I’m A Criminal (well, I might be soon)
Posted by Kevin McKee on September 15, 2011I want to let all of my readers know that if I suddenly stop posting and updating this site, there is a chance that I’ve been arrested.
No, I didn’t steal anything. I didn’t embezzle money. I didn’t even try to sell one of my body parts on the black market (although I could probably get a pretty penny for my Like-New Liver. I don’t drink alcohol, so I don’t need it, right? Right… I may want to consult a doctor on this one). Those things are all illegal today, and if I had done any of them, I probably wouldn’t be writing this post unless my jail cell were equipped with WiFi.
I’m actually not a criminal. Yet.
It all depends on what happens with this new jobs bill. I will admit, there are some things I like about the American Jobs Act. The payroll tax cuts were a good idea last year and they are a better idea this year (increasing the tax cut); it will put more money in the pockets of working Americans who can spend or invest the money however they choose.
There are also some things I don’t like about this bill. Paying companies to hire workers? Either companies will be paid to do something they were going to do anyway, or they will be incentivized to do something they don’t need to do. This is social engineering at its worst. However, it’s not my least favorite part of the bill. At least this part wouldn’t make me a criminal.
Part of this legislation (which he conveniently failed to mention when he gave his speech about the bill) would make it illegal for companies to discriminate against workers who are unemployed. As you may have heard, I wouldn’t hire long term unemployed people if I owned a business.
Well aren’t I just a regular ol’ John Gotti.
This Will Definitely Create Jobs in One Sector
If the American Jobs Act is passed in its current stage, it will become illegal for a company to refuse to hire someone because a person is currently unemployed. If any unemployed person feels he has been discriminated against because of his employment status, he has the right to sue the company that didn’t hire him.
I can practically feel the drool coming out of the mouths of lawyers across the country.
This will definitely create jobs in the law sector. An unemployed person goes into an interview and doesn’t get the position. CALL A LAWYER! We can’t tolerate this blatant discrimination! Another unemployed person applies for a job and doesn’t receive an interview. CALL A LAWYER! How dare a company refuse to interview an unemployed candidate!
There will be tons of lawyers doing all kinds of business. Unemployed people will be suing companies left and right. Companies will be hiring lawyers to defend themselves. What a great job stimulus!
But wait.
Companies Will Stop Hiring. Period.
If I owned a company and this law were passed, I would immediately take the “help wanted” sign out of my window. The last thing I want is to get sued, and simply posting a job opening would leave me completely vulnerable to lawsuits.
Pretend I own and engineering firm and I need an electrical engineer. I could post a job and get an application from an unemployed person who didn’t even finish high school, let alone any engineering courses. I refuse to interview him and guess what: he sues me. Would he win? I sure hope not. But I still have to hire a lawyer and spend time preparing and defending my case against this jerk.
Will that happen often? Probably not. Let’s look at a more realistic scenario.
Let’s pretend someone applies who is actually somewhat qualified for the position, but I don’t think his personality fits well with my company, or any number of other reasons I wouldn’t want to hire him.
Or better yet; I’m truly concerned that his engineering skills may have deteriorated over the two years he hasn’t been working. I need a highly competent engineer to come in and be productive from day one. There’s a chance he could work out, but I really don’t want to make a bad hiring decision so I err on the side of caution and don’t hire him.
Now imagine this guy gets a lawyer and sues me. I have to hire a bad ass Johnny Cochran type lawyer and spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours preparing a case. And honestly, if the American Jobs Act is passed with this provision, I think I would end up losing this case even with a great lawyer.
That’s why if this bill gets passed, I won’t just be discriminating against long term unemployed workers; I’ll have to discriminate against everyone, employed or unemployed. If I ever have a business and this law is in effect, I WILL NOT POST A JOB OPENING. The possibility of getting sued would be too onerous.
And you know what? I bet a lot of existing businesses will do the exact same thing.
Way to create jobs Barack!
Good point.
This totally negates the hiring benefits in the bill.
Yeah, and aside from the tax cuts, I don’t really see any benefits in this bill
I don’t believe it will scare businesses away from hiring at all. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin certainly didn’t. Sure, there will be a few cases where a prospective employee may have sued and claimed discrimination, when in fact there was none, but that was the exception rather than the rule. The law is there to protect the rights of those that ARE discriminated against, unjustly.
