+- Aspies For Freedom (http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=48)
+--- Forum: Work Issues (/forumdisplay.php?fid=29)
+--- Thread: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job (/showthread.php?tid=15801)
Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - A True Monotheist - 04-28-2009 09:06 AM
Hello. Thank you for clicking on this thread. I have not been a frequent visitor here. My father told me long ago, "Son, you want to keep your mouth shut and let them think you are a fool instead of opening your mouth and letting them know it." This was sage advice from his father, and from his father before him. I try to follow it more these days than I used to.
However, I occasionally break silence. I would like to begin a thread on changing the perceptions that most NT's hold when a person cannot hold on to a job. Most of them assume that one is a loser, immoral, or else incompetent. Often they assume that one is not trying. Now, I assume that most of you hold to a different viewpoint. How do we change the common perception to one that is more amenable to our own advancement in society?
That is the question that I pose to you. How do we re-arrange perceptions? If a perfectly well educated and intelligent person cannot get past "Human Resources," then such a person cannot prove his or her worth. By the way, Human Resources is a term that I find offenslve. Human beings are created in the Divine Image. We are not "resources." However, at the same time, I acknowledge that HR wields power, whether deserved or not. Therefore, their perceptions are vital to whether we advance or retreat in society.
How do we change the dominant image of a (pardon the term) "loser?" I am sorry if "loser" offends you, but your being offended will change nothing. It will have no impact. The question is; what will have an impact? What will change perceptions in society? If there is to be a serious change, then it must begin with forums like this. And, the discussion must be about political power and how to wield it, not a 1990's style conversation about terms and how offensive they are. I believe that a real political movement should form from conversations like these. I am willing to consider an Autistic Political Party as one venue.
I will post a poll that you are free to participate in. You may vote more than once. Please feel free to comment. I will probably turn it over to you good folks and not comment, or I might comment if there is a chance to make an intelligent contribution. Otherwise, I will follow my father's sage advice.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - M - 04-28-2009 04:23 PM
This is a very valid discussion.
"I would like to begin a thread on changing the perceptions that most NT's hold when a person cannot hold on to a job. Most of them assume that one is a loser, immoral, or else incompetent. Often they assume that one is not trying. Now, I assume that most of you hold to a different viewpoint. How do we change the common perception to one that is more amenable to our own advancement in society?"
There are different trends in HR and hiring practices. During the past there were schemes to select different personalities to fill "team" profiles. Aspies often lost out because we are not deemed as "team players". I find that a current trend (while I attended a seminar for disabled people seeking employment that totally ignored people with autism) is to judge people on their past behaviour as a predictor of future behaviours.
Past behaviour as a predictor of future behaviours is unforgiving. This scheme requires a full employment history with all gaps accounted for ( being unemployed would be viewed about the same as being incarcerated by law enforcement, guilty or not). This is why some employers are asking for police record checks and credit histories. I don't believe that some traffic violation twenty years ago should bar someone from volunteering with children -- but it does have that effect.
It is very difficult to have a chance to prove that you have "changed" your behaviour due to the consequences of past behaviour pitfalls. In an aspie's case, it should be sometimes others that need to change and be more accommodating than us. Often we can not change.
"How do we re-arrange perceptions? If a perfectly well educated and intelligent person cannot get past "Human Resources," then such a person cannot prove his or her worth." If somehow you are in an industry where you can network, have your work known to people who actually does it -- you will get a job through them and not through human resources. If a manager wants to hire you -- he/she will put your application through human resources just as a formality. Some employers will hire on ability and skills rather than personality fluff that some HR people seem to love.
Another method to getting to who makes the hiring decision is to fool the application screener. Write your cover letter to point out exactly how you are qualified for the position advertised. Adjust your cv/resume to support that. If you are "too old" just include relevant experience in your cv/resume to the job you are applying. Do not include filler jobs or maybe jobs you did ten or twenty years ago. Do not put the year of graduation on your degrees. Hopefully the person interviewing will be technical and have a chance to overlook your application before the interview. They will know by talking to you what you can do.
