CEO Uses 'Snowflake Test' to Weed Out Whiny, Unproductive Job Applicants

[Moon-Man]

This is awesome and funny at the same time. I had to take a personality test once, it asked me things like "is taking things home from work without permission stealing?" After I was hired I asked my manager, who in the hell could possibility fail that? He said, "You would be surprised..."

Good, nobody wants to deal with whiners that is SJWs. About time they realize, when you deal with SJW, as a company, you will see loss of sales. Look at Starbucks.

SJWs are like cancer cells in your body. Need to be cured or eradicated. They bring nothing but problems for everybody else.

[MasterHamster]

By the sounds of it, the entire test might as well be replaced with
Do you vote Republican?
Yes/No

[TwistedSkull]

You'd be surprised how hard it is for the modern nazis, typically referred to as leftists or SJWs, to resist spouting off their cultural indoctrination when questioned lol

Seems like you are confused what a nazi's leaning is...

[JohnBrown1917]

I have a hard time thinking that >78% of each side is on the fringes and not moderate in the slightest.

I'd give it a solid chance that 25% or more of people who identify with a given side are moderates.

I would hardly consider republicans to be moderates.

[infinitemeridian]

Why do people act like SJWs are going to end Western Civ or something ridiculous like that?

[scrangos]

Ugh i was reading this thinking he had made something creative, but hes just equating political views to personal value or productivity which makes no sense. He should probably fire himself to improve the company. At least make a worthwhile test.

[Tack980]

"The test includes questions revolving around a candidate’s stance on America, police, and guns"
Shouldn't these questions be illegal? This feels like hiring based on political stance, which has nothing to do with work ethic or laziness. And for "Special Snowflakes" ?

His excuse is that people don't know what his organization is doing when they apply and need to be screened out. If that's the case just ask the applicant if they know what the organization does. If you don't like his/her answer, then don't hire him/her. No need to talk about guns for this.

[Mafic]

Why do people act like SJWs are going to end Western Civ or something ridiculous like that?

Good point.

The SJW haven't accomplished anything significant in a long time. But you still have to stay vigilant as SJW are always pushing for more government control.

[Jinpachi]

Actually checked into this guys "company" and using the term CEO is not really accurate. He is an advertiser who is selling what Republicans want to hear. If he discriminates against people for what they believe that is against the law in the United States unless he is a religious organization.

This guy is extremely dangerous because he is doing this to sell his marketing firm to gullible idiots but stupidity like this is what ends up in front of the Supreme Court and how corporations get more of the same rights as people without any of the actual responsibilities.

I can ABSOLUTELY discriminate against someone who thinks socialism is a good idea. I can ABSOLUTELY discriminate against someone who thinks abortion is ok for convenience birth control. I can ABSOLUTELY discriminate against someone who thinks it's ok to smoke pot before coming to work. (i personally dont care about that last one). You need to re-read what it's illegal to discriminate against.

- - - Updated - - -

"The test includes questions revolving around a candidate’s stance on America, police, and guns"
Shouldn't these questions be illegal? This feels like hiring based on political stance, which has nothing to do with work ethic or laziness. And for "Special Snowflakes" ?

His excuse is that people don't know what his organization is doing when they apply and need to be screened out. If that's the case just ask the applicant if they know what the organization does. If you don't like his/her answer, then don't hire him/her. No need to talk about guns for this.

Nothing illegal at all about discriminating against someone based on a political stance. That's not a protection afforded by the constitution.

[Tack980]

Nothing illegal at all about discriminating against someone based on a political stance. That's not a protection afforded by the constitution.

There is a lot of work related laws not directly stated in the Constitution due to privacy issues, i'm just stating that I was surprised this wasn't included on that list.

[Stacyrect]

Hahahahahaha!

On a more serious note, personality tests don't really work.

They do work. Psychometric's are the applied application of assessed Psychology.

[niil945]

I can ABSOLUTELY discriminate against someone who thinks socialism is a good idea. I can ABSOLUTELY discriminate against someone who thinks abortion is ok for convenience birth control. I can ABSOLUTELY discriminate against someone who thinks it's ok to smoke pot before coming to work. (i personally dont care about that last one). You need to re-read what it's illegal to discriminate against.

- - - Updated - - -



Nothing illegal at all about discriminating against someone based on a political stance. That's not a protection afforded by the constitution.

So what you're saying is you're unable to google a simple question and find that there are actually numerous protections for employees from employers based upon political views/actions. It's not a federally protected class by any means and those protections vary between states and even localities but they do exist. In some cases those protections are actually classified as felonies by the states depending upon what it is (in Florida, as an example, it's a felony to threaten to fire people or fire them based upon their votes or who ends up in office). Unfortunately you don't even qualify as an internet lawyer

[Seradi]

Also known as "the majority of people". Heh.

Pretty much. I don't know why everyone gets so worked up by the extremes they see on the internet because neither extreme represents any kind of majority in the real world.

[Molis]

I would like to see an accurate test that gives warnings about peoples attitudes, and not which way they lean politically.

I have snowflakes in my area from all political and ethnic backgrounds.

I am not convinced this current test does that.

[yetgdhfgh]

Any company that wants to know my political leanings can go fuck themselves!

[Jinpachi]

So what you're saying is you're unable to google a simple question and find that there are actually numerous protections for employees from employers based upon political views/actions. It's not a federally protected class by any means and those protections vary between states and even localities but they do exist. In some cases those protections are actually classified as felonies by the states depending upon what it is (in Florida, as an example, it's a felony to threaten to fire people or fire them based upon their votes or who ends up in office). Unfortunately you don't even qualify as an internet lawyer

It's one thing to fire someone for it, it's another thing to not even let them in the door. You're not intelligent, stop trying to sound like you are.

[rayden54]

Sometimes it really puzzles me how Americans can nod such things off, and approve of em, when on the other side I've never experienced another society that's so utterly obsessed with it's privacy.

You said it yourself, the people obsessed with privacy are on the other side.

[Astalnar]

The whole test seems to be weeding out people with the wrong attitude, and melting snowflakes. It's about time, who ever wanted snow in spring?

[Slant]

So... what's different about this dude than any other half assed HR dude? Apart from him having that American winner smile and looking good on camera?

[niil945]

It's one thing to fire someone for it, it's another thing to not even let them in the door. You're not intelligent, stop trying to sound like you are.

Again, you gloss over something that's easily googled. Several states (California, New York, and DC) have laws protecting people that protect political affiliation even during the hiring process. This took me all of 2 minutes googling so there could be others, those are just the ones I saw instances where state/district level protections were cited. You're not intelligent, stop trying to sound like you are.