None of those civil rights are good reasons to refuse to hire someone. A person who has been unemployed for years and has let his skills deteriorate is a good reason not to hire someone, but would be illegal under this law.
So basically once someone has crossed the magic threshold of being unemployed too long, you deem them unworthy of work?
I shouldn’t be deeming anyone unable to work (until I own a business where I’m hiring people), and neither should the government. It should be left to the business owner to determine if he wants to hire an unemployed person or not.
Kinda like it should be left up to the business owner to determine if he wants to hire a black person? Sorry, but some things can’t be left up to the business owner or it creates a serious social problem.
I could honnestly understand not hiring someone because they’ve been out of work too long and if you felt they let their skills deteriorate, but the truth is, it’s getting harder and harder for some people to find a job. If you only have a certains set of skills, your a dime a dozen or if you have only worked in a specific knitch, such as myself, it’s scary. It’s hard finding work. But I don’t think a lot of people will have basis to sue. How on Earth is a lawyer going to prove somebody didn’t hire you because you’ve been out of work too long? Unless the person interviews you and says point blank or sends you a written thank you for interviewing but you didn’t make the cut because you’re unemployed letter, it would be hard to prove. A lot of lawyers can’t waste time or be bothered with a case if their not even sure about it, especially cases they assume might be a joke. It costs money to keep their offices open. Unless you get a really successful ambulence chaser like Glen Lerner.
The truth as I understand it, is that if your skills aren’t valuable in today’s job market, it is your responsibility to improve your skills. It shouldn’t be the responsibility of businesses to hire workers that don’t have the skills necessary to be successful.
And it’s not, and that is not what it is saying. No where does it say businesses have to hire unqualified or underqualified workers. It just says they can’t deny unemployed workers the ability to submit resumes. It doesn’t say they are then required to hire them.
All assumptions aside, how can you be sure that said unemployed person has let their skills deteriorate? They may have been keeping up with the industry online/reading magazines and attending events – none of which really can go on a resume.
I do know that peoples skills dont match the job market perfectly, but how can they change that? Will a class cover EVERYTHING they need to know? Who can say for certain either way.
I’m not saying they necessarily have deteriorated. Once again, I’m saying it should be up to the business owners to determine if their skills are acceptable. The government shouldn’t have any say in the matter.
You seem to be postulating that work skills degrade over a short period of time, and that the ability to play catch up is an insurmountable obstacle. I think arguing from this premise is an illogical fallacy. I’ve been out of professional IT work for approximately 8 years now. That’s a LONG time in the IT world. However, if I chose to try to get back into that field I still have certifications which are valid, and bringing me up to speed with current trends and technology wouldn’t take very long at all. A couple of weeks at most because I have kept up with the industry outside of working in it, and I can still do anything I did 8 years ago. The deteriorating skills argument is nothing more than a crutch for people who are looking for ways to weed out people and make their own lives as easy as possible. You’re not going to win any points for endorsing a policy of shallow, self-serving autocracy.
This is a great decision. The best way to turn around any economy is to write more laws and create more protected classes!
This is not nearly as terrible as you might think.
If a company can “prove” (i.e., “say”) that there was any other reason– any reason at all– that they did not hire the individual, the case will be thrown out.
And a company can ALWAYS find a reason not to hire someone.
In your example above, with the two-year unemployed engineer, the fact that he has been non-practicing for two years is enough to dismiss the case. If, in the past two years, he had remained unemployed while volunteering for a prestigious engineering firm and/or taking classes to keep his skills up to par, your assumption that his skills have deteriorated will be harder to prove. But, since you can always find a reason not to hire someone, it still probably wouldn’t be an issue for you.
It’s kind of like the regulation that you cannot discriminate because of age… You probably wouldn’t hire a 15-year old to work in your firm, but that’s because he’s under-qualified, under-experienced, etc– qualities that directly relate to his age, but are not reasons of “age discrimination.”
I really don’t think this part of the bill will have an effect on anything, unless the employer is kind of dumb.
Age discrimination issues generally pertain to older workers, and though they’re difficult to prove, there’s little doubt that such discrimination exists. (Case in point: I know of a hiring situation, one applicant was 60 and out of work; another was 20ish and a recent grad. The older worker was definitely better qualified, but management did not want to pay what he asked. So they rewrote the job description to make it a “junior-level entry position.”) I myself am 63, and I know that if I were to lose my job, I wouldn’t stand a chance of finding anything comparable in salary or responsibility.
