New Tom Davis Article

[rico]

2 minutes ago, BeerBQ said:

It was sarcasm, but in my defense I do think he believes that. 

LOL, to be honest I don't think Tom knows his arsz from a hole in the ground.

[BeerBQ]

13 minutes ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

Your post was great. Scott thought you were being serious about bashing Collin.

I think he was calling Davis an idiot. I see how it could look like I was being a jerk if you hadn't read the whole thread. 

 

I don't know that I've ever noticed what a player on the bench wore. 

[BeerBQ]

17 minutes ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

 

[BeerBQ]

Look who is back at it. This time he says a player that is down to Butler and Wichita State is clearly only thinking about athletics and not choosing Butler shows a lack of maturity by not valuing their education. 

[FKIM01]

2 minutes ago, BeerBQ said:

Look who is back at it. This time he says a player that is down to Butler and Wichita State is clearly only thinking about athletics and not choosing Butler shows a lack of maturity by not valuing their education. 

Yeah...dude, your homerism is exposed.  So much for unbiased journalism.

[Montana Hoosier]

Having been in the hiring process for a top twenty accounting firm, we make big mistakes when it comes to how people dress for interviews. I have said it for three years now to the higher ups, hiring a girl or a guy on how they dress for the interview is wasteful and flat out reckless. Kids dress the way they want to, until they are told not to dress that way. Meaning, that a kid might dress out of your norm because he or she doesn’t know any different, but it isn’t out of disrespect it’s out of oblivion. If you decide not to hire someone because of the way they dress, means you just missed out on a potential good hire, just like if you hire someone because of the way they dress, you just hired someone for the wrong reasons. The problem companies have are they don’t ask themselves, why is this kid here in the first place? If he or she is at the interview that means they want the job, and after that you can give them the dress code if you hire them. Frustrating to say the least, because the old guard doesn’t get it, at all?

[IUB74]

Guess I am part of the old guard then.  I would not hire someone just because they are well dressed.  I also am not likely to hire someone who comes to an interview in pajama pants.  To me it is about doing your homework and demonstrating that you understand something about the environment you trying to become a part of.

[FKIM01]

1 hour ago, IUB74 said:

Guess I am part of the old guard then.  I would not hire someone just because they are well dressed.  I also am not likely to hire someone who comes to an interview in pajama pants.  To me it is about doing your homework and demonstrating that you understand something about the environment you trying to become a part of.

I once ticked off a bunch of folks in an online forum by stating that I would not hire someone who tested positive for marijuana. I realize it may soon be legal in Indiana and I'm not leading any crusades to prevent that. I simply have a set of characteristics I look for in prospective employees and pot smoker is not one of them.  That seemed to be a difficult concept for fans of pot in that forum even though I assured them more than once that I respected their choice of whether or not they smoked pot.  Ironically enough, they had a real tough time respecting my choice of who I should hire.

[KoB2011]

4 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

I once ticked off a bunch of folks in an online forum by stating that I would not hire someone who tested positive for marijuana. I realize it may soon be legal in Indiana and I'm not leading any crusades to prevent that. I simply have a set of characteristics I look for in prospective employees and pot smoker is not one of them.  That seemed to be a difficult concept for fans of pot in that forum even though I assured them more than once that I respected their choice of whether or not they smoked pot.  Ironically enough, they had a real tough time respecting my choice of who I should hire.

What characteristics are you looking for  that you can determine someone lacks simply because they smoke pot?

[PoHoosier]

47 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

What characteristics are you looking for  that you can determine someone lacks simply because they smoke pot?

I will take a stab...
Self control?

Personally, I never smoked pot, not because it was illegal, but because I am

1) a tightwad, 

2) afraid I would never stop. (hence my guess at self control).

[FW_Hoosier]

7 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

I once ticked off a bunch of folks in an online forum by stating that I would not hire someone who tested positive for marijuana. I realize it may soon be legal in Indiana and I'm not leading any crusades to prevent that. I simply have a set of characteristics I look for in prospective employees and pot smoker is not one of them.  That seemed to be a difficult concept for fans of pot in that forum even though I assured them more than once that I respected their choice of whether or not they smoked pot.  Ironically enough, they had a real tough time respecting my choice of who I should hire.

So I would assume you don’t hire anyone that drinks either then.

[FKIM01]

1 hour ago, FW_Hoosier said:

So I would assume you don’t hire anyone that drinks either then.

LOL...yeah, this is the kind of response I got on the other forum too.  Let's just say it's based on observations of my pot-smoking roomies in college and a couple of pot smokers I know currently. None of them were/are the most productive people.

