Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

It's Dangerous to Hire a Liberal.
http://my own ^ | July 15, 2005 | Andrew Huddleston

Posted on 07/15/2005 9:46:39 AM PDT by BamaAndy


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous; Politics; Society; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: hiring; liberallunacy; litigation; workethics
It’s Risky to Hire Liberals (Some very random thoughts)

Andrew O Huddleston

It doesn’t take one very long (thank goodness) to learn the degree of hate and vitriol—the nastiness, use of bad information, the outright lies and distortions, and mainline negativity from those on the left by visiting D.U. It occurred to me that it is likely there is a correlation between people like them and what is experienced in organizations as far as bad employees—or bad former employees. My experience in hiring for private industry over a thirty year period is that there are a number of people you do NOT want to hire in the first place. Thinking about what I’ve seen and experienced, I believe there is a strong correlation indeed. Allow me to share some thoughts and examples. I know it’s inaccurate to generalize and there are exceptions—I submit there are relatively few exceptions to this theory.

Most—90% (?)—of the people who come into an organization whether they be privately owned, publicly traded, service or manufacturing and into the government agencies who actually desire and seek out the “protection” of various government devices are people who identify with the democratic party—I would argue that if it is not an outright identity, it is a subtle alliance to cause government intervention. The idea that legal protections are most favored by liberals has to be true because the artificial means of protecting people (honestly—those who are unproductive, absentee, hostile, under the influence, etc.—want to make you and I pay, don’t they?) are devices installed by a largely democratic form of big brother to assuage a voting block—of—the unproductive. The intrusive application some suggest was created for good intentions, work to cause companies and government agencies themselves to pay settlements when they are finally rid of a bad employee. It is illogical at the start that any organization would summarily discharge a good employee for reasons of race or gender. By saying this I am not saying there have not been legitimate cases caused by boneheads who, for example, think it was a good idea to fire the older workers and hire younger ones who are less skilled—ostensibly to lower pension costs. And there are racists and sexists—of every kind and of both genders. I am not addressing these very few examples out of the tens of thousands of charges or lawsuits that are filed. You can think with me for a moment and see exactly what I mean—and you’ve probably seen for yourself. The point I’m getting to has to do with selection of employees.

Unions seek out to support legislators who will favor the organized forcible extraction of dues from new members made new because the legislators have made it easier to organize a workforce. The unions ideal man or woman politician are those who would levy against the rest of us by shutting down the very notion of “right to work States” and require only a showing of cards rather than even a vote—and voila—everyone now has to be represented by the union. The desire for a captive audience is great; it means captive dues revenue, regardless of an individual’s religious convictions—like supporting abortion loving democrats because of the point made above. A lot of folks don’t like it, but it doesn’t matter. Unions essentially sell two items and holds out the promise of a third (strike) to pressure organizations to accede to whatever the demand is powerful enough to influence a majority of the membership. These are the representation in bargaining for wages, hours and working conditions and representing employees who feel they have been aggrieved under a provision of the contract. Union leadership supports liberal, socialist, (democratic) candidates en massé for the sake of pro-labor legislation. It’s getting what you pay for, not illegal, but should be as much as any payoff, bribe, and kickback scheme. The people inside an organization who desires a union where none exists yet are usually those who are contaminated with a bad case of being unproductive. So of course, this is one avenue of “protection.” They generally come out of the liberal closet.

Most government entities are rife with a substantial share of liberals too and are unionized. Most private employers are not. Those organizations that choose to be more careful about who they hire run less of a risk of having a union and the threat of strikes foisted upon them. In government you’ll find strong support for the left (ever ventured down the halls of the EEOC?). It seems most people hired into government entities fit the mold nicely of a self-serving bureaucracy evolved from good intentions to justifying its existence. Dealing with the narrow scope that I have—the NLRB, EEOC, and OSHA, I’ve seen and heard it first hand. The liberal philosophy is understood by them to be quite the norm and as far as most within the agency are concerned represent the mainstream. Not my idea of mainstream, but the jaded, hopeless, helpless, needy, poor people who cannot defend themselves against a ruthless, unsafe, exploitive employer. Uh, that’s about every business organization in the country. We’re all bad, you understand, and need to be watched and sued every opportunity there is to “stand up for the little guy.”

That’s the little guy who calls the lawyers advertising on television while they’re off work for months at a time by their own decision. There are those who lay out of work if they bump their arm. Some lay out of work because they didn’t bump their arm (but call you and claim their child is sick).