There’s no question that a business has every right and obligation to choose the best qualified applicants. But even under the best of circumstances, finding a job can be a lengthy process. The old rule of thumb was one month for every $10K of income. And we’re hardly in the best of circumstances now, where there are twice as many applicants on average for each position as there would be in a healthy economy. I’ve been involved in hiring decisions where the final decision came down to splitting hairs among several qualified applicants, each with some pros and cons. It’s therefore entirely possible that highly able applicants would find greater difficulty now than in years past.
As for the proposed bill, this statement — “A person who has been unemployed for years and has let his skills deteriorate is a good reason not to hire someone, but would be illegal under this law” — is simply a straw man argument. The intent of the bill is not to force employers to hire anyone with deteriorated skills, in which case the employer would have an unassailable defense and no lawyer would take the case. As I see it, the intent of the clause is simply to ensure that the long-term unemployed are not *arbitrarily* excluded from consideration. Ads like the following (already banned in NJ) would be illegal, and in my opinion rightly so:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/business/help-wanted-ads-exclude-the-long-term-jobless.html
You’re blowing this out of proportion.
What is really says is that it would be “illegal for employers to run advertisements saying that they will not consider unemployed workers, or to refuse to consider or hire people because they are unemployed.”
So basically it means:
1) You can’t write an advertisement saying “No unemployed people allowed!” (Pretty easy to not slip that in there…)
2) You can’t *not* hire the most qualified people if the reason you aren’t hiring them is because they are currently unemployed.
What it doesn’t say:
****It doesn’t say you *have* to hire unemployed people.**** Nor does it say that you *have* to hire underqualified people.
The person who brought up civil rights brought up a great parallel. You just can’t slam the door in their face if they’re unemployed, just like you can’t slam the door in their face if they’re black or a woman… but you aren’t *forced to hire* them because they’re black or a woman either.
People who are blowing a gasket over this need to have their hyperbole detectors calibrated.
Lets rework this article and see how ridiculous it becomes.
——
If the American Jobs Act is passed in its current stage, it will become illegal for a company to refuse to hire someone because a person is a woman. If any woman feels she has been discriminated against because of being a woman, she has the right to sue the company that didn’t hire her.
I can practically feel the drool coming out of the mouths of lawyers across the country.
This will definitely create jobs in the law sector. A woman goes into an interview and doesn’t get the position. CALL A LAWYER! We can’t tolerate this blatant discrimination! Another woman applies for a job and doesn’t receive an interview. CALL A LAWYER! How dare a company refuse to interview a woman!
——
There are 156 million women in the country – according to you there should be enough cases there to sustain an entire economy on the backs of women suing businesses because they don’t all have jobs.
There’s a fundamental difference between a woman and an unemployed person.
It’s not possible for laziness to cause a person to become a woman. It is possible for laziness to cause a person to become unemployed.
Maybe you are right and the lawsuits won’t be as frequent as I’m predicting, but that doesn’t change my opinion that this law is an attack on the liberty of business owners.
There are any numbers of reasons a person may become unemployed. The employer may feel they’re getting too expensive, for instance, and will want to bring in a younger and cheaper person. If you read the NY Times article I linked to previously, in fact, you will see that part of the concern of the EEOC was that the practice of not hiring the unemployed would discriminate against older workers and blacks.
Again, I have to disagree. Wasn’t too long ago that women were deemed not as skilled or intelligent as men, and business owners had the right to deny employment to them. Broadly viewing women as un-intelligent and the unemployed as lazy seem pretty similar to me…
They are completely different.
To suggest a woman is less qualified to do a job simply because she is a woman is ALWAYS wrong. To suggest an unemployed person is less qualified to do a job simply because he is unemployed is SOMETIMES wrong.
You have to understand there is a difference, unless of course you believe that every single one of the 14 million unemployed people in America lost their job through no fault of their own.
I’m sure many people used your same argument back when the Civil Rights Act was passed as well… that it was “an attack on the liberty of business owners.”
