- ‹ previous
- 2128 of 2731
- next ›
Information Overload
INFORMATION OVERLOAD... The New York Times has gotten its ink-stained hands on the seven-page application form for high-level Obama Administration job seekers. (You can download the PDF at the NYT site.) The phrase "application form" is misleading. The document isn't seven pages of questions and their corresponding answer fields. It's seven straight pages of highly invasive questions/demands for information about the applicant's past. No figurative stone is left unturned. Here's a sample.
I wonder if the Obama folks leaked this intentionally, to demonstrate how committed they are to keeping conflicts of interests out of their White House and how adamant they are about avoiding drama (letting an appointee suck up news-space because of a nanny problem is definitely not the Obama Way). Alternatively, an applicant leaked this because he or she was aghast at how over-the-top it is. If that's the case, it's another teachable moment in a lesson Obama is quickly coming to learn: preventing leaks in a campaign is infinitely easier than preventing them in an administration.
The gun question is weird. The most common-owned guns, hunting rifles and shotguns, don't typically require registration.
As a former federal employee and friend of other federal employees that need security clearances, I have to say there is nothing new or surprising here. To get any high-level job in the government requires a pretty invasive application process and security investigation.
The only thing really new here is the addition of new media information and I would expect that from the Obama campaign and in this age of petty smears.
I understand what they're going for here. But I wonder if this isn't a bridge too far. If I were qualified for and considering a post in the administration, even a reasonable high-level one, looking at this thing would probably make me throw up my hands and forget the whole thing. I'm supposed to remember and submit this comment as an example of my writings? Please. I assure you, 30 minutes from now, I'll have forgotten I posted it.
I kinda think they overreached and are asking for too much. If this were a negotiation, this would be a starting point -- an insulting starting point, but whatever. This questionnaire disqualifies all but the boring from government work.
Depending on how high, this high level job is, I guess I don't see how "over the top" these questions are.
Perhaps it's insulting because you can't ask high level candidates these questions, but it's okay to pee test the d00d at Walmart.
Obama's enemies will find a way to get every bit of information Obama is asking of his applicants, and then some. They will trumpet each and every questionable trait, association, decision, past job, criminal record, medical travails, misstep and gaffe they find. No one will be safe from the most intrusive of scrutiny. It only makes sense to be prudent and thorough on the front side of the process. Imagine if the 1st Undersecretary of Defense for Asian Affairs (is that a real job? I don't know) is found to have a live-in Pakistani girlfriend with a lapsed (unbeknownst to her and her partner) visa. The bullshit from the right would be relentless.
I second Adolphus. All these questions would eventually be asked in a security clearance interview. Doesn't seem like a big deal to me.
Also, maybe they want to predominately hire 20-somethings. All this stuff would already be on their Facebook page.
The guy who can provide the longest annotated list of anonymous blog comments is probably going to be tasked with monitoring the location of the first lady's keys.
Why don't they care about the roommates?
Many Democrats are just as corrupt or odious as Republicans. Obama wants to prevent corrupting his administration and legacy with people like Cisneros and Edwards.
Good to know if your applicants ever inadvertantly shot somebody in the face.
The individuals who answer such questions are those very individuals who will be in charge of guarding our civil liberties, including our personal privacy.
It is not realistic to expect people who would respond to such questions to hold your or my privacy in any higher regard than they have held their own.
To a lesser, but still real degree, this explains why politicians generally are willing to pass such legislation as the "Patriot Act" or FISA renewal. After all, if they can get Swiftboated, then what's the problem when that also happens to you?
The only remedy I can think of is to begin to formulate a non-privacy oriented approach to civil liberty. How about a "take this job and shove it" approach. After all, does it really matter if you know what my credit rating is or if it is a good one if - given the credit crunch - I can't get a loan anyway?
Did anyone notice the word "Clinton" written in the margin of page 4 next to item 31 "Are there any categories of personal financial records ... that you (or your spouse) will not release publicly if necessary? ..."
If it's a sign he's committed to being No Drama Obama, which is what it looks like, more power to him. They are working for the White House or in an agency closely affiliated with it, not a chain restaurant. Why shouldn't the questions be slightly invasive? Hell, people on the right are still complaining about Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. Debbie Schlussel has a post today allegedly that Obama lied on his Selective Service form. If he can ask people who want to work for him a lot of questions to prevent some stupid and immaterial but potentially embarrassing information from sticking to him, so much the better. It'll be one less thing to drag down his agenda.
steve duncan >"...The bullshit from the right would be relentless."