In preparing this article I thought about going back thirty years and summarizing my experience—but then knew it would be too long and burdensome because there have been many. And I know every HR professional in the field has had the same or worse experiences when you’ve tried to do everything right and fair. Instead I’ll focus on more recent examples that continue to fuel my outrage and be very motivated to avoid hiring at all—especially liberals. I’ve never done it, but I think one can ask about political persuasion in the interview without getting sued for that. On the other hand, anything that has an adverse impact will be used against you at some point, so we’d best be careful how we discern who these scavenger beasts are.

In my minuscule sampling which is only representative of the abuses, I believe it tells a great deal why it is important to automate, why many organizations have built plants in Mexico, or simply sold out. If a company cannot earn a profit given the awful environment in which it operates, it has no choice. Failure to do so will, as it has often, certainly cause the demise of the enterprise and no one will have a job there to complain about. Unions will have no company to strike. OSHA won’t have a plant to visit and walk around like the savior and stick it to the company, and the EEOC will have fewer clients (other than those who file against the agency itself—ha, how does it feel when you did the right thing and yet have to copy all those documents—Those reams of documents?)

Instead of going that far back, let me ask a question. How much do you think liberals or democrats have cost the economy in non-productive excesses fueled by a squishy, give-away government that operates as if taxes collected are only a portion of what you and I should pay? If I were to use a conservative estimate and suggest that only seventy-five percent of the lawsuits come from those who don’t care or who are mentally deficient liberals, what would the cost still be? My examples are only a small portion of those suffered by every company involved in interstate commerce in the nation—so one would have to use a multiplier that is exponential itself. It’s hard to imagine and it’s hard to understand why we let them continue the rape without even fighting. Yes, I know about and have heard time and again about the risks of jury trials. But you’ve got to stand for something and appeal. So the answer is to not hire them in the first place and win at trial.

Sorry for the delay—here they are:

• A white female over forty who had previously retired disability (her husband to) from a government agency filed a charge demanding a promotion for which she did not have the education and her experience had been at a lower level (clerk). I believe she ordered office supplies and somehow that qualifies her for buying raw materials, maintenance and service items for a large Brass foundry and machining operation. She sued and demanded the position of buyer. We had to settle by paying her attorney $15,000.00 or go to trial. Dippers never seem to stop wanting to dip into other wells—or at least what they think are wells of money, somehow magically produced and waiting for their dip bucket. The company was in bankruptcy but that didn’t matter to this sweet Jane; she wanted hers and wanted to pile it onto a disability pension we are all paying her and her husband—just a bit curious how this could be true. Now she has the EEOC and the ADEA to use for private employers. Pity anyone else who hires her. • A black male who drove through the industrial park where we were located and wrote down the name of every company. He didn’t bother filing a resume or application; he just filed the charge and sued. It cost us $10,000.00 in legal expenses to have a judge drop us from the suit. No one reimbursed us. I wanted to file against him, but lawyers don’t like to file against other lawyers, do they? • A white male claiming a back injury (several times). It seems as if he simply couldn’t work safely. He was seen constructing out-buildings outside of work. It didn’t matter, and after we took his deposition inside a city jail (jailed for domestic violence), we settled by paying his lawyer $5,000.00. That’s how it was in Alabama in the eighties. So what can you do? (We elected a new supreme court—that’s one way to handle the bastards). Prior to that, out court was filled with trial lawyers and the chief justice was the chief amongst them. • A white male union activist who was involved in trying to organize a plant (and in fact did) was tested for drugs and found to be positive. The NLRB returned the drug user to our workforce and demanded back pay. The NLRB shields a sitting group of socialists who act out the part of administrative law judges—laughable to the extreme, especially when Clinton was in office and put liberals in charge of already evolved agencies of arrogant abuse. (He resigned after the decertification). • A black male who threatened a supervisor and walked off the job. EEOC mediation resulted in a $2,000.00 payment to him to drop the case. • A white female who sued for an alleged back injury months after retiring. She happened to have osteoporosis and it cost us $5,000.00 to her lawyer and $5,000.00 to ours to settle at trial. • A white male HR manager who had just collected over $1,000,000.00 from the city of Birmingham because there was an off duty cop working security when his son was ran over by someone he was fighting—uh, isn’t it the driver’s fault? He sued us for age discrimination with a few draftspersons barely over forty we had to downsize. He and they had the opportunity to learn and chose not to learn how to use a computer. This one cost us $70,000.00.