That law protected those women who were qualified for jobs from being discriminated against just because the employer deemed them “un-intelligent”. This law will protect those unemployed who are qualified for jobs from being discriminated against just because the employer deemed them “lazy.”
You didn’t address my point at all.
Because you never seemed to have picked up on my point.
So I guess you believe I shouldn’t have the ability to “discriminate” against someone who hasn’t earned a high school diploma. Surely there are some high school dropouts that are smart and motivated. Am I required to interview all of them too?
“To suggest an unemployed person is less qualified to do a job simply because he is unemployed is SOMETIMES wrong.”
But this is an argument for the clause rather than against. Of course people lose jobs through faults of their own; no one disputes that. But with an economic downturn and unemployment situation as extreme as the one we’re experiencing, it’s unlikely this is always the case. The intent of the clause is to prevent arbitrary exclusion of the unemployed, e.g., where language in advertisements reads something like “Must be currently employed to be considered.” I see absolutely no reason, and you haven’t shown any, to believe that the intent of the clause is to prevent businesses from hiring the most qualified people.
A big part of the Job Act is rebuilding the country’s infrastructure. I think it would be tough to win a lawsuit about qualified candidates. I think as long as you hire someone without purposely discriminating against the unemployed, you are okay.
Well, first of all, I DO think it should be illegal to discriminate against someone for being unemployed for too long.
The job market is getting more and more ridiculous, and it’s really not up to an employer to decide that after an arbitrary point, someone’s skills must have deteriorated, or that if someone is unemployed, that must automatically mean he is also lazy.
That said, I can’t see how this new law would in any way prohibit job growth, because I don’t see how it would at all cause an increase in lawsuits, like, at ALL. You can’t sue someone because you didn’t get the job; you’d have to prove to a court that you were the best candidate for the job and were discriminated against because of your unemployed status. That wouldn’t be the easiest thing to do. I mean, there have been laws against gender discrimination for decades, but every woman who ever doesn’t get a job doesn’t turn around to sue the employer over it.
Refusing to interview someone because they are unemployed doesn’t mean a business owner thinks he’s lazy; it means the business owner doesn’t want to spend his time and resources figuring out if he is or isn’t lazy.
It’s a way to minimize recruiting time and maximize results. It’s no different than requiring X years of experience or a certain college degree.
Say you are a business owner and you have 10 resumes on your desk. You only have time to interview 5 of these people. All 10 people have similar degrees, GPAs, and work experience, with one difference among all of them. 5 are currently employed at well renown companies and my industry, while the other 5 were laid off from the same well renown companies a few months ago.
If you’re the business owner, which 5 do you want to interview?
The 5 unemployeed who might be a little more desperate to work harder for my company so as to feed and provide for their families. Extra bonus, the unemployment rate gets a little bit smaller.
I could see doing that myself. After all, by Kevin’s own admission, in this example all 10 are roughly equal in qualifications. And you don’t know why any of the 5 were laid off. It’s easy to jump to the conclusion that the laid-off workers were “inferior,” when actually in difficult times a business may not be able to keep all its good people and may be forced to split hairs to decide which employees to keep or not.
Woah, so now you’re saying it is okay to discriminate against EMPLOYED people and make assumptions about how hard they are willing to work? But to make the same assumptions against UNEMPLOYED is completely wrong?
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Seriously dude? You asked us to choose which 5 of 10 would we interview, and their only discernable traits were employed vs. unemployed. SOMEONE was going to be discriminated against. I stand by the fact that if you’re making me discriminate against someone, it would be the employed since they are, well, ALREADY employed. This way 5 people aren’t using social welfare or living on the streets. You asked, I answered.
Exactly! SOMEONE is going to be discriminated against. Shouldn’t we leave it up to the small business owner to decide which group to discriminate against instead of making a federal law and forcing him to choose what the government wants him to choose?
Um, no. It was that thinking that allowed business owners to discriminate against minorities for so long.
So let me get this straight. I can discriminate against people without college degrees. I can discriminate against people without management experience. I can discriminate against people with low GPAs. I can discriminate against people who jump from job to job and don’t appear to hold any one job for a long time.
All those things are fine, but I can’t discriminate against people for not having the ability to hold a job?
If you don’t see the difference between unqualified individuals who lack specific skills necessary for the job and people who happened to be unemployed, I can’t help you.