...and no...I wouldn't hire a drunk either. I'm fine with alcohol as long as you demonstrate the ability to handle it.

[FW_Hoosier]

1 minute ago, FKIM01 said:

LOL...yeah, this is the kind of response I got on the other forum too.  Let's just say it's based on observations of my pot-smoking roomies in college and a couple of pot smokers I know currently. None of them were/are the most productive people.

Yeah, I won’t go back and forth too much, but I would say that has much more to do with the qualities of the people you know, not the fact they smoke pot.  I know a ton of driven and highly successful pot smokers.

[KoB2011]

4 hours ago, PoHoosier said:

I will take a stab...
Self control?

Personally, I never smoked pot, not because it was illegal, but because I am

1) a tightwad, 

2) afraid I would never stop. (hence my guess at self control).

I guess I don't see it as a lack of self-control. Lots of people smoke pot recreationally and demonstrate the self-control to not be potheads. It just seems strange, assuming it is legal, to not hire someone who smokes pot but you would hire someone who drinks alcohol.

 

[KoB2011]

30 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

LOL...yeah, this is the kind of response I got on the other forum too.  Let's just say it's based on observations of my pot-smoking roomies in college and a couple of pot smokers I know currently. None of them were/are the most productive people.

...and no...I wouldn't hire a drunk either. I'm fine with alcohol as long as you demonstrate the ability to handle it.

I bet you know a lot of people who smoke pot that you don't know smoke pot. Of course, a pothead might be a problematic hire, just as a drunk might be a problematic hire. 

Lots of people even use it for things like pain-management, anxiety management, etc. that would make them much better workers for taking it. Would those people be bad hires? What if someone chooses to just do it casually on a weekend like you might have a beer? Why is that person a worse employee or person than you? 

[rico]

Did someone mention my two favorite things?

[FKIM01]

50 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

I bet you know a lot of people who smoke pot that you don't know smoke pot. Of course, a pothead might be a problematic hire, just as a drunk might be a problematic hire. 

Lots of people even use it for things like pain-management, anxiety management, etc. that would make them much better workers for taking it. Would those people be bad hires? What if someone chooses to just do it casually on a weekend like you might have a beer? Why is that person a worse employee or person than you? 

Guys, I'd rather not have this argument on a second forum, but I'll add a couple of caveats as my last word in this derailment.  If someone has a legitimate medical need and a prescription to ingest legally, that's a different story for me.  Obviously, if I don't know you do it, it's not affecting your productivity and it's not a problem.  I would also tell you that I wouldn't hire a cigarette smoker. (1) I can smell it on them and (2) it raises serious questions as to future productivity due to health concerns.

...and it's not a question of better or worse person/employee. It's a question of shared values, not only with me, but also with my clients.  Again, if I don't know it, it can't be a problem. If you reek of pot and you're habitually late to work, that's a problem.  That's all I will say on the matter.

Now let's get back to Tom Davis, the douchebag.

[Kodos]

I probably wouldn't hire someone who spends too much time posting on internet forums. Suggests a lack of productivity and self control.

[Hoosierhoopster]

2 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

LOL...yeah, this is the kind of response I got on the other forum too.  Let's just say it's based on observations of my pot-smoking roomies in college and a couple of pot smokers I know currently. None of them were/are the most productive people.

...and no...I wouldn't hire a drunk either. I'm fine with alcohol as long as you demonstrate the ability to handle it.

Get where you're coming from and not out to convince you that you're wrong (it's really a matter of your own judgment), but would say that if you really exclude people based on they're having smoked pot, you just excluded many, many more people than I think you realize, and other than for doing something illegal (for now), on a skewed perception.

Not that it matters, I don't smoke weed, and I wouldn't encourage it. But I know many, many people who do, or who have, who are attorneys, doctors, engineers, athletes, etc. I think at some point society will equate smoking pot / weed or whatever you want to call it with alcohol. 

You said you wouldn't hire a "drunk" but that's really not the same, is it? Of course the great majority of people drink alcohol, they're not all drunks, but the dangers of alcohol are as well documented as you could ask for. So compare alcohol and pot directly -- many people smoke but are not "pot heads" as in out of control smoking, like out of control drinking. And compare the statistics on driving accidents, domestic abuse etc. between alcohol and weed. The statistics on alcohol are all there, the lack of evidence on the "danger" of pot is just that, a lack of evidence, and there have been plenty of studies. As an aside, all kinds of NBA stars (or for that matter, college stars) smoke weed, and that includes all kinds of all stars playing at the top of the game. Hasn't exactly limited them. 

Again, it's not something I would encourage, but I wouldn't decide not to hire someone just because he or she has smoked pot.

