To Avoid Making a Bad Hiring Decision, Get Security Involved

Don Tennant

When you consider how potentially harmful the insider threat is to any company or government organization, it becomes painfully clear how crucial it is to avoid making a bad IT hiring decision. So what can you do to give your company the best possible chance of preventing a bad IT hire from ever getting close to your systems?

 

According to Susan Carnicero, a former CIA security officer and an expert in deception detection and employment screening, the answer lies in taking a "whole-person" approach to the hiring process that includes a security focus. Carnicero made that point as a speaker at last week's 5th Annual North Carolina Higher Education Safety E-Symposium at East Carolina University in Greenville. The event was co-sponsored by QVerity, a security company that conducts employment screening and provides training and consulting in the detection of deception and interviewing techniques. Carnicero is a founding partner of QVerity, and in the interest of full disclosure, let me note right up front that I'm also a partner in the company.

 

In her presentation, Carnicero said companies tend to focus on "screening in" people who have specific skills and experience that meet the needs of the company, without an equally strong emphasis on "screening out" people who bring with them what she calls "lethal factors and characteristics" that could harm the company.

 

According to Carnicero, a company should determine what characteristics it considers to be lethal (typically such negative qualities as dishonesty or intolerance), and employ a methodology to screen people who exhibit those qualities out of the candidate pool.

 

Carnicero has conducted thousands of interviews, from polygraph examinations for the CIA to screening interviews of candidates applying for employment with the federal government. I asked her whether a single lethal characteristic identified during the hiring process is a deal killer, regardless of a candidate's qualifications. She said it depends on the company doing the hiring:

For some, it's one and done-it doesn't matter what skills and qualifications they have. In my particular situation [screening candidates for the federal government], I would have to see what that lethal characteristic was. But for the majority of people I do interviews for, if there's that one lethal characteristic, they're out.

Carnicero also stressed the importance of including representatives from the company's security operation in the development of a screening and hiring plan:

Because we come from the government, we think security should play a much bigger part. In the private sector, they're looking at skills and experience; we're trying to talk to them about looking more at suitability. Security [professionals] should play a role in your hiring and screening process, because they are the ones who really recognize the significant issues associated with some behaviors. They also really understand the underlying concerns about some of these suitability issues. A security person is going to have a much greater focus on the risks than an HR person will. HR looks at candidates from the standpoint of whether they're going to be able to do the job. A security person will ask, "What's the blowback going to be on the corporation if this person gets caught coming into the building with drugs?" They just look at things a lot differently.

I also asked Carnicero to address an issue I raised in my recent post, "Are Anti-H-1B Fanatics Prone to Workplace Violence?" In that post I referred to people who make direct and indirect online threats against those whose views they disagree with, something I have encountered fairly regularly over the years in my coverage of the H-1B visa issue. I cited a particular reader comment I'd recently received, which included predictions of an overthrow of the federal government and "violent death" to "traitors" as an example.

 

I asked Carnicero whether the discovery that a candidate had written such a comment would be a deal killer in the screening process. She said it would depend largely on whether the screening was for a position in the government or in the private sector:

Something like that in the government would more than likely be a disqualifier, simply because you've ranted about the government; you've put a threat out there; you're not rational in what you're saying. In the private sector, it would be hard to disqualify somebody just for that statement. You'd do a great deal more investigation, as you would in the government. Chances are this is not his only missive. Chances are he's done this sort of stuff before. If this was a pattern, it absolutely would disqualify him, private sector or public.

I asked Carnicero if she would be concerned that such a person would pose a threat of violence in the workplace. She said the person would certainly raise a red flag in that regard:

There's definitely a violent tendency here. You don't want violence in the workplace. Somebody who actually takes the time to sit down and write this and send it has time to rethink before he shoots it off. This is reaction. And reactions are generally pretty consistent across the board. You would do more investigation, but I would be concerned that this person has a violent tendency, yes. It goes back to why you need to have strong hiring and screening processes, so that you can see the kinds of stuff that these folks write.