I guess I do need help then, because they all seem like relevant ways to narrow down candidates to me
OK, so hold up. In a previous post you said that anyone who got laid off who wasn’t lazy should be able to find a job quickly, but now you’re telling me that anyone who’s currently unemployed would immediately go in your “no” pile?
Have you at all considered the notion that the reason there are so many long-term unemployed in your country is because too many employers are not bothering to read resumes for more than 10 seconds and make the entire judgement based on the word “unemployed”?
The point I, and I think others in this thread, am trying to make is that the seeing that someone is employed vs. unemployed gives me almost no more data to make a hiring decision that trying to decide who is more qualified for a job: A guy named Larry or a guy named Mike. You can NOT judge someone just based solely on the fact that he’s unemployed, and no other context, because it doesn’t SAY anything about his work ethic, skills, character, etc. Maybe he’s unemployed because he’s lazy; maybe he’s just unlucky.
And don’t forget that the working world is also filled with lazy people.
I’m addressing people who have been unemployed for 1 day in this post because that’s what the proposed law states.
And I agree that there are much better ways to evaluate candidates than looking at their employment status. I also agree there are lazy people in the working world.
My point here is that I don’t believe the government has a right to force employers to consider someone who is unemployed. I also think it will hurt employment for unemployed people more than it helps.
“Refusing to interview someone because they are black doesn’t mean a business owner thinks he’s a criminal; it means the business owner doesn’t want to spend his time and resources figuring out if he is or isn’t a criminal.”
See what I did there?
I get what you’re trying to say, but the argument just doesn’t really hold up because in your scenario, the employer is making assumptions that he has no business making.
I’m not arguing that racial discrimination is wrong. I agree on that point.
Which of the 5 would you interview?
Fine. I’ll play. I would draw better conclusions from their resumes than just “employed” or “unemployed.” Has someone done a sloppy job of formatting his resume? He’s out. Did someone address the cover letter to “to whom it may concern” instead of my name? She’s out. Has someone jumped around a lot, say, had five positions in as many years? He’d probably go to the bottom of the list. I might do a quick Google search of their names and see what the internet says about them, and if that turns up any red flags, I’d disqualify them, too. I’d interview whoever was left.
If you literally handed me 10 identical resumes (which, given my experience being on the hiring end of things and screening resumes, this never happens) and the only thing differentiating one from another was “currently employed” and “currently unemployed,” I’d interview them all, or possibly start off by doing phone interviews and then bring my favourites through to a second round. Or even have an assistant do the phone interviews (because I’m so busy and all) and then report back.
Because for as much an unemployed candidate might be lazy, the employed candidate might be flaky, and ready to take the job and then leave after six months, like he’s doing to his current employer.
Geez. I want your job where you have all this extra time to interview people. Or you have an assistant with lots of free capacity to do this stuff for you.
In real life, businesses today are stretched very thin and everyone is working at capacity (at all positions, including assistants). If you have to make a quick decision looking at these 10 resumes, I’m not saying getting rid of the 5 currently unemployed will give me the best 5 candidates; I’m saying it should be legal.
What Melissa is saying should not take more than an hour of anyone’s time. I would hope that if you were interviewing for a position, you’d want to take some time and care with the decision. To amend what I said above, I’d say it’s hardly likely that with 10 resumes you won’t find some distinctions. I would take the top 5, whether they were currently employed or not.
So now the government can pass laws that force me to work overtime? I would rather just pick the 5 employed candidates in 10 seconds and take my chances.
Explain why it is legal to require someone have the skill of a college degree, or knowing a certain programming language, or being bilingual, or having management experience, or any other skill EXCEPT the ability to hold down a job.
Why should I have to exclude that skill from my analysis of who I want to hire?
At this point I don’t even know where you’re coming from, Kevin. Do you really think a hiring decision should take all of 10 seconds?
You keep acting as if everyone but you here is advocating the hiring of unqualified people. You should hire the best people, period. Some of the best people may have lost a job, some may not.
As for overtime, it has nothing to do with government laws. But you know full well it is something an employer will expect of you as circumstances warrant.
Larry,
People do it all the time. They throw away resumes from people without a college degree. They throw away resumes where people don’t have 10 years of experience. etc. etc. etc. Why can’t I throw away resumes from people who are currently unemployed?
