Who should be hired first?

Glenster

I was just thinking about immigration, a lot of the arguments about it are related to work and jobs (i.e. "They're taking our jobs") and I had a quick question for boards.

If there is a job available in Ireland is it preferable that;


a) an Irish-born person (regardless of ethnicity) get the job,

b) a person born to Irish parents outside the country get the job, or

c) a person born outside of Ireland to non-Irish parents get the job

Assuming all other things being equal.


I would fall into category b) although I hold an Irish passport and went through almost the entirety of my schooling in Ireland.
Which means technically I'm an immigrant.

Kimbot

I will go for:

d) the one thats best suited to the job

osarusan

I think it's preferable that you don't make hiring decisions along those lines.

Glenster

jonnycivic wrote: »

I will go for:

d) the one thats best suited to the job

Glenster wrote: »

Assuming all other things being equal.

They're all equally suited. Obviously.

Good virtue signalling though.

CelticRambler

I'm an Irishman living in France, and at the moment I get first pick of the available work because I'm not French and will actually do what needs to be done without getting in strop over it! I've had three employers ask me if I can find them someone else with my background because they're sick of being messed about by the natives.

Don't know if that'd be of any relevance if I applied for an Irish job though. :pac:

FireFoxBoy

I personally wouldn't hire Eastern Europeans. I'm sorry that's just my preference. I just don't like seeing nationalities from other countries benefiting from a system they never contributed too.

ohnonotgmail

Glenster wrote: »

They're all equally suited. Obviously.

Good virtue signalling though.

this is clearly a hypothetical as in the real world no two candidates are ever identical.

Skylinehead

If all else is equal then it literally doesn't matter to an employer who he picks

benjamin d

It would come down to personality and "fit" I'm sure. If it's a small Irish company with half a dozen Irish lads and no one else working there, another Irish lad will probably fit in well. If it's a MNC with 50 different nationalities represented in one office then maybe an international applicant will fit in well with that; maybe an Irish person will add to that dynamic?

Most job interviews are in no small way to judge personality, they already read about your skills when you applied for the job.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Glenster wrote: »

They're all equally suited. Obviously.

Good virtue signalling though.

Despite common perception, having often interviewed candidates, they are never completely equally suited.

The criteria you want us to choose from are odious to any fair selection process.

grogi

Glenster wrote: »

I was just thinking about immigration, a lot of the arguments about it are related to work and jobs (i.e. "They're taking our jobs") and I had a quick question for boards.

If there is a job available in Ireland is it preferable that;


a) an Irish-born person (regardless of ethnicity) get the job,

b) a person born to Irish parents outside the country get the job, or

c) a person born outside of Ireland to non-Irish parents get the job

Assuming all other things being equal.


I would fall into category b) although I hold an Irish passport and went through almost the entirety of my schooling in Ireland.
Which means technically I'm an immigrant.

The one smelling better...

Shenshen

The one best suited for the job, and the one best suited to the team. If they all suit (which in my experience is really NEVER the case), give it to the one you think is nicest.

FireFoxBoy

FireFoxBoy wrote: »

I personally wouldn't hire Eastern Europeans. I'm sorry that's just my preference. I just don't like seeing nationalities from other countries benefiting from a system they never contributed too.

But if you're hiring them to work what exactly are they benefiting from? The fact there is jobs?
& surely if they are working then they are contributing?
I don't understand your prejudice?

benjamin d

FireFoxBoy wrote: »

I personally wouldn't hire Eastern Europeans. I'm sorry that's just my preference. I just don't like seeing nationalities from other countries benefiting from a system they never contributed too.

If they're working here they're contributing, not benefiting? By not giving them a job you're forcing them to claim benefits without contributing... what weird logic is that?

Winterlong

grogi wrote: »

The one smelling better...

Or the one with the bigger boobs.

1) Attractive female
2) Attractive male
3) Unattractive female
4) Unattractive male.

Kimbot

Winterlong wrote: »

Or the one with the bigger boobs.

Leave my boobs out of this

ancapailldorcha

Are the locals truly so bad that they need to have the rules bent in their favour?

ForstalDave

FireFoxBoy wrote: »

I personally wouldn't hire Eastern Europeans. I'm sorry that's just my preference. I just don't like seeing nationalities from other countries benefiting from a system they never contributed too.

Because working and paying taxes is not contributing

pilly

If they're all equally suitable and equally qualified for the job then inny meanie, minie, mo.

DEFTLEFTHAND

FireFoxBoy wrote: »

I personally wouldn't hire Eastern Europeans. I'm sorry that's just my preference. I just don't like seeing nationalities from other countries benefiting from a system they never contributed too.

Good workers though it has to be said.

osarusan

FireFoxBoy wrote: »

I personally wouldn't hire Eastern Europeans. I'm sorry that's just my preference. I just don't like seeing nationalities from other countries benefiting from a system they never contributed too.