Carnicero also said that people who are inclined to post hateful comments that disparage a particular group, even if they aren't threatening, also raise a red flag:

I would absolutely be concerned, from an employer's standpoint, because it shows a lack of tolerance. Racism is an issue. EEO [equal employment opportunity] complaints are issues-anything that has to do with dislike of any other population or culture is a problem in the workplace. In the government, [a person who posts such a comment] would be out of consideration. You would do more research, but that is probably not his only negative comment about another cultural group.


Add Comment      Leave a comment on this blog post
Apr 11, 2011 4:12 AM Bob Bob  says:

a veiled suggestion that anyone who criticizes the H-1b program should be blacklisted

Reply
Apr 11, 2011 4:24 AM Dolores Dolores  says: in response to Bob

It's also unjust because all the actual data we have about critics of the H-1B program so far show that the only violence they are known to have committed is suicide, AFAIK.

Reply
Apr 11, 2011 10:23 AM Wakjob Wakjob  says:

Here we go... The govt/media complex's attempt to portray anyone who opposes mass 3rd world immigration to the U.S. as somehow 'dangerous'.

If Carnecero wants a red flag, perhaps she should look to India (where 71% of H-1Bs come from). In India they kill the company CEO if he lays the workers off. And they throw acid in peoples' faces. And they fake their degrees and resumes. Except for slight exagerations in some resumes, I don't know a single native-born American who does any of those things. After all, tolerance caused 9-11 - one of the 19 hijackers was an H-1B software worker in Silicon Valley. No red flag there.

The simple fact is most of the cultures we are importing people from have criminality as a distinguishing feature. The security risks are on the people we are importing, not on Americans who are simply demanding the govt preserve their civiliation or enforce Title 8, Section 1182.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 1:30 AM hoapres hoapres  says: in response to Don Tennant

>> You did it again, only worse. <<

Well

You did it again, only worse.

>> That blog entry was NOT about H-1B opponents as possible sources of workplace violence. <<

Yes it was.  Perhaps more accurately the implication was all out in the open. If you are against H1Bs then something is wrong with you.

>> That blog entry ...

No it was not.

Now if you posted something about ACTUAL workplace violence involving people opposed to the H1B program then you have a point.

>> Maybe there will be some event...

Well

How about reporting on a REAL instead of POSSIBLE event.

With your logic, I could write an article saying : Are Muslim immigrants (choose the group you want to exclude_ prone to violence ?? Since they are so prone then exclude them.

Sorry this doesn't work.

That blog entry was about anti-H-1B FANATICS who engage in THREATENING ONLINE BEHAVIOR as possible sources of workplace violence.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 1:36 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says: in response to Dolores

In that particular post, I drew the line between anti-H1-B fanatics who engage in threatening online behavior on the one hand, and the rest of humanity on the other. Why do you choose to ignore that?

And really, Dolores? Calling for me to be subjected to 'violent death' is nothing more than a 'spectrum of verbiage'? The hateful, racist remarks made by people on both sides of the issue can all be written off as a 'spectrum of verbiage'? Sorry. I don't buy it. Are you also an apologist for people who promote violence and express hatefulness towards women online? Are they harmless, or do they raise a red flag? Sure, most of them are probably harmless. But if your daughter wanted to marry one of those people, wouldn't you want her to be cognizant of that red flag?

To answer your question, relatively few of the H-1B grumblers would be excluded from what Carnicero said. That's the problem, Dolores. I've written about it for years, to almost no avail. Given the choice, employers would prefer not to employ the type of people who are inclined to disparage other populations and cultures. Disliking a person is one thing. But expressing a dislike of an entire population or culture bespeaks an intolerance that is unwelcome in the workplace. And keep in mind that Carnicero was responding to a question in which I referred to people who are inclined to post hateful comments that disparage a particular group, so her choice of the word 'dislike' should be understood in that context. So no, 'dislike' is not verboten. But if you were interviewing a job candidate and he said to you, 'I dislike black people,' for example, would you have any concerns about that?

