How to slam down on nepotism?

[Farnhamia]

Put my cousin in charge of fighting nepotism; I'm sure he'll solve the problem.

No, I promised it to my brother-in-law.

[Czechostan]

Put my cousin in charge of fighting nepotism; I'm sure he'll solve the problem.

No, I promised it to my brother-in-law.

Fine. I'll just have to buy that anti-corruption position from your uncle.

[Farnhamia]

No, I promised it to my brother-in-law.

Fine. I'll just have to buy that anti-corruption position from your uncle.

Hmmm ... he wants to retire soon, so I think we can reach some sort of accommodation.

[Cetacea]

Theres absolutely nothing wrong with nepotism, we need to get away from families just being Consumption centers who work for someone else and instead view Family as productive contributors to family wealth.

In other words if I want to employ my nephew, have shared equity in my brothers house, pay my mothers rates and invest in my sisters new businesses then why should I not be allowed to do that?

[Penguin Union Nation]

Might I suggest eating the rich?

[Page]

My take is that when it comes to a guy using his connections in town to get his teenage son a job at the doughnut shop, it's doesn't really matter, and when it comes to, just for a purely hypothetical example, an extremely powerful person like a vice president getting his son a six figure paper job in a foreign country, let's just use Ukraine as an example, they'll find a way around whatever anti-nepotism regulations are in place because that's what rich and powerful people do.

Look, I'm against this entire capitalism thing altogether but the fact is, there is no feasible system that can be put in place that entirely levels the playing field for people who don't establish connections.

[The Blaatschapen]

The best way to slam down on nepotism is to have a robust legal institution which can fairly enforce property rights, right to contract and liability. Nepotism usually crops up in place where these institutions are lacking, and people resort to leveraging other social institutions to replace them, like family, religious groups or tribes.

Usually, it is the government that fairly enforces this. Of course, if your government is a family business, like a monarchy, or the Trump administration, things might get tricky.

[Saiwania]

Its not always the best move to hire from family. If they were trained well and can do the job, its no big deal. But if they're incompetent or have other interests, they'll lose money for that business and that business will have to fire them or absorb any losses from keeping them on.

Instead of having every single job that exists be so competitive, it'd be preferable in my eyes to simply bring about the conditions for or enable businesses to hire more people doing more things via there being more demand for products/services, with more people making plenty of money that is being spent or reinvested. We can't do away with automation unfortunately, because there is no denying that machines can do a faster and better job than people can for certain tasks.

The proper ideal is the right person in the right job/role. It takes someone who can do the work, and is a good fit. More important is if a person earns money or loses money for their employer. If someone is unprofitable, chances are they'll have to be fired or improved somehow to where this is corrected.

Those who have some but not all of what is needed, need help becoming more employable at something, help in improving any existing skills/qualities, or to be directed to something else that'd value what they can currently do, even if it pays less or is not immediately what they have in mind. Its fine for someone to work a lousy job, provided they're not stuck there for life, and its more like a stepping stone if they put in the effort/discipline to improve enough for a better opportunity.

It'd be equally as good for more people to be able to go into business for themselves, if they can handle this well enough to stay or become profitable.

[Gravlen]

We often hear that it's not what you know, but who you know, that gets you hired. How can we help resolve this?

Resolve what?

Take a step back, and start by identifying what the problem actually is.

[Samadhi]

We often hear that it's not what you know, but who you know, that gets you hired. How can we help resolve this? I have two ideas in mind.

A. Require all businesses to publish a formula of objectively measurable credentials; eg. your grades in relevant courses multiplied by this, plus your number of hours worked in similar jobs multiplied by that, etc... such that any hiring decision at odds with that formula will stick out like a sore thumb.

B. Prohibit employment in one's country of birth, or any other country in which you've previously been employed in a separate job. That way you can't use "who you know" from a previous job for employment in the same country as before.

I assume B is unenforceable, though I do hope future generations come up with a way to enforce it; that'll have the added benefit of making people travel and meet people from other countries, instead of clinging to their home countries like nationalists. What about A, though? Is A enforceable? I'm thinking it might be a good placeholder for now until/unless society were to go through with B.

There's nothing wrong with it.