I would not put that you have a disability on your application or specifically list it. I do sometimes check off disability in an application to a government agency or large corporation that claims to be participating in employment equity. Often they will select people with disabilities/race just for interviews but you might often be the only person with experience and qualifications in that group.
I have found that some HR people have interviewed me just for entertainment. They had no positions available and just wanted to feel some power. If you feel that you have been badly treated in an interview by an HR person -- write or call that company's CEO or public relations department and complain. More than often you are a customer or potential future client. Remind them of that. They have to know that that they could be refused a very important contract because they were "rude" to someone during a job interview or when someone inquired about a job.
I didn't answer your survey because I didn't find a suitable choice. We stop job discrimination against people with autism that same way we stop discrimination against any specific group.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 04-28-2009 05:28 PM
Not long ago I was filling out an online application form with the Urban Institute in Washington D.C. I refused to specify employment history beyond the items listed in my resume.
When asked for any terminations I sarcastically included an incident in a dishwashing job from 20 years ago and left the following explanation re: the employment history, in so many words.... actually this is the way I wish I had phrased it
--------
I feel insulted that I would be asked to provide a history of more than ten years of any and every position now that I have approximately ten years' experience with the same employer. The Federal government on its long form SF-171 does not ask for more than this. I have Asperger syndrome and a considerable period of years of finding where you fit with a particular career and employer is normal under the circumstances. I am very happy to have nearly ten years with my employer today.
------------
I still have my old job search records 1996-1998. I think I will neatly write them up as a class A (interviewers who rejected me) and class B (others who rejected me) corporate avoid lists. Not very Christian, eh?
A partial list of the class A list is as follows (the total list is about 36):
* Westat, Rockville Maryland (I also did not like the attitude of my interviewer)
* National Restaurant Association, Washington DC
* ROW Sciences, Rockville Maryland
* Maryland Ribbon Company, Hagerstown Maryland
M, however, I don't think the odds of rejecting a contract are very likely, in this economy, though. But if they ever were mistreated, I'd say they deserved it.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 04-29-2009 12:36 AM
Oh yeah. I do recall phrasing the question, is this a legitimate question or are you digging for dirt?
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - micgrace - 04-29-2009 12:45 AM
I was a mean S.O.B. when I was doing the hiring. Deliberately phrase the interview to see if the person would break down or inadvertently say something. Of course they dig for dirt. Trick is to be ready.
Problem for those I interviewed was my encyclopaedic knowledge of most subjects and work.
Heres a few catch outs. Guy applied for a position as a stereo installer. So I make up a hypothetical situation. Customer complains that his system doesn't work properly, what are you going to do? (I don't know, bye bye).
I want to be a spare parts guy. Well go find me a lower ball joint for a 1972 Falcon, you have 5 minutes. (I don't know where to start, bye bye)
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 04-29-2009 05:30 AM
Gee, you know what, my memory only goes back ten years.
I'm not going to tell that j@ck______ that I keep detailed records.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Chamuel - 04-29-2009 07:10 AM
I do agency work - people make allowances for me..... being just relief staff. Avoid unhealthy work environments that reek of dog eat dog.
I put "try and fit in and stay silent".
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - A True Monotheist - 04-29-2009 07:11 AM
One are of focus might be to fight for the right to privacy, which runs counter to ideological trends across the political spectrum against a right to privacy. In other words, barring incarceration, one should be allowed to keep areas of your life private. The increasing use of past experiences as an indicator of future behavior is one sign of an ominous trend toward the Panopticon, a society of total surveillance.
Such a society is harsh and unforgiving. It will coursen the public, and make people less willing to make genuine contacts. And yes, it will be detrimental to our cause. Politicians encourage all of these things because it makes us easier to control. Bosses encourage this movement because it makes employees easier to control. Finally, intellectuals seem to be on board because a great many political philosophers of the twentieth century have been averse to individual thought and in favor of mass conformity. Organized religion and organized secularism have both encouraged mass conformity in the name of "getting along."