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 1:37 AM Dolores Dolores  says: in response to hoapres

And while I understand the need to consider security issues, I'm still a little worried about giving the Security dept. too much input into the hiring process. What's that they say about how a guy with a great big hammer percieves the world? I'm also worried that people who are easier to do background investigations on (i.e. westerners) will be raked over coals while people for whom background investigations are more difficult due to national, language, and cultural barriers (i.e. foreigners) will slip by. That would be unfair at the very least.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 1:48 AM Dolores Dolores  says: in response to Don Tennant

But sane people don't bring those sentiments into interviews. I think I can tell the difference between an online hothead who reacts to something I said, vs. a criminal stalking me with real intent. Celebrities have to deal with this all the time. Believe it or not, most American labor rights activists are employed (at least most of the time) and are perfectly capable of being civil to the inviduals they encounter.

Anyone who can't contain himself during the hiring process probably is somewhat shaky. But using online anonymous comments to characterize what the individual will do on the job in broad daylight is a weak correlation.

A lot of people have irrational dislikes. There's a test online that tries to measure bias against black people by your split-second reaction to pictures. Most blacks flunk this test. None of this has anything to do with whether or not our government should be flooding our labor market with foreign workers during a major recession, nor with the gyrations said workers perform to get here and stay.

Where your argument slipped was in the analogy of disliking black people. Nobody dislikes H-1Bs for any such superficial or abstract reason. It's the economic effect on our careers and the tactics employed to inflict those effects. Nobody dislikes them because they're brown, for pete's sake. Thinking that hundreds of thousands of foreign workers don't belong here is not the same thing as a cultural racial prejudice.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 2:22 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says: in response to Dolores

Thinking that hundreds of thousands of foreign workers don't belong here is not the same as expressing hate for their nationality and their culture. You continue to engage in the apologist thing. And I stand by the analogy of disliking black people. When you say, 'Nobody dislikes H-1Bs for any such superficial or abstract reason,' you apparently don't even realize it, but what you're doing is equating a dislike for H-1Bs with a dislike of a culture or nationality, which is what we're talking about here.

And of course sane people don't bring those sentiments into an interview. That's what the screening process is all about-involving people who are trained to identify behaviors and characteristics that aren't exposed in a traditional employment interview, and that employers don't want in their companies. What you're suggesting is that it's OK to hire a person with unsavory qualities as long as he's not stupid enough to exhibit those qualities in the interview.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 3:40 AM Bob Bob  says:

Don, nice try with the 'provoke in the article, then backpeddle in the comments trick'

you've written 3 articles in a row, suggesting fault with h-1b critics no matter what your supposed topic

1) the NBC/Brokaw article

'Why the Anti-H-1B Argument Isn't Being Taken Seriously'

2) The Are H-1b fanatics prone to violence article

and now this one

When I was a sophomore in high school, I was threatened with direct phsical violence in a park, raised fist and all over a false accuasation.

I dealt with it directly, non-violently and involved no one it didnt concern.  I dealt with him as an individual, representing no one but himself

I didnt write 'helpfull' articles in the school paper, such as

'Why the african american equality arguement isnt being taken seriously', mentioning that people look at black panthers, and conclude that there cant be a legitimate arguement to be made on that side

'Are African Americans more prone to violence?'

'To make club admission/team selection decisions, check backgrounds' and then mention the example of the trouble i had with an african american

You know what Don?  If I'd done that he kids and teachers wouldnt believe that I was just trying to be 'helpfull' on the different topics, they'd think I had an axe to grind about african americans.  It would be a fair accusation

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 4:14 AM hoapres hoapres  says: in response to Don Tennant

Always amazing (or not) that Don won't respond to anyone that "calls him out"

Come on now

Let's just use some common sense.

Don's (for lack of a better word) ramblings on H1Bs all reduce to "If you don't agree with me then something is wrong with you"

Don goes on looking for events that haven't happened yet. 

Sorry to give you the bad news

But it doesn't work that way.

UNTIL the event happens then you don't have a story.  Ramblings about what people are likely to do is bad enough but to use non likely possible events to justify a course of action is ludricous.

Sure

I believe you

H1B opponents are running around like nutcases prone to violence.

Of course, we won't see an article from Don saying "Are H1Bs prone to workplace violence?"

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 4:37 AM Dolores Dolores  says: in response to Don Tennant

The centuries-old cultural bad attitudes towards black people and the very modern sentiment against the H-1B are not the same thing at all.