So I think about who (what) I want to hire. I do not want to hire someone who is looking for a lawsuit so they can hit an extortion lottery—or whatever is in their minds. I haven’t been part of an organization where a lawsuit was ever necessary. I’m serious. I’ve not been part of an organization where an individual had a cause that justified such an action. The lawsuits I have been involved have all been—well—what’s the word? Frivolous? How about fraud—without the consequences. There should be consequences.

Why would anyone hire someone who comes in from day one with an agenda—and in my view that’s what a liberal (substitute democrat, socialist, progressive or whatever is in fashion) will do more often than not. No, sir or no, ma’am—I don’t want to out them into my organization where they can “work” as a cancer within my organization. Organizations save some government groups want to hire people who…

• Have at least some base level of hygiene. • Are easy to get along with (how miserable in life are most liberals?) • Are interested in the company’s success. • Are not self-centered narcissists. • Are not negative about work. • Have not sued other people or organizations. • Smiles more than he or she frowns. • Who is there mentally and not somewhere else. • Who treats others with respect (liberals don’t—they’re the most arrogant people in the world). • Who does not feel it is okay to do drugs and “work” on your property. • Who does not feel justified to steal from you. • Who doesn’t lie when it suits them—like Boxer, Kennedy, Daschle, Waters, Schrumm, Dean, Gore, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Conyers, Kerry, Edwards—quite a list! And it’s not all of them, sadly.

These issues pretty well eliminates wasting time interviewing someone who pulls up in your parking lot with a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker. And sadly, too many of them still somehow occupy positions where they can influence public policy and legislation. This list is a sampling of the public figures that do set the standard for sub-standard performance. They must assume enough people will vote them in office (and they do) who are like them and have the same phony paranoid view of private industry. They are also bought and paid for by the trial lawyers. These people who buy votes by making promises to the work ethic deficits are some who:

• Hate others on the basis of their race or gender. (Black racists and feminists hate others as much as the reverse—it’s all very silly and a waste of time). • Shows no motivation to learn and work—only government can assure equal result without the effort. • Whines about their life or projects to the life of others whether true or not. • Sees you and me as enemies. • Are pretty miserable all the time—like the perpetual bad mood Schumer is in. • Will back-stab, gossip, and make up what suits them. • Looks to a company or taxpayer for all he or she can get from them without contributing to them. • Shows no interest in being part of a team—we’re at war and yet these people are working against the country for what they perceive as political gain. (There’s nothing more important than them, you see). • Demonstrates no understanding of basic economics or business principles. They don’t seem to know profits are an important thing.

People who believe these people are not people I want to hire. It’s a perilous path to take—and there’s no reason to when there are plenty of prospective employees who do not suffer the mental disorder of being liberal, selfish or stupid (interchange at will). That pretty well eliminates most democrats and all liberals in my view. As we know many do not work any way. They find plenty of time to attend protests and I’ve often wondered how they are financed.

They are found in our lecture halls—and the product produced by many universities hasn’t been very good either. With some exceptions from the colleges of engineering and business, other graduates with different majors are often not capable of clearly or intelligently filling out an application. Don’t hire them! They have sat in classes and listened to a silly socialist filled with self importance and haven’t learned anything of value. They have learned spin and can’t remember half of that!

I know this has been spotty and a little wieldy, but I hope to begin making the connection between work ethics and character flaws—of which we all possess—but the liberals wish to force theirs on the rest of us through laws and the courts. That’s where we depart drastically. Don’t hire them if you know who they are. It’ll cost you.

Practically speaking, we need to make the background checks for anyone who has filed suit. We need to be honest with one another in confidence about why he or she is no longer employed with you (in confidence to avoid giving them another lawsuit). We need to formulate better questions in the interviews to try and determine where one’s head is at politically, morally. We need to fire those who are waiting for their chance to sue in our organizations as soon as we have a defensible cause before they can damage us with claims from sexual harassment to workers compensation to age, sex, or race discrimination. Any recent graduate who thinks Ward Churchill for example is a great professor can and ought to be coached that his future will be better served in the fast food industry until he truly has been educated. Good luck—and thank you very much for giving me so much of your valuable time.

Andrew Huddleston Author of Heart & Iron (a true historical novel about America) Release date: September 15, 2005 ISBN: 1-4137-5397-3 PublishAmerica

1 posted on 07/15/2005 9:46:40 AM PDT by BamaAndy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson