not. The job is the job.

Why would that be worked into pay levels? In what way would they expect it to be?

It was about paying a higher amount so that the job would be attractive to a more diverse candidate pool. Basically paying FT salary and full benefits package for a PT job.

(There are plenty of people interested in the job, this is not for lack of interest)

More money isn’t going to attract a more diverse pool of applicants. It would more than likely attract a larger pool but I would T think it would be more diverse.

Again my answer was that I wouldn’t support this idea to incorporate DEI into pay scale.

Right. I was explaining my agreement with you.

So you can sleep at night after passing on that applicant you’re all wound up about.

Oh, I slept just fine.

Man, between Wease's "I don't want this applicant to think I'm transphobic" and Ruddo's "I will burn my own corneas off before I turn my head in the general direction of a lady in a swimsuit" I'm starting to think some of you have issues

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:I’ll spare you the context but I was recently asked how I would incorporate DEI into pay levels and I said that I would not. The job is the job.

Why would that be worked into pay levels? In what way would they expect it to be?

It was about paying a higher amount so that the job would be attractive to a more diverse candidate pool. Basically paying FT salary and full benefits package for a PT job.

(There are plenty of people interested in the job, this is not for lack of interest)

More money isn’t going to attract a more diverse pool of applicants. It would more than likely attract a larger pool but I would T think it would be more diverse.

Again my answer was that I wouldn’t support this idea to incorporate DEI into pay scale.

Right. I was explaining my agreement with you.

So you can sleep at night after passing on that applicant you’re all wound up about.

Oh, I slept just fine.

Bro you posted like ten sentences about the internal conflict you’re having over it.

Pitch the fucking resumé and move on.

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:

wease wrote:

Bammer wrote:I’ll spare you the context but I was recently asked how I would incorporate DEI into pay levels and I said that I would not. The job is the job.

Why would that be worked into pay levels? In what way would they expect it to be?

It was about paying a higher amount so that the job would be attractive to a more diverse candidate pool. Basically paying FT salary and full benefits package for a PT job.

(There are plenty of people interested in the job, this is not for lack of interest)

More money isn’t going to attract a more diverse pool of applicants. It would more than likely attract a larger pool but I would T think it would be more diverse.

Again my answer was that I wouldn’t support this idea to incorporate DEI into pay scale.

Right. I was explaining my agreement with you.

So you can sleep at night after passing on that applicant you’re all wound up about.

Oh, I slept just fine.

Bro you posted like ten sentences about the internal conflict you’re having over it.

Pitch the fucking resumé and move on.

I did exactly that this morning. I appreciate your counsel.

Jorge wrote:Man, between Wease's "I don't want this applicant to think I'm transphobic" and Ruddo's "I will burn my own corneas off before I turn my head in the general direction of a lady in a swimsuit" I'm starting to think some of you have issues

In my defense, my scenario involved a different demographic than what daft twat originally mentioned. If they were my wife's friends out there in bikinis I would be out there no question.