Consider the long term ugliness that black people have suffered in this country. With the statistically rare exceptions of a few crimes or unusual  situations, black people have never posed a threat to the well being of whites. Quite the opposite. Nor could they if they want to. There aren't enough of them in America to gang up on American whites and harm them (beyond individual criminal acts). The ones I know wouldn't dream of such a thing. They're citizens of the same society as I am and not working against me so far as I can tell.

By contrast, Indians outnumber Americans by around four to one. Their government and society have a stated aim of promoting outsourciing and global labor arbitrage at our expense - read their press. They celebrate every job and project they manage to pry from the hands of American staff. Their leaders denounce Americans as overpaid and unemployable. They are and have been in the news for visa fraud, tax evasion, money laundering, business fraud, and violations of American labor law, all connected to their business ventures in America. They go shopping for American businesses to acquire. What happens to the American employees might be worth following up. In some cases, Americans have been able to file for TAA due to their activities, showing that our government agrees that something unfortunate has happened.

Then, someone tries to call them on this, and what is the response, sooner or later? "Racism!" "You hate us because of our brown skin." With their to-do list above, it would be a long time before someone got around to discussing their skin if skin were indeed the problem. Recently, audits of visa usage have greatly increased, with some folks being investigated and even sent home. Over on IV I saw some of them comparing their predicament to that of Jews being hunted down in Nazi Germany. Oh, really? Yes.

The public health and safety issues back in India that people raise in response to H-1B's bragging are real. The job loss is real. The need for America to get her own people back to optimal work is real. This is not the irrational gut reaction of a cultural prejudice against Indian people. We didn't have it. If we do now, it grew recently.

There is absolutely no comparison to the hateful cultural aftermath of slavery that dogs modern American black people when someone criticises the H-1Bs. The H-1Bs acquired their bad reputation in modern times, by the actions of themselves and their enablers. Prejudice against black people is the revenant mythology of a bygone age, and the allegations weren't even true back then. But when we criticise the H-1B program we are working off the pages of today's news. 

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 4:52 AM Michael Gaul Michael Gaul  says:

To comment on another point made by Carnicero concerning the role of HR as risk managers, I would agree that Security and HR are both risk management functions. Security should have input on policy and help an organization define their risk management posture relative to people. HR should have a voice alongside legal as to the operational needs of the business. Furthermore, HR should carry out and execute the policy that the organization articulates. That said, the view put forth in this article that only the government looks at security and that private sector HR doesn't get risk is ludicrous. I'll grant that sometimes the recruiting function of HR misses risk, but my experience in both security and employment screening with the fortune 100 is that they are some of the best risk managers.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 6:47 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says: in response to Bob

I'm not really following your argument, but I don't like your misrepresentation. I do NOT fault H-1B critics. I fault anti-H-1B fanatics who engage in threat-making and hatemongering. It's beyond me why you and others serve as such servile apologists for those people, and why you lump all H-1B 'critics' or 'opponents' into the category of people I describe as H-1B fanatics who engage in threat-making and hatemongering. Why you can't see how insulting that is to H-1B critics is incomprehensible. Do that if you must, for whatever reason you have, but do not mischaracterize what I write.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 6:59 AM Dolores Dolores  says: in response to Don Tennant

But where do you draw the line? Threat of violence? Mention of Indian sanitation and public health issues? Criticism of desi businesses' rapaciousness? TR's theatrical web page?

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 8:11 AM hoapres hoapres  says: in response to Don Tennant

>> I fault anti-H1B fanatics

Nice try.

No, you don't.

Like I said before, everytime that either I or someone else "calls you out" you don't respond by running for cover.

Come on now.

Let's get real.

You can fool all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Of course we don't see any articles (by YOU at any rate) saying "Are H1B supporters prone to violence ?"

Nor will we.

Now it is one thing to support H1Bs and converting America into the third world but it is another thing all together to imply by innuendo that those who don't agree with your point of view is a nutcase.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 8:15 AM hoapres hoapres  says: in response to Dolores

>> But where do you draw the line?

With Don it is quite simple.  If you disagree with him then you are a nutcase.

Don probably has never visited the third world and is clueless that most of the planet operates at the point of a gun.  Now if Don can actually "cough up the goods" and show ACTUAL cases of violence by anti-H1B fanatics then he has a point.

He can't because it has not happened.

Just remember folks we are dealing with someone that has no problem telling Americans that they should be willing to reduce their standard of living to help the third world and scoffs at Americans who have been more than generous to those in needs.

Sorry to give Don the bad news.

BUT

Not everybody in this country likes America to end up like the third world.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 8:21 AM hoapres hoapres  says: in response to Don Tennant

>> I fault anti-H1B fanatics

Well

"Cough up the goods"

Go around and produce SOLID EVIDENCE of anti-H1B fanatics running around and committing acts of violence.

Not that you would appreciate it but I am kind of impressed with my fellow Americans having NOT committing acts of violence against H1Bs in the US replacing their co-workers.  You can take it to the bank that if Americans in India, China or another third world country would displace local workers that someone would be getting hurt.  Of course that won't happen because India, China, and other countries have this quaint idea that their citizens should get jobs before a foreigner does.

>> threat-making and hatemongering

Same old, same old.

AND

Nice try.

Your definition of "threat-making and hatemongering" is everyone who disagrees with you.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 10:15 AM Gabe Gabe  says: in response to Bob

You just took a blog post that discusses the relationship between the online disinhibition effect and good hiring practices and somehow translated it as saying "anyone who criticizes the H-1b program should be blacklisted."

This is my incredulous face.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 10:21 AM Dolores Dolores  says: in response to Wakjob

They'll be so busy screening American job candidates for any sign of "dislike of any other population or culture" that they might not have the time or energy left to screen the foreign workers' background for incidents like these:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12644076

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gu3kg99r1ETlVMkGWHBTYem8AeLg

http://www.laureoli.com/node/317

When has an H-1B opponent ever so much as put a tack on somebody's seat? Now you know why so many people are afraid to speak out and conceal their identities online when discussing America's labor market problems.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 11:10 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says: in response to Dolores

What on earth makes you think that there's any suggestion here that H-1B candidates shouldn't be screened for exactly the same lethal characteristics? They absolutely should be. Beyond that, I'm getting a little tired of the gross misrepresentation of the concerns I express about threat-making, hatemongering anti-H-1B fanatics as being concerns about anyone who is an 'H-1B opponent.' That's absurd, and it's an extremely unjust characterization of my position. You're not the worst offender in that regard, Dolores, not by a long shot. But you do it, nonetheless. As I've written before, I'm an H-1B opponent, in the sense that I oppose the way the H-1B program is currently administered and the way it's wantonly abused. But that will never compel me to be an apologist for the threat-makers and hatemongers. Characterizing the threat-making and hatemongering as nothing more than a discussion of America's labor market problems is every bit as blind as the pro-H-1B apologists who ignore the outlandish way the system is being abused.

There's absolutely no reason this issue can't be discussed without the threat-making and hate-mongering, and yes, even without expressions of 'dislike of any other population or culture.' To suggest that people are forced to remain anonymous in order to discuss America's labor market problems is outrageous. They're forced to remain anonymous so they can engage in hateful rants and expressions of contempt for other cultures. People do it regardless of which side of the debate they're on and regardless of whether they're American, Indian, or any other nationality. But is it constructive in any way? No. It's not. Let's not kid ourselves and suggest we have to remain anonymous so we can express our views on the H-1B visa program.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 11:54 AM Dolores Dolores  says: in response to Don Tennant

I'm still reeling about your blog entry that focused on H-1B oppenents as possible sources of workplace violence. People say all sorts of things on the Internet. But the track record in real life speaks for itself. Maybe there will be some event that changes that (I sure hope not) but to date any violence on the record by people disgruntled over the H-1B issues has been directed at themselves (suicide, and I'll bet drinking, etc.). I'm surprised there hasn't been more uproar. I'd like to believe that's a testament to the overall self control and harmlessness of us nerds.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 12:13 PM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says: in response to Dolores

You did it again, only worse. That blog entry was NOT about H-1B opponents as possible sources of workplace violence. That blog entry was about anti-H-1B FANATICS who engage in THREATENING ONLINE BEHAVIOR as possible sources of workplace violence. You're doing exactly what Donna Conroy did, which I find absolutely appalling: lumping all H-1B opponents into the category of threat-making anti-H-1B fanatics I wrote about. That's a horrific disservice and insult to H-1B opponents.

