I'm still happy with my HSA.

directly,

to

cell

can be

that

model

minutes of

have

don't

costs

Tracfone and

service is

arguing

stamps

calls

I guess the one on the top of your head.

Tell him to check out VirginMobile pre-paid. I haven't had coverage problems in FL, it is on the Sprint network. In fact, I never had coverage issues anywhere and I get around a bit. Ok, Berkeley is iffy but that's true for just about any network because some people seem to think that 900/1800MHz is going to kill them unless they wear tin foil hats.

My prepaid connected to the network before being activated. In fact, that's the way you activated it, by calling them _on_ the network. AFAIK

Yeah, I bet you've never been asked to pass a drug tests and psychological screenings either, though, for your consulting work, have you? ...whereas I'm constantly amazed how many minimum-wage jobs now require them (and we're just talking, e.g., people working on an assembly line packaging vegetables or restaurant waitstaff and whatnot -- not people driving busses or other jobs where it'd arguably be a lot more justified) -- my wife's aunt used to work for a company that provided PDAs pre-loaded with "survey" software for the psych-screenings.

Many clearly hard-working and talented people here like Jim Thompson would likely fail a psych screen for a restaurant job today, which is just incredible in my mind. There's something fundamentally wrong when we hold the people applying for low-wage/unskilled jobs to higher standards than we do for those running banks or serving as CEOs, and in my opinion it gets back to this assumption many people seem to have that those who are out of work and/or on welfare are somehow "bad" people who "deserve" their situation.

Yeah, that strikes me as pretty reasonable.

I'm going to be rather disappointed if it's the democrats who don't support such a meaure, but you may be right...

---Joel

Well, I didn't mean to imply that all them are now "new only," just that some of them have changed -- which doesn't really seem to be in the best interests of their recipients.

Except for the relatively rare exceptions of serious mental disorders, people tend to behave in the way that they can afford for themselves. The talented people often behave in bizarre ways not because they are talented, but because they know that they can get by this behavior. That's their secret :) I am pretty sure if someone like Jim would find himself in the desperate situation without any options, he would find the way to comply to whatever requirements or standards. As the non-compliance in this situation is a clear indication of real problems. So, nothing is fundamentally wrong with requirements for low skilled jobs; it is just the way it is.

Vladimir Vassilevsky DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

I don't remember ever doing a drug test but wouldn't have a problem with it. I do remember when we started doing those at my previous employer. Then one day we hired a new CEO and he also had to go. It applied to anyone in the company.

I remember tests they did when we were school kids, to see who was cut out for which direction. Most of the results were IMHO baloney.

Just come here and listen to folks from Sacraento, how they cling to every single state job while we clearly would and should shed a six-digit number of folks there to reduce the bloated structure to a level that others states have and live quite well with.

Agreed -- Jim is smart enough that he'd just figure out (or Google out) how he "should" answer the questions to pass the test. But why should he have to lie when he checks the last box which is usually, "I've answered all the preceding questions truthfully?"

I think we'll agree to disagree on that!

I'll happily take one to get a job I wanted (and I believe I've taken two in my life -- I think both IBM and Tektronix wanted them), but it just strikes me as stupid.

If you are going to apply them, the CEO certainly ought to be included.

I didn't think to mention that some jobs now require credit checks as well. If you're going to be dealing with money and could readily embezzle it, fine, that's legitimate... but for the regular working stiff? How can it make sense that you prefer not to hire people with poor credit who are thus most likely in need of a job in the first place? Bizarre.

Yep, absolutely.

I'm not going to suggest that this type of testing should be illegal, it's just disappointing to me that so many companies put so much faith in it when there's actually very little revelation to be had; overall I think it hurts the country's competitiveness.

Here's something that you might find encouraging:

---Joel

Not really. The drug problem we have nowadays is unfortunately very widespread. One some jobs being under the influence can be seriously dangerous but typcically you cannot restrict drug testing to just some jobs. It's either everybody or nobody. Liability underwriters will demand that the first option be chosen :-)

Yes. But I meant CFO, the CEO didn't change.

That I never understood, especially since the credit rating "system" is screwed up. For example, people with a frugal and healthy lifestyle who simply do not have any debt can carry a poor or no credit rating. Yet those are often the best people you could possibly want.

Companies that rely on such means often do not belong to the top tier anyhow. Begs the question whether it's desirable to work there ;-)

Looks like the perfect place to start a charter school.

So the socialist thinks that I would lie?

Your ignorance is phenomenal!

I'm not in the slightest bit deranged... I just have this overwhelming desire to kill socialistic-sociopaths... tease them until they take the bait, then it's self-defense ;-) ...Jim Thompson

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

I think the vast majority of the populace would lie if they were unemployed (without any money in the bank) and it meant the difference between getting a job or not. I had a great or great-great grandfather somewhere in my family where the story goes that he got himself hired to teach Latin when he knew none himself but just stayed a few lessons ahead of the kids... and I have to believe that knowing Latin was listed as a job requirement!