Jeff Bezos got some competition right here.

grogi

Winterlong wrote: »

Or the one with the bigger boobs.

Eyes on the price they say...

Glenster

Obviously this is a failthread.

All I was trying to get to the bottom of was, when all the talk is made about immigrants taking "our" jobs, who is the "our" that is being referred to.


And to everyone saying it doesn't matter who gets the job, I'd agree with you to a degree. But there are a 10 million Indians who could do your job for half the price. If you don't mind if they do it, lets lobby our politicians to lift all immigration controls.

pilly

Glenster wrote: »

Obviously this is a failthread.

All I was trying to get to the bottom of was, when all the talk is made about immigrants taking "our" jobs, who is the "our" that is being referred to.


And to everyone saying it doesn't matter who gets the job, I'd agree with you to a degree. But there are a 10 million Indians who could do your job for half the price. If you don't mind if they do it, lets lobby our politicians to lift all immigration controls.

Bull****. You wanted to start a controversial thread and no-one was biting.

ancapailldorcha

Glenster wrote: »

Obviously this is a failthread.

All I was trying to get to the bottom of was, when all the talk is made about immigrants taking "our" jobs, who is the "our" that is being referred to.

There are no "our jobs". A job is a job and it should go to the best qualified candidate. It's that simple.

Glenster wrote: »

And to everyone saying it doesn't matter who gets the job, I'd agree with you to a degree. But there are a 10 million Indians who could do your job for half the price. If you don't mind if they do it, lets lobby our politicians to lift all immigration controls.

I don't mind if Shelbourne qualify for the Champions League next year but that's no reason for me to lobby the government to spare no expense in getting them better players. What an odd statement....

Kimbot

Glenster wrote: »

Obviously this is a failthread.

All I was trying to get to the bottom of was, when all the talk is made about immigrants taking "our" jobs, who is the "our" that is being referred to.


And to everyone saying it doesn't matter who gets the job, I'd agree with you to a degree. But there are a 10 million Indians who could do your job for half the price. If you don't mind if they do it, lets lobby our politicians to lift all immigration controls.

Yeah but we all know what happens when you outsource to India..... isn't that right Ulster bank :P

pilly

Glenster wrote: »

Obviously this is a failthread.

All I was trying to get to the bottom of was, when all the talk is made about immigrants taking "our" jobs, who is the "our" that is being referred to.


And to everyone saying it doesn't matter who gets the job, I'd agree with you to a degree. But there are a 10 million Indians who could do your job for half the price. If you don't mind if they do it, lets lobby our politicians to lift all immigration controls.

Immigration is about a lot more than jobs.

professore

The one who can actually read the original question which clearly said all other things being equal. So on that basis none of the people who already answered.

OP, all things being equal, I would agree with your synopsis.

pilly

professore wrote: »

The one who can actually read the original question which clearly said all other things being equal. So on that basis none of the people who already answered.

OP, all things being equal, I would agree with your synopsis.

And numerous others have already answered on the basis of the original question, I'd read first before compiling your next smart reply.

Kimbot

professore wrote: »

The one who can actually read the original question which clearly said all other things being equal. So on that basis none of the people who already answered.

OP, all things being equal, I would agree with your synopsis.

actually you didnt read it correctly either..... he said "Assuming" and one thing you never do is assume anything :P

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

The one who can actually read the original question which clearly said all other things being equal. So on that basis none of the people who already answered.

OP, all things being equal, I would agree with your synopsis.

We have all read the original question. We just decided it was clickbait nonsense on behalf of the op and responded appropriately. When the question is stupid the best answer is to point that out.

osarusan

professore wrote: »

The one who can actually read the original question which clearly said all other things being equal.

Genuinely, all things are never equal though.

If somebody who is hiring can't find some legitimate reason to select one over another, and just resorts to eeny meeny miny mo or similar, they haven't done a good job.

Winterlong

osarusan wrote: »

Genuinely, all things are never equal though.

If somebody who is hiring can't find some legitimate reason to select one over another, and just resorts to eeny meeny miny mo or similar, they haven't done a good job.

Thats true. If all candidates are equally qualified for the job then it comes down to things like their wage demands, their personality, the other skills they bring to the company, employment history etc..

Glenster

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

We have all read the original question. We just decided it was clickbait nonsense on behalf of the op and responded appropriately. When the question is stupid the best answer is to point that out.

Ouch.

Cordell

FireFoxBoy wrote: »

I personally wouldn't hire Eastern Europeans. I'm sorry that's just my preference. I just don't like seeing nationalities from other countries benefiting from a system they never contributed too.

FireFoxBoy wrote: »

I want to apply for job at google but I don't know which one. It says on their website you don't need a computer science degree. Anyone familiar with the application process?

Application process at Google may or may not involve persons of Eastern European origin, benefiting from a system they never contributed too. Make sure you share your preference with them.