Reply
Apr 12, 2011 12:21 PM Dolores Dolores  says: in response to Don Tennant

But where do you draw the line? We all say sharp things from time to time. And there may be a method in the madness. It's a spectrum of verbiage, not a good/bad thing. And the difference between verbal violence, and actual violence, and the relationship between the two.

Carnicero herself said, and I quote from above, "Racism is an issue. EEO equal employment opportunity complaints are issues-anything that has to do with dislike of any other population or culture is a problem in the workplace. In the government, a person who posts such a comment would be out of consideration. " Dislike is verboten now?

Who among us H-1B grumblers would be excluded from what Carnicero said above?

"Carnicero also said that people who are inclined to post hateful comments that disparage a particular group, even if they aren't threatening, also raise a red flag.."

Ask not for whom the red flag flaps ...

Reply
Apr 13, 2011 1:05 AM hoapres hoapres  says: in response to Don Tennant

>> if I dare to raise concerns about the violent tendencies of radical Muslims, I'm suggesting through guilt by association that all Muslims have violent tendencies. <<

Nice try.

Doesn't work.

WHY ??

Because we actually have demonstrated cases of violent acts by radical Muslims.

>> How do you manage to ignore all of that and proclaim that I'm suggesting that anyone who criticizes the H-1B program (a program that I myself have criticized countless times) might be prone to violence? <<

Nice try

Doesn't work.

It is not just one article but as another pointed out a collection of articles.  I don't see you writing articles saying H1Bs are prone to violence.

Reply
Apr 13, 2011 1:45 AM Dolores Dolores  says: in response to Don Tennant

We said you done good with the Jay Palmer issue. Nobody is taking that away. It's just that those on the other side of that issue have a 10 year head start on you. I know, better late than never, but will be uphill for at least a while longer.

Reply
Apr 13, 2011 2:11 AM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says: in response to Dolores

I'm not looking for kudos, Dolores. I'm looking for fairness and an accurate characterization of my position and what I write. That's it.

Reply
Apr 13, 2011 2:12 AM hoapres hoapres  says: in response to Don Tennant

>> wanton abuse of the H1B program

Just shows your ignorance.

H1B program was set up explicitly to keep labor costs DOWN.  The historical background would be the NSF in 1988 admitting that the H1B program was set up to allow the importation of foreign scientists with the goal of keeping labor costs down.

We all heard through the 1990s about an impending shortage of scientists and engineers which never materialized. 

Also H1B cap was allowed to rise over 150K in 2000 and 2001. 

We won't have rising salaries and better working conditions in IT as the "system is set up" so that we will never have a labor shortage.

None of this is "news" but what is needed and you don't see much anymore is INVESTIGATIVE journalism with individuals "pounding the pavement" and "talking to people", etc. instead of just repeating other articles often with no or even worse wrong factual basis.

One of the most common misbeliefs about H1Bs is that you can't replace a current American worker with an H1B.  The exact opposite is true. 

Also the "prevailing wage" is another big joke as it is not the market wage.

Reply
Apr 13, 2011 2:14 AM hoapres hoapres  says: in response to Don Tennant

>> I'm looking for fairness and an accurate ...

Well

I gave it to you.

Now it may not be what you want to hear.

Reply
Apr 13, 2011 4:49 AM hoapres hoapres  says: in response to Dolores

>> It's just that ...10 year head start

Some have more than 20 complaining on the first day of the H1B program in 1988.

It is good to see some "anti H1B" press although most of it is still wrong (including Don's) saying that the problem is fraudulent use of H1Bs while the real problem is the H1B program itself.

Come on now.

Let's get real.

IT (or at the least vast majority of it) is just labor.  If I can't find a qualified plumber then I have two legal options in the US : 1. Pay more money to get a plumber 2. Don't do the job.  The third option is to hire an illegal alien. (Oops in Don's terminology an undocumented American)

In IT one simply goes out and gets an H1B.