I don't really know if you personally would, my point was that you *shouldn't have to* in the first place.

Agreed, you're just strongly-opinionated and not exactly the politeness guy on the planet about it at times.

You must have had socialistic-sociopaths as fellow employees at times, right? I'm pretty sure that answering, "Yes, on occasion I have had an overhwhelming desire to kill my co-workers" on a pre-employment psych screen is an automatic no-hire. :-)

If you were rather younger -- without already having a solid reputation as a chip designer -- the kind of opinionated stuff you post here on SED would likely tend to greatly diminish your shot at getting a job at some companies -- and I suspect that some of them you might actually want to work for. That isn't right, since I'm quite convinced your politics in no significant way affects your skills as an engineer.

---Joel

My father got a job as a journeyman electrician at Oak Ridge when they were building the place... his only experience was wiring (family owned) Seneca Caverns with his brothers.

Nope.

I just _love_ to rub people the wrong way ;-)

Yep. Had a guy who would pick a fight with people if they pulled "his" scope into an adjacent bay at Motorola.

I simply said, "Go down to personnel and tell them you're fired" ;-)

For really :-) They called and said I couldn't do that, and that they were sending him back upstairs (Mesa, Broadway and Dobson); and I allowed that I'd beat him up if they did. They kept him reporting to personnel for four days, handing him a poor performance notice each day, then firing him at the end of the week.

The topper, he went over to Bowmar and listed me as a reference. I told them (people I'd known for years) about his issues. They hired him anyway. Fired him before the probationary period ended.

I've ALWAYS had a solid reputation! When I laid myself off from Motorola I had another job (at Dickson Electronics, running the hybrid line) within an hour ;-) ...Jim Thompson

I just realized what I keep leaving out of these arguments... I only discuss politics on SED and in letters-to-the-editor of our local newspaper, a Tribune paper, now going belly-up :-(

I never argue politics (or religion *) on-the-job or face-to-face with _anyone_... I might get hurt :-(

• Actually, at GenRad I had to issue a departmental order, argue religion on-the-job, and you're fired ;-) ...Jim Thompson

"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

If your kids are the same way family dinners must have been quite the event...

Wouldn't it be socialistic to suggest that all the scopes should be shared though? (Ducking...!)

I'd certainly support that; sounds like the guy was quite the loser.

Out of desperation? Or they just figured you might be going a bit over-the-top in relating his downsides?

---Joel

We certainly debate, but not nasty.

One of the more fun times... Hispanic son-in-law-to-be visits for the very first meet-the-family dinner.

Daughter walks him to his car afterwards. She comes back in, laughing almost hysterically, saying, "Andy was appalled that I (Jennifer, the only Democrat in the family, no less) would argue with my father".

I guess that arguing with your father is _not_ done in Hispanic families ;-)

Perhaps both. Then they learned and fired him. ...Jim Thompson

I've had to take pre-employment drug tests. This isn't something new, either. Though the number of drugs screened might be.

You're obviously talking through your hat, here.

IBM required a drug test 36 years ago. I had to take one before contracting to LM and again before this job. That's 100% of the jobs I've taken over 36 years. ;-)

But you don't think the fry-boy should?

Absolutely. For much the same reason. I had to release my credit for the job I have now. No big deal.

There is a strong correlation between druggies and people who can't handle money and problem employees.

Nonsense. If there are two prospective employees for the position it's a no-brainer to select the one with less "overhead". It would only affect the "country's competitiveness" if the job went unfilled because there was no one qualified.

Yes, we need more R. Reagans.

No credit rating is *not* a poor credit rating. To some, it's as good as an 800.

Well, yes, to some degree I suppose I am. But I really get a sense that the country is far less cohesive than it was some decades back; we've lost a lot of the idea of "shared sacrifice [for the greater good of the country as a whole]" and instead moved much more towards a "rugged individualism," "I've got mine, now you get yours!" approach. My opinion is that we're suffering as a country for this, becoming less competitive in the global market. And I'm not singling out any political parties either -- both the democrats and republicans seem to be more much "cliquey" and less willing to cooperate and compromise with each other, instead just waiting for the right moment (...having a party majority...) when they can ramrod through legislation without enough involvement from the other side.

My explanation for this is that we've shifted to a culture where there's much greater belief in the old "class"-style paradigm where, if you're poor, it's because you deserve to be poor (and hence welfare can be very minimalistic), and likewise if you're rich you deserve to be rich (but if the markets tumble, well, you're too big to fail, now, aren't you?, and we'll bail you out with taxpayer dollars).

I can't claim to be particularly religious, but to some extent I believe that the diminution of religion in this country may be a significant factor in this, as all major religious texts make a big deal out of how no man is innately better than another in the eyes of the creator, we are all tasked with caring for our fellow man regardless of how poor or stupid they may be, and there will be judgment at some point.

---Joel