[Esternial]

Both of your ideas are overkill for a fringe problem. You'd perfer a company to miss out on hiring a competent developer because the company is based in their place of birth. You'd prefer taking away opportunities from people that have potential and have the right personality, but not the right credentials. All to end the scourge of nepotism that is...what, driving companies to bankruptcy?

It's a slight annoyance, not an issue worth such terribly disproportionate ideas.

Solution: just get over it, do you own job well and stop caring about/being envious of other people.

[Alvecia]

I wouldn't have gotten my first job if it weren't for some mild nepotism.

My cousin was working at this small, family run food store, so she let them know I was looking for work, and let me know they were looking for staff. Got the job. Worked there for a good 7 years.

Similarly, I had an uncle who worked at an examining board that gave both my siblings and their HR department a heads up when they were looking for extra staff during the exam months.

Would we have gotten those jobs if it weren't for family? Possibly.
Did it help? Certainly.
Was it unethical? Ehhh...I'm inclined to think not, but then I'm quite obviously biased on the matter.

[Esternial]

I wouldn't have gotten my first job if it weren't for some mild nepotism.

My cousin was working at this small, family run food store, so she let them know I was looking for work, and let me know they were looking for staff. Got the job. Worked there for a good 7 years.

Similarly, I had an uncle who worked at an examining board that gave both my siblings and their HR department a heads up when they were looking for extra staff during the exam months.

Would we have gotten those jobs if it weren't for family? Possibly.
Did it help? Certainly.
Was it unethical? Ehhh...I'm inclined to think not, but then I'm quite obviously biased on the matter.

Similarly, it often happens that managers check with their employees if any of them worked with a prospective hire beforehand.

Having the opinion of someone that used to work with whomever you've just interviewed can be useful info. They might be a monumental dick with zero people skills but shiny veneer.

[The Blaatschapen]

I wouldn't have gotten my first job if it weren't for some mild nepotism.

My cousin was working at this small, family run food store, so she let them know I was looking for work, and let me know they were looking for staff. Got the job. Worked there for a good 7 years.

Similarly, I had an uncle who worked at an examining board that gave both my siblings and their HR department a heads up when they were looking for extra staff during the exam months.

Would we have gotten those jobs if it weren't for family? Possibly.
Did it help? Certainly.
Was it unethical? Ehhh...I'm inclined to think not, but then I'm quite obviously biased on the matter.

Similarly, it often happens that managers check with their employees if any of them worked with a prospective hire beforehand.

Having the opinion of someone that used to work with whomever you've just interviewed can be useful info. They might be a monumental dick with zero people skills but shiny veneer.

But enough about me.

Yeah, I've gotten several jobs and a place to live (twice!) through knowing people.

[Grinning Dragon]

We often hear that it's not what you know, but who you know, that gets you hired. How can we help resolve this? I have two ideas in mind.

A. Require all businesses to publish a formula of objectively measurable credentials; eg. your grades in relevant courses multiplied by this, plus your number of hours worked in similar jobs multiplied by that, etc... such that any hiring decision at odds with that formula will stick out like a sore thumb.

B. Prohibit employment in one's country of birth, or any other country in which you've previously been employed in a separate job. That way you can't use "who you know" from a previous job for employment in the same country as before.

I assume B is unenforceable, though I do hope future generations come up with a way to enforce it; that'll have the added benefit of making people travel and meet people from other countries, instead of clinging to their home countries like nationalists. What about A, though? Is A enforceable? I'm thinking it might be a good placeholder for now until/unless society were to go through with B.

You've obviously never hired (or fired) anybody. If we went off grades and hours worked then a lot of incredibly inefficient people would be hired. Experience, proven results, and critical thinking are what matters most. I've interviewed people who had stellar grades but when it came time for them to demonstrate how to apply it to business problems they shit the bed.

This right here.
The underlined, I feel your pain.

[Ethel mermania]

The state has far more important things to deal with than petty nepotism.

What's to stop your customers from doing it?

My customers get the service they pay for, just because my cousins kids may not be the best for their job, they would at least have to be competent for it.

So it's "buyer beware," then?

Again, I would not tolerate incompetence so the buyer would be getting competent service in whatever that business would be.

.that said its always "buyer beware". When you are the customer.

[Ifreann]

B. Prohibit employment in one's country of birth, or any other country in which you've previously been employed in a separate job. That way you can't use "who you know" from a previous job for employment in the same country as before.

