is it ethical to hire a fellow climber?

GTS wrote:I predict three months from now we will be seeing the following thread from the OP.... Office Romance- Is it ethical?

Unlikely. She's definitely not my type plus the age bracket is wrong. I do like hiring women, btw, because they are a "bargain" usually - you get better combination of skills and personality then a guy that wants to be in this business.

Happiegrrrl wrote:I hadn't looked at the OP name....Screen name, really? One minute of Google has provided some connection to people, in NY, who share hat name. I agree - delete the evidence. Quickly, before "climber girl" or "arrogant dick" does a search in order to find out what sort of person THEY might be working with!

The screen name has only emotional connection to me, unless people know my preferences in Polish books. The person in NYC is not me for sure.

Actually, this is against the law I'm pretty sure. If another candidate wanted to follow up with why they weren't hired, and it was later exposed that she was hired based off "non-hirable criteria," [relative to the job] they could sue you. I once had to hire a whole staff and jokingly told my supervisor that I was going to hire all outdoorsy people so that staff retreats would be a lot of fun. As the HR rep, she didn't take the joke very well.

To be honest, she could probably sue you for starting this thread if she had evidence to prove who it was.

on the other hand lots of people getting hired because of some random not relevant fraternal/college/familial/ bias..... Climbers are definitely a social group, though not established and mostly not business/education related, and could abstractly be considered within the same line of thought as hiring someone because he was in the same fraternity you were, or went to the same college as you..... Politicians and execs do this all the time.

Marek Sapkovski wrote: Unlikely. She's definitely not my type plus the age bracket is wrong. I do like hiring women, btw, because they are a "bargain" usually - you get better combination of skills and personality then a guy that wants to be in this business.

Hire her and pay her like you would pay a guy. Do not harrass her to go climb with you once you hired her. Go climbing with her only if she asks you first. Give the girl a chance. It's a good karma!

JohnnyG wrote: how different? um..service! yeah climbing at a high level can show dedication, but I think you are fooling yourself if you think it's on par with your examples

Serving yourself is a service, being as I am a closet Republican.

Aaron Pulda wrote:on the other hand lots of people getting hired because of some random not relevant fraternal/college/familial/ bias..... Climbers are definitely a social group, though not established and mostly not business/education related, and could abstractly be considered within the same line of thought as hiring someone because he was in the same fraternity you were, or went to the same college as you..... Politicians and execs do this all the time.

It's not what you know, it's who you know.

Dylan, we have to put you in as the MP lawyer!

Tell everyone you hired her because she is a girl... That is socially acceptable.

If she is a minority you will get +1 for each...

If you have to spend time with someone that you work with, It is always good to know you can relate or get along. I spend time on the road and working with two of my good friends made a world of difference.

Its only ethical to hire her if she's a trad climber and hates bolts.

D.Buffum wrote:Now, say you have ten qualified candidates. Nine of them are black men who are highly qualified. One is a white guy who is less qualified. You hire the white guy because he's a climber, but not because he's white. It's gonna raise some eyebrows and could lead to litigation. Whether a jury would buy the defense that you hired him because of an unrelated qualification, and not because of his race, depends on the evidence. For that reason, HR departments try to keep hiring managers strictly on script. Similar to "marital status." Everyone thinks you cannot ask a candidate if they're married or if they're going to have kids. That's not because it's illegal to ask those things. It's because it's illegal to consider those things. If you ask them, people are going to suspect that you're considering them. It might just be friendly small talk, but it could lead to litigation. So HR prohibits even asking the question.

What about if you have qualified 9 white males vs under qualified 1 black women? It seems like the girl meets qualifications just may have a weak spot of math. Maybe she is easier to work with or may be calm under stress compared to the others? People need to stop whining about who gets hired because they are unsociable or dime a dozen assholes. I have been hired not meeting "qualifications" and then I was placed in a management position a month later because I had the drive to teach myself and excel where others felt they deserved the position based on a degree and time put in.

Hire the person best for the job. Being agreeable to work with as part of a team is part of the equation. It is pretty simple. A hardcore climber personality could fit well into the trading environment. I think my climbing experience helps me.

Not true about the "fit" part. I have been asked many times during interviews " why do you think you will be a good fit for the job". Part of my evaluation is my ability to fit into the team of care givers and if I have a friendly personality as well as good adjustment skills. I did not get one job because the interviewer called me " big city girl that probably will not be a good fit in a small hospital". Just saying.

superkick wrote:isnt "how hot is she" the more important factor?

yes, important to many people

i think we'll need pictures in order to properly assess the situation.

(jk -- please don't do that. you don't want to add a sexual harassment suit onto any possible litigation you're already facing)

Hiring someone because they possess abilities in an extra-curricular sport you share isn't much different from hiring someone because someone in the company vouches for them. Providing he/she can do the job of course. It's basically cronyism, which sounds bad when it's used for people who lack qualifications. I got a job back in the day with Chase bank through my aunt who worked there; no one questioned the hire because I did better than most other workers at my level. So long as they have the qualifications, crony away.

Hire both, then no matter what you chose the right candidate. God knows the economy could use an extra job or two.

This is the kind of question that's just embarrassing to ask. Robert Penn Warren could get a few paragraphs out of this one.

In the meantime, email that ClimbingLawyer guy who advertises on the EnormoCast.

I haven't seen anyone bring up the possibility that she may try and guilt you into letting her have time off or more beneficial work hours so she can climb. Assuming she knows you are a climber (she will find out), there may be some sad puppy dog eyes when she asks you if she can skip out of the Monday morning meeting so that she has extra time to drive back from her weekend trip.

Remember that the climbing culture, especially among younger climbers, is very laid back and chill. THIS MAY be what she is attracted to about climbing - which would reveal she is likely a lazy person/will expect you to understand her "lifestyle." These are things you can't judge in an interview and will only reveal themselves in a few months - and it's gonna suck.

Andy P. wrote: Remember that the climbing culture, especially among younger climbers, is very laid back and chill.

That's not always a bad thing. Culture would have us "work hard" so we can get a good job, drive a nice car, ect ect. But today "work hard" mostly means spending 55+ hours a week sucking the man so you can get promoted from grunt to Sr. grunt. Then before you know it, 40 years pass and your entire life's accomplishments can be summed up on a single Post-It Note because all you did your entire life was slave at work. Some call that dedication, hard work and the vision of a "successful" career. I call that getting shafted, living for everyone but yourself, and wasting your life away. Those who are most "successful" are not those with the fattest job title or largest bank account, but those who spend the greatest percentage of their time doing what they truly want to do. Remember, no one has ever spent the last moments of their life wishing they worked more.