[KoB2011]

1 hour ago, FKIM01 said:

Guys, I'd rather not have this argument on a second forum, but I'll add a couple of caveats as my last word in this derailment.  If someone has a legitimate medical need and a prescription to ingest legally, that's a different story for me.  Obviously, if I don't know you do it, it's not affecting your productivity and it's not a problem.  I would also tell you that I wouldn't hire a cigarette smoker. (1) I can smell it on them and (2) it raises serious questions as to future productivity due to health concerns.

...and it's not a question of better or worse person/employee. It's a question of shared values, not only with me, but also with my clients.  Again, if I don't know it, it can't be a problem. If you reek of pot and you're habitually late to work, that's a problem.  That's all I will say on the matter.

Now let's get back to Tom Davis, the douchebag.

I'd rather not have this argument, I'd rather just make my unnecessary,  inflammatory point without backing it up and move on with my day. 

I mean dude, you pretty much said there is some flaw with people who smoke pot recreationally. Why would you think that wouldn't offend people? 

[rico]

I, personally, would not hire Tom Davis.

[FKIM01]

51 minutes ago, Kodos said:

I probably wouldn't hire someone who spends too much time posting on internet forums. Suggests a lack of productivity and self control.

Touche. 

That's the joy of owning your own business and having a very flexible schedule. I work some pretty long hours, especially recently, but take plenty of breaks just to give my mind a rest. FWIW, I have the same policy for my employees. If they've gone hard for a couple of hours and need a 10-minute mental break to check their phone or whatever, that's fine as long as the work gets done.  We also recently relaxed the dress code calling it dress for your day.  It was an idea that was admittedly stolen from larger companies, but the trend toward neat but more casual is something I welcome and clients don't seem to mind at all. If there's a reason to dress more professionally, we will, but mostly, we'll be dressing more for comfort going forward.  I loved Vic's suit after the first Cleveland game, but I'm also not going to dog a player for going more relaxed as long as they keep it PG.  The statement Davis made about how to dress on the bench was unnecessary and wrong in my opinion, but that's my opinion only, just as who I think would be a good fit for my office is.  

...and I've said all I'm going to say on the subject of pot. Surely we can simply agree to disagree?

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, FKIM01 said:

Touche. 

That's the joy of owning your own business and having a very flexible schedule. I work some pretty long hours, especially recently, but take plenty of breaks just to give my mind a rest. FWIW, I have the same policy for my employees. If they've gone hard for a couple of hours and need a 10-minute mental break to check their phone or whatever, that's fine as long as the work gets done.  We also recently relaxed the dress code calling it dress for your day.  It was an idea that was admittedly stolen from larger companies, but the trend toward neat but more casual is something I welcome and clients don't seem to mind at all. If there's a reason to dress more professionally, we will, but mostly, we'll be dressing more for comfort going forward.  I loved Vic's suit after the first Cleveland game, but I'm also not going to dog a player for going more relaxed as long as they keep it PG.  The statement Davis made about how to dress on the bench was unnecessary and wrong in my opinion, but that's my opinion only, just as who I think would be a good fit for my office is.  

...and I've said all I'm going to say on the subject of pot. Surely we can simply agree to disagree?

I left an organization that had a more formal dress policy for a firm that is much more like what you are describing.. I now have about a dozen suits at home collecting dust. Think I have worn a suit to work maybe a half dozen times in the last 2-3 years. Clients seem to be more relaxed as well when they see me in less "stuffy" attire.

 

 

[FKIM01]

5 minutes ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

I left an organization that had a more formal dress policy for a firm that is much more like what you are describing.. I now have about a dozen suits at home collecting dust. Think I have worn a suit to work maybe a half dozen times in the last 2-3 years. Clients seem to be more relaxed as well when they see me in less "stuffy" attire.

 

 

I have the same dusty collection.  I'm thinking about keeping 1-2 for just in case and shipping the rest to Tom Davis.

[BGleas]

14 minutes ago, Jerry Lundergaard said:

I left an organization that had a more formal dress policy for a firm that is much more like what you are describing.. I now have about a dozen suits at home collecting dust. Think I have worn a suit to work maybe a half dozen times in the last 2-3 years. Clients seem to be more relaxed as well when they see me in less "stuffy" attire.

 

 

I left the corporate world for the start-up world a few years ago, and honestly I don't think I could go back to wearing khaki's and dress shirts every day. Most days is jeans and a button down or sweater/seatshirt, but in the summer I sometimes even go shorts and flip-flops. Like many have said, as long as the work get done, who cares? But also, I will obviously dress up more if we have meetings with outside people, but even then it probably just means dress shoes with my jeans instead of sneakers.