Reply
Apr 13, 2011 10:57 AM Bob Bob  says: in response to Don Tennant

Don, even the regular poster 'Indian_H1B' thought your last article was 'guilt by association'

what more can I say, when even the pro-h-1b posters think it is?

Reply
Apr 13, 2011 12:55 PM Don Tennant Don Tennant  says: in response to Bob

Do you lap up everything Indian_H1B says, or are you selective in your lapping? And how does an opinion expressed by one person constitute the voice of 'the pro-H-1B posters'? In any case, it's absolute nonsense, regardless of who posts it. Using that logic, if I dare to raise concerns about the violent tendencies of radical Muslims, I'm suggesting through guilt by association that all Muslims have violent tendencies. It's an absurd argument. That you and others are prepared to rationalize and excuse the threat-making and hatemongering, rather than having the courage to stand up and speak out against that garbage, is shameful. And one more thing: Where are you and people like you when I express my respect and admiration for H-1B critics and opponents like Norm Matloff and Gene Nelson? Where are you and people like you when I speak out, almost alone in the media, about what Jay Palmer has had to endure at Infosys because of the wanton abuse of the H-1B visa program? How do you manage to ignore all of that and proclaim that I'm suggesting that anyone who criticizes the H-1B program (a program that I myself have criticized countless times) might be prone to violence? What's the point in misrepresenting and mischaracterizing what I write? What possible positive outcome does it serve?

Reply
Apr 14, 2011 7:52 AM ctrl+alt+del ctrl+alt+del  says:

Don, you're not responding to Hoapres....

Reply
Apr 15, 2011 5:53 AM Bob Bob  says: in response to Don Tennant

"Do you lap up everything Indian_H1B says, or are you selective in your lapping?

as I was the first one in that thread to make the 'guilt by association' observation, I'm not lapping up anything Don, selective or otherwise.

I was just noting that even someone who usually take the other side was agreeing with me.

" And how does an opinion expressed by one person constitute the voice of 'the pro-H-1B posters'? ""

given that he posts regularly, is one of the few to be pro-h-1b, calls himself 'Indian_H1B', and seems to understand the pro-h-1b perspective well, I think it's fair to state that he represents them.  But that's just my opinion.Don, you can draw your own conclusion

Reply
Apr 16, 2011 1:31 AM Bob Bob  says: in response to Bob

I think it's pretty clear Don, that for whatever reason you're trying to lure H-1b critics out on a limb, where you can then define them

But you have to ask yourself - how far are you willing to go out on that limb, to do it?

Some of your former journalistic colleagues have to be reading this series of articles and wondering 'what's up, with Don?'

Reply
Apr 16, 2011 2:48 AM hoapres hoapres  says: in response to Bob

>> ...Some of your former ...

Especially those at ComputerWorld.  Word on the street is that Don was "asked to leave" from ComputerWorld.

Reply
Apr 20, 2011 8:34 AM LikeH3llImTellingYouWhoIAm LikeH3llImTellingYouWhoIAm  says: in response to Don Tennant

The only thing H-1B's are screened for is the willingness to work cheap.

And while we're on the topic, wasn't the Times Square Bomber here on an H-1B?  Good thing Donramgupta wants to keep AMERICANS out of these jobs if we make a peep about the destruction wrought by the H-1B program.

Reply
Jul 26, 2011 10:58 AM wireless burglar alarms wireless burglar alarms  says:

It is important to have security measures for corporate recruitment purposes. It is also essential to have security systems in your commercial facility. Installing security surveillance and alarm systems can allow business owners to monitor their employees and ensure they are not taken advantage of by criminals.

Reply
Jul 26, 2011 11:01 AM wireless house alarms wireless house alarms  says:

You can ensure the safety and protection of your business by installing security systems in your office. Careful scrutiny and screening for applicants and newly-hired employees is also an important security measure you can take.

Reply

Post a comment

 

 

 

 


(Maximum characters: 1200). You have 1200 characters left.

 

null
null

 

Subscribe to our Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.