Where have ya been, it ALREADY is. Ever hear of FoxNews ?
"...it`s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine..." - REM
"Why don't they care about the roommates?"
a roommate is someone who is simply a fellow tenant unless he/she otherwise is appropriately under the cohabitant umbrella. a roomate in this sense is effectively equivalent to a tenant in a separate apartment but within the same building.
i don't see anything wrong with the questions asked. i doubt very much there is an expectation that people can list every site they have ever commented at but most people know where they comment frequently and are able to indicate something about the nature of their comments.
i don't see how what's being asked is onerous considering the responsibilities of the jobs in question.
a roomate in this sense is effectively equivalent to a tenant in a separate apartment but within the same building
That would be an awesome answer if your roommate was Bill Ayers.
I can't evaluate this in a vaccuum-- is this more or less invasive than the applications for similar jobs in past administrations? What's the context here?
I'm more curious what HR departments and lawyers would say about the legality of some of these questions....
My guess Carl is that it's more invasive, if only because we lived in better times than when there was no facebook or myspace.
I am not an HR professional, but did do a lot of hiring as a manager of, well, not THE federal government, but a quasi-trust arm of the government overseen by Congress. We practiced all civil service rules.
If I recall correctly the only things I could not ask about in an interview situation were related to race, religion, family status (pregnancy real or planned) political party, and stuff like that. I could ask ABOUT political affiliation, but only in a general way to assure no conflict of interest with the job I was applying to.
Yes, people are sometimes asked race, religion etc, but only as part of a separate, anonymous and optional EEOC form, and not part of the hiring process per se.
All the questions on the form looked okay to me, although, like I said, I am not an HR professional.
Adolphus, I was curious about questions that ask questions about significant others and roommates.
Being just an engineer who occasionally sits in on interviews, those are the sort of questions I've been "trained" to be leery about since it might disclose:
a) marital status
b) child status
c) sexual preferences
And I've been asked all of those questions, but AFTER being hired, on security clearance forms. Many positions are contingent on that clearance, but the information on the clearance form itself doesn't go back to the employer.
Question re: cohabitants. Do they only mean people you've dated/married that you've lived with or does it include girlfriends that you didn't live with.
Also, I have no fucking clue where my girlfriend from 10 years ago lives, I'm not creepy enough to stalk her and find that out.
Maybe the Obama folks leaked this to cut down on the number of people begging them for jobs.
It probably doesn't matter. Unless there are some really egregious differences between two applicants, the one with the better connections (Ivy League-type networking) will get the job. Sigh.
I find the question on weapons too invasive. Down here in Texas, where we can plug people burglarizing even a neighbor's house with impunity, I keep two revolvers ready for anyone idiot enough to break in when I am at home. The ammo manufacturer for my .357 claims its bullet is capable of "massive energy deposit." What of it?
Jerry: You are absolutely right. I wouldn't ask that question either for the exact same reasons. Another reason I wouldn't ask it is that I wouldn't care.
I screwed that up, that question does skate close to the line.
Funny how the people we elect can have some rough spots in their past, but not the paper pushers who work under them.
Also, those saying this type of information would need to be disclosed for a security clearance are wrong. I have an inactive TS and never had to answer questions about publications, gun ownership, or addresses of people with whom I've lived. I'm also a member of one state bar and in the process of waiving into another and, while the applications for bar membership are extensive, they do not go this far.
Jerry: Perhaps it's insulting because you can't ask high level candidates these questions, but it's okay to pee test the d00d at Walmart.
I work as a software engineer at a large corporation and have done so for several years. If I ever was to be asked to do a "pee test", I'd resign right away. Not because the test would show anything, just because.
And the world would be a better place if there was not one man in the world who would do a pee test for any job, anywhere, any time, not even the "d00d" at Walmart. Heck, if I had to apply for a job at (the Danish equivalent of) Walmart, I'd still refuse to do any stupid drug tests.
Truth is, we're stupid to let our employers squeeze us to accept such things. We should squeeze them - at the end of the day, they need us more than we need them.
Re: The application form: I think the questions *are* over the top. But maybe they really just are trying to scare applicants away so they avoid getting too many. That's give them the elbow room to hand-pick whoever they really need.
Go take a look at form SF-86 and ask yourself again whether this is invasive.