In addition to a new political party, I am open to something that I have never advocated before, an organized and vocal boycott of voting itself. I am reluctant to take that step, since I consider voting a civic duty, but I am beginning to think that a strategic boycott of the voting booth might deny legitimacy to the System itself. If the reasons are stated outrightly, that the people involved are not apathetic, but that they have a specific reason for abstention, then it might be extraordinarily effective. Once certain demands are met, voting would resume.
Yet, for those unwilling to take such radical steps, protests in favor of increased employee privacy might be a good step. Actual protests in front of businesses or other concerns might be effective. My one concern would be the criminal element, those who really do have reasons why they are covering up,joining such a movment. Therefore, I *AM* in favor of criminal background checks. I am not in favor of having to account for every action I have made in twenty years, as this is none of anyone's business.
ATM
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - jgardner - 04-29-2009 07:47 AM
My favorite Dilbert character is Catbert - the evil director of human resources....
I, too, did not vote in the above poll because I didn't see any options that seemed suitable to me. I have never been fired from a job for being Aspie, but I have quit several because the situation seemed untenable. I don't seem to be good at handling "Catch 22" situations where there is no right answer. I also seem to place much more importance on the perception that my contribution is valued than others do. If I don't feel that my work is valued, I have a hard time seeing any reason to stay in a job.
As far as whether I am viewed as a "loser" or not... I am resistant to keeping score the same way as the rest of the world. We have several acquaintances who seem to have trouble figuring out where to put us on their socio-economic score card. Our home and vehicles don't fit easily into anyone else's rating system, but I know a lot of people are jealous of our contentment level. The important thing is to have a life you enjoy - who cares what other people think.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - micgrace - 04-29-2009 02:16 PM
Its not easy owning the company. One swaps one boss for a much harder task master, the bank. I am amazed I did all that myself to this day. Well, I had a dream.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - windy - 04-29-2009 03:23 PM
A True Monotheist Wrote:
One are of focus might be to fight for the right to privacy, which runs counter to ideological trends across the political spectrum against a right to privacy. In other words, barring incarceration, one should be allowed to keep areas of your life private. The increasing use of past experiences as an indicator of future behavior is one sign of an ominous trend toward the a society of total surveillance.
Such a society is harsh and unforgiving. It will coursen the public, and make people less willing to make genuine contacts. And yes, it will be detrimental to our cause. Politicians encourage all of these things because it makes us easier to control. Bosses encourage this movement because it makes employees easier to control. Finally, intellectuals seem to be on board because a great many political philosophers of the twentieth century have been averse to individual thought and in favor of mass conformity. Organized religion and organized secularism have both encouraged mass conformity in the name of "getting along."
In addition to a new political party, I am open to something that I have never advocated before, an organized and vocal boycott of voting itself. I am reluctant to take that step, since I consider voting a civic duty, but I am beginning to think that a strategic boycott of the voting booth might deny legitimacy to the System itself. If the reasons are stated outrightly, that the people involved are not apathetic, but that they have a specific reason for abstention, then it might be extraordinarily effective. Once certain demands are met, voting would resume.
Yet, for those unwilling to take such radical steps, protests in favor of increased employee privacy might be a good step. Actual protests in front of businesses or other concerns might be effective. My one concern would be the criminal element, those who really do have reasons why they are covering up,joining such a movment. Therefore, I *AM* in favor of criminal background checks. I am not in favor of having to account for every action I have made in twenty years, as this is none of anyone's business.
ATM
Such a society is harsh and unforgiving. It will coursen the public, and make people less willing to make genuine contacts. And yes, it will be detrimental to our cause. Politicians encourage all of these things because it makes us easier to control. Bosses encourage this movement because it makes employees easier to control. Finally, intellectuals seem to be on board because a great many political philosophers of the twentieth century have been averse to individual thought and in favor of mass conformity. Organized religion and organized secularism have both encouraged mass conformity in the name of "getting along."
