Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I am looking for a new job, and am wondering if my resume is not optimized for the technology that many places are using for screening. There are people and services that say they will take care of this for you, but I am skeptical about their application in the specific sort of niche that we all are in. Does anyone have any experience with these services, or any suggestions about what I should be doing?

If you can give more detail of what you are asking (examples maybe) I can ask the younger lawyers I know. I don't recall anyone still (other than Les maybe?) here changing jobs in the last decade?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If you can give more detail of what you are asking (examples maybe) I can ask the younger lawyers I know. I don't recall anyone still (other than Les maybe?) here changing jobs in the last decade?

Many employers and recruiters use AI to screen resumes. For senior, in-house legal jobs, what's the best way to draft and revise a resume to get past that screening?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If you can give more detail of what you are asking (examples maybe) I can ask the younger lawyers I know. I don't recall anyone still (other than Les maybe?) here changing jobs in the last decade?

I responded headhunters in two of my moves of the last decade, and I was solicited directly in the third move, so I was not blindly submitting resumes subject to some review algorithm.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I responded headhunters in two of my moves of the last decade, and I was solicited directly in the third move, so I was not blindly submitting resumes subject to some review algorithm.

I have never found a job by blindly submitting a resume, but when companies are hiring a first lawyer, they don't necessarily use an external headhunters, and I understand that the internal ones are often using screening tools.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I have never found a job by blindly submitting a resume, but when companies are hiring a first lawyer, they don't necessarily use an external headhunters, and I understand that the internal ones are often using screening tools.

I get that. I was just saying that I am of no help, despite Hank's suggestion that I might be.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I get that. I was just saying that I am of no help, despite Hank's suggestion that I might be.

Not for the first time, I missed a nuance in one of Hank's posts.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

No need our offices are right next to each other, I just happened to be in hers. I have a better view from mine.

I have worked with her for over 24 years but needless to say it was a little bit uncomfortable.

You're probably on an OF video now.

"Watch me expose myself to the offices across the street."

[Hank Chinaski]

So Trump cut DEI benefits, but companies are cutting their programs. Is their now a downside to having DEI now?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So Trump cut DEI benefits, but companies are cutting their programs. Is their now a downside to having DEI now?

Yes. It causes air traffic collisions.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So Trump cut DEI benefits, but companies are cutting their programs. Is their now a downside to having DEI now?

We had to strip anything remotely DEI from our environment last year, and it was a complete and total nightmare given how much we emphasized diversity previously. (We're in one of the most diverse cities in the world. It's hard NOT to emphasize it.)

I suspect there is going to be a lot more discrimination/hostile work environment litigation because people are going to think that no DEI=carte blanche to be shitty to people based on sex, race, national origin, etc. Of course, I assume the EEOC will also be neutered, so maybe it will be harder to sue, but if I'm guessing the employment plaintiff's bar is going to eat well in the next few years.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

We had to strip anything remotely DEI from our environment last year, and it was a complete and total nightmare given how much we emphasized diversity previously. (We're in one of the most diverse cities in the world. It's hard NOT to emphasize it.)

I suspect there is going to be a lot more discrimination/hostile work environment litigation because people are going to think that no DEI=carte blanche to be shitty to people based on sex, race, national origin, etc. Of course, I assume the EEOC will also be neutered, so maybe it will be harder to sue, but if I'm guessing the employment plaintiff's bar is going to eat well in the next few years.

That's what I'm trying to understand. Why did you have to strip it? Can’t your organization just keep going as before?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

That's what I'm trying to understand. Why did you have to strip it? Can’t your organization just keep going as before?

Because she works for the state, and the state should not discriminate on the basis of skin color.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Because she works for the state, and the state should not discriminate on the basis of skin color.

You’re explaining why they should stop. I’m asking why they had to.

Looks like Trump issued an EO that threatens if you don’t. Plus Texas probably has its own restrictions?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Because she works for the state, and the state should not discriminate on the basis of skin color.

Popped back in to see that this shit never changes. Figured it would be Sebby trying to do the work of Stephen Miller by conflating DEI work to something it is decidedly not. But this stupid shit coming from you isn’t surprising. Fucking ridiculous.

See you all in another however many years.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

In 1982 I got a job offer from the Patent Office to start July 83. Reagan got elected on a promise to slash the Federal workforce. I nervously watched every speech waiting to have my offer revoked. But he didn't paint with so broad a brush. PTO was needed and in fact they had a slug of hires from the late 50s that were retiring so it was on a hiring spree. Early 80s 2 government areas grew, DoD and PTO. You may disagree with what RR did otherwise, but thought at least went into it. I've been asking my Trump loving partners if they were worried PTO will lose people. "No because PTO actually generates money from user fees, brings in more than it costs." But PTO employees got the same email every other Fed employee got. There was no thought.