And if I did want to make a hiring decision in 10 seconds, shouldn’t I have the right? It’s my business, right?
I will say, we are VERY busy in our industry, but even in our busiest time of the year, the partners will take the time to go to recruiting events, meet students, and make sure that they are involved in the hiring process. Sure, you are busy with your work and stretched thin, but hiring talent, especially for a professional job, is an important part of your work.
And the scenario that Melissa played along with, having 10 *identical* resumes, is unlikely to happen. I would guess for any job we post looking for an experienced hire, there are probably a couple of people whose resumes jump out at your right away. And then you probably want to meet all of them, plus the second-best pool of applicants, because it’s so important that they have the right personality.
I know that your core argument here is that someone being long-term unemployed is a red flag that you would use to shorten the hiring process, but in reality, interviewing at least some of those people probably wouldn’t be as much of a hassle as it seems.
Laws like this always have unintended consequences.
Kevin, not to discredit your well written points, which I happen to agree with, but please do go out and read the American Jobs Act of 2011. I think you may like it much better than the bill the president has yet to file.
Here’s a link: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/tea-party-congressman-beats-obama-american-jobs-act-181129773.html
True enough, the version Obummer would like to have passed would make discrimination illegal, but that would be a difficult case to prove. There are a million reasons to turn down applicants.
As the restrictions & social engineering on businesses increase, hiring any applicants will decrease. Already in many industries, businesses will not hire anyone off the street, but prefer to hire from temp agencies exclusively so they can “try before they buy” potential employees.
Yes, I read about the other American Jobs Act, and I’m a pretty big fan. If we want the economy to start flourishing again, that’s a great way to start!
And I agree with those businesses. To be honest if/when I do have a business, I’ll probably hire contractors before I ever decide to bring someone in full time.
If a person has been unemployed for a long time, there are tons of things they can do to keep their skills up-to-date and show a potential new employer that they’re dynamic and take incentive.
They can teach their skill part-time at a community college. They can consult. They can plan conferences within their industry.
All of these are forms of self-employment, which help them avoid the stigma of UNemployment. And all of these keep their skills fresh, their networks alive and their resumes strong. A LOT of these tactics are used by stay-at-home moms who plan to re-enter the workforce in a few years and want to keep their resume competitive.
If you’re unemployed and you’ve been sitting on the couch eating Cheetos, it’s your own fault. And you probably won’t make a very good employee.
Using force to try and get results will not work; it might create jobs for lawyers and it might even increase net employment, but it will not increase net wealth or income. If companies wanted to hire someone, they’d do it anyways. If they aren’t doing it because of red tape or other reasons, this will simply hurt their bottom line, and that ultimately hurts consumers. This is just opening the door to more ditch-digging, and we will all be poorer for it.
I mean, if you post a job, and a underqualified black applicant applied (no engineering degree, etc, like your example) they could sue you for discrimination as much as you think the unemployed applicant would. In both cases, the employer would clearly win, but if someone was annoying enough to sue over it, yes, it would cost the business some legal fees and a headache. I don’t think it would make you any MORE susceptible to lawsuits from underqualified candidates.
I agree that it would be tricky if you had 2 applicants, they seemed good, but you went with one because they were *not* unemployed, but then, whether you or I agree with it or not, that is what the whole POINT of the law is.
I agree that it’s not a good idea to pay businesses to hire people when they wouldn’t otherwise be hiring. The most positive way I can see of looking at this is for businesses that are on the fence about hiring – they think they need more people, but the market is so unpredictable that they can’t be sure, so if the government will give them some extra incentive, they’ll lean towards the hiring side.
Flag Goofy Job Ads!
Don’t count on government intervention, it’s time to take matters into our own hands. All of the job sites have a “flag” or “report” button on the pages the ads are hosted on. Click those buttons when you see an ad telling the unemployed not to apply, requiring a credit check for a position that does not handle money, or requiring a disproportionate amount of experience for a job (Such as 10 years of experience for an entry level position).
It’s time for the job seekers, the unemployed, and the employed who are just sick of what’s going on to exercise their rights and…
Flag Goofy Job Ads!
Well Kevin,
It took me 3 seconds to figure out your’re a fucking jerk and I don’t want to work for a douche bag like you. Take your job and shove it up where the sun doesn’t shine.
Oh, and I will never buy your products either.