To the OP question, although extremely hypothetical, I think I see behind it. Yes, there are instances in which minority/diverse candidate is picked. For various reasons.

H8GHOTI

Who should be hired first? The one that looks best in a bikini of course!

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3887142/czech-nuclear-power-station-bikini-contest-intern/

I've had a close look at this & don't think the article mentions country of birth anywhere :pac:

Mrs OBumble

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Are the locals truly so bad that they need to have the rules bent in their favour?

I've had several factory supervisors say things like "My life go so much easier once Eastern Europeans and Africans started getting hired. They turn up on time, and not hung over. You tell them to do something, and they do it."


To answer the OP's question - the one who will do the job for the lowest wages. That's how the labour market works.

PMBC

CelticRambler wrote: »

I'm an Irishman living in France, and at the moment I get first pick of the available work because I'm not French and will actually do what needs to be done without getting in strop over it! I've had three employers ask me if I can find them someone else with my background because they're sick of being messed about by the natives.

Don't know if that'd be of any relevance if I applied for an Irish job though. :pac:

Do I have to speak French?

snowflaker

I wouldn't use that as selection criteria. Look at their work history, achievement see do any stand out from the rest.

Ring their references.

ancapailldorcha

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

To answer the OP's question - the one who will do the job for the lowest wages. That's how the labour market works.

This is specious reasoning for two reasons. Firstly, there is a minimum wage. Secondly, jobs are advertised with a specified salary or there will be a specified salary associated with them. Low level positions have never paid particularly well and removing immigrants from the equation won't turn admin assistants into yacht owners.

Fanny Wank

Glenster wrote: »

Good virtue signalling though.

Has anyone any idea what "virtue signalling" is?

AnGaelach

Glenster wrote: »

I was just thinking about immigration, a lot of the arguments about it are related to work and jobs (i.e. "They're taking our jobs") and I had a quick question for boards.

If there is a job available in Ireland is it preferable that;


a) an Irish-born person (regardless of ethnicity) get the job,

b) a person born to Irish parents outside the country get the job, or

c) a person born outside of Ireland to non-Irish parents get the job

Assuming all other things being equal.


I would fall into category b) although I hold an Irish passport and went through almost the entirety of my schooling in Ireland.
Which means technically I'm an immigrant.

B, it is the only guaranteed person to be ethnically Irish. If A was guaranteed to be ethnically Irish, I'd choose them over B but you seem to hint more towards a civic definition of "Irish" relying on citizenship rather than natural right.

AnGaelach

Fanny **** wrote: »

Has anyone any idea what "virtue signalling" is?

It's a bit self explanatory isn't it? You're signalling to everybody else how virtuous you are.

Why stop there why not add first dibs to people from my county my town or village or my townland.

Shenshen

Glenster wrote: »

Obviously this is a failthread.

All I was trying to get to the bottom of was, when all the talk is made about immigrants taking "our" jobs, who is the "our" that is being referred to.


And to everyone saying it doesn't matter who gets the job, I'd agree with you to a degree. But there are a 10 million Indians who could do your job for half the price. If you don't mind if they do it, lets lobby our politicians to lift all immigration controls.

Why bother? Tons of jobs were moved to India in the last 2 decades, without a single politician having to make a single "courageous" decision.

Depp

jonnycivic wrote: »

I will go for:

d) the one thats best suited to the job

Have to agree with this, broadly against mass immigration in general but if theres two guys going for a position their ethnicity/origin/sexuality/etc. shouldn't ever be a factor!

AnGaelach

mariaalice wrote: »

Why stop there why not add first dibs to people from my county my town or village or my townland.

Exactly! Why you have just as much in common with M'butu Shqwambe from Cameroon as you do from Padraig from two villages over! Nationalism is crazy!

AnGaelach

Shenshen wrote: »

Why bother?

You don't seem bothered by low-skilled natives having to compete with large numbers of immigrants, why wouldn't you let in more immigrants to compete with you for your job?

Electric Sheep

Glenster wrote: »

I was just thinking about immigration, a lot of the arguments about it are related to work and jobs (i.e. "They're taking our jobs") and I had a quick question for boards.

If there is a job available in Ireland is it preferable that;


a) an Irish-born person (regardless of ethnicity) get the job,

b) a person born to Irish parents outside the country get the job, or

c) a person born outside of Ireland to non-Irish parents get the job

Assuming all other things being equal.


I would fall into category b) although I hold an Irish passport and went through almost the entirety of my schooling in Ireland.
Which means technically I'm an immigrant.

How would you know if the applicant fell into category a b or c? Surely it would not be legal to ask those questions of an applicant until the position had already been offered and you were verifying the right to work in Ireland?

pilly

Glenster wrote:

And to everyone saying it doesn't matter who gets the job, I'd agree with you to a degree. But there are a 10 million Indians who could do your job for half the price. If you don't mind if they do it, lets lobby our politicians to lift all immigration controls.

And there we have it, the real reason for this thread.