Something occurred to me relevant to this point. A relative of mine worked for a company that operates internationally. His work took him all over the world. Not every country on Earth, but every continent except Antarctica. He could, potentially, have gotten me a job almost anywhere outside my, and his, home country.

[Atlantarctica]

B. Prohibit employment in one's country of birth, or any other country in which you've previously been employed in a separate job. That way you can't use "who you know" from a previous job for employment in the same country as before.

Can you explain this? The only thing I'm getting from this is "Don't let people born in their country to be employed in their birth country".

[Alvecia]

B. Prohibit employment in one's country of birth, or any other country in which you've previously been employed in a separate job. That way you can't use "who you know" from a previous job for employment in the same country as before.

Can you explain this? The only thing I'm getting from this is "Don't let people born in their country to be employed in their birth country".

1 job per country, sounds like

[Ifreann]

B. Prohibit employment in one's country of birth, or any other country in which you've previously been employed in a separate job. That way you can't use "who you know" from a previous job for employment in the same country as before.

Can you explain this? The only thing I'm getting from this is "Don't let people born in their country to be employed in their birth country".

The idea is that people have to move to a different country, one they've never been to before, when they leave a job, to stop them from using their family connections to help them get hired. But as I've outlined above, my family connections could help me get hired all over the planet, in lots of countries I've never been to before.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

What's to stop your customers from doing it?



So it's "buyer beware," then?

Again, I would not tolerate incompetence so the buyer would be getting competent service in whatever that business would be.

.that said its always "buyer beware". When you are the customer.

And yet, we have health inspections, safety inspections, etc... clearly the law draws the line somewhere. Why not at competence that bears relevance to all of those things?

[Ethel mermania]

Again, I would not tolerate incompetence so the buyer would be getting competent service in whatever that business would be.

.that said its always "buyer beware". When you are the customer.

And yet, we have health inspections, safety inspections, etc... clearly the law draws the line somewhere. Why not at competence that bears relevance to all of those things?

The law only requires competence tests for certain professions. Let's say I have a hair dressing shop in NY. NYS law requires that anyone cutting hair be licensed and to get that license you have to pass a competency test. If my cousins kid passes the test, she is competent according to state law. So even if I dont hire the best possible hairdresser, I am hiring someone the state certified as competent.

Do you really want state licensing tests for all jobs?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

And yet, we have health inspections, safety inspections, etc... clearly the law draws the line somewhere. Why not at competence that bears relevance to all of those things?

The law only requires competence tests for certain professions. Let's say I have a hair dressing shop in NY. NYS law requires that anyone cutting hair be licensed and to get that license you have to pass a competency test. If my cousins kid passes the test, she is competent according to state law. So even if I dont hire the best possible hairdresser, I am hiring someone the state certified as competent.

Do you really want state licensing tests for all jobs?

And how do you think your customers would feel, if you told them outright that you were only doing the bare minimum?

[Asle Leopolka]

So it's a "know it when you see it" thing? Sounds like a suspiciously convenient excuse for concealing one's real reasons for one's hiring decisions.

It's not a convenient excuse, it's reality. Finding someone who knows the business, knows how to do the work, and will mesh well with a team is not universal. Knowing whether someone will fit is very much a subjective thing, and yes, managers who know their team know when a candidate will check all those boxes.

The law only requires competence tests for certain professions. Let's say I have a hair dressing shop in NY. NYS law requires that anyone cutting hair be licensed and to get that license you have to pass a competency test. If my cousins kid passes the test, she is competent according to state law. So even if I dont hire the best possible hairdresser, I am hiring someone the state certified as competent.

Do you really want state licensing tests for all jobs?

And how do you think your customers would feel, if you told them outright that you were only doing the bare minimum?

Your customers wouldn't know that, but your supervisors would and would deal with this accordingly.

[Alvecia]

The law only requires competence tests for certain professions. Let's say I have a hair dressing shop in NY. NYS law requires that anyone cutting hair be licensed and to get that license you have to pass a competency test. If my cousins kid passes the test, she is competent according to state law. So even if I dont hire the best possible hairdresser, I am hiring someone the state certified as competent.

Do you really want state licensing tests for all jobs?

And how do you think your customers would feel, if you told them outright that you were only doing the bare minimum?

As a prospective customer, it would depend on how much I'm being charged.