In addition to a new political party, I am open to something that I have never advocated before, an organized and vocal boycott of voting itself. I am reluctant to take that step, since I consider voting a civic duty, but I am beginning to think that a strategic boycott of the voting booth might deny legitimacy to the System itself. If the reasons are stated outrightly, that the people involved are not apathetic, but that they have a specific reason for abstention, then it might be extraordinarily effective. Once certain demands are met, voting would resume.
Yet, for those unwilling to take such radical steps, protests in favor of increased employee privacy might be a good step. Actual protests in front of businesses or other concerns might be effective. My one concern would be the criminal element, those who really do have reasons why they are covering up,joining such a movment. Therefore, I *AM* in favor of criminal background checks. I am not in favor of having to account for every action I have made in twenty years, as this is none of anyone's business.
ATM
ATM, again it seems you and I have more in common. (How are you?, Wwll, I hope.)
There is a very disturbing trend of companies (in the US) doing background check , even for menial jobs, or for small companies. (All in the interest of "safety". They do financial background checks as well.
People are being basically being treated like criminals if they have less than stallar "credit scores".
If a person lost a job (many do after all) and they miss a couple of payments - they are then for all intents and purposes, now unemployable . A vicious cycle.
How about health issues- one visit to a hospital for a week or for surgery (G*d forbid) and you can end up owing 100,000 dollars... who can withstand both the bill and the loss of work and still keep up stellar credit scores.....
People are being treated like numbers, not like human beings. Regular life issues, many completely out of a person's control - like bad luck - are making people into unhirables - similar to someone who has a criminal record - a felony.
Evenn misdemeanors show up on these reports....
(Also to get a government job, you need finger printing etc.,)
What is next a blood test... already happens..
ATM PANOPTICON is here. What can we do about it?
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 04-29-2009 05:39 PM
I had cancer once without health insurance- Feb. 1997. 99% cure rate. Bills were extinguished in 2.5 years.
Fortunately today I have FICO near 800, clean criminal record, not even a traffic accident in 4.75 years.
I was recently cleared for an interim Secret Government clearance.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - windy - 04-29-2009 05:48 PM
My husband does some work at power plants, refineries etc., so the new standard is a TWIC card. Finger printing etc., He went through with it, but it is strange....
the new generation coming up wil lhave a harder time with these kinds of requirements, because the people factor is being taken out, and the computer is being used to gather, filter and sort information... also many more things are criminalized and kept track of.
What is next RFID cards with all our health info etc., I disagree that any of this is helpful - they will call it "helping streamline/saving costs" so that company that wnats to hire can ne more "efficient" and save money on insurance"
Coming soon/ already here: No such thing as privacy in medical records - every one saw all the ads and commercials on tv, 1 in 4 are on some sort of mental health/depression drug. Will that be held against people? Is that even a question.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 04-29-2009 06:11 PM
Maybe it is our society that causes depression and mental health problems
A Marxist would say, "People are on drugs to escape your capitalist reality, people sell drugs and have prostitution because it is the capitalist thing to do"
We can guess that our economic system marginalizes some of our pre-existing population and would rather have an immigrant or a high tech visa
Our social system has broken down to the point where you need E-Harmony to find a lifemate, or need an organization simply to find friends. I am intermediate, although I did not find a spouse in college, I found many friends I still have 20 years later. I attract many women as friends, but you often find a woman's communication of interest is very vague. It could mean "I really appreciate this friendship" to "why aren't you pursuing me for a life mate?"
I would err more on the side on romance if it weren't so emotionally costly. I feel a little bit like the Soviet pilot who fired on Korean Air Lines 007.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 04-29-2009 06:16 PM
"Zabuska", "missiles away", picked up by a CIA listening post (Doomsday: On The Brink, The Learning Channel, in the context of KAL 007 and Reagan response ratcheting up the Soviet paranoia and danger of WW3. See also training exercise Able Archer.)
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - M - 04-29-2009 06:52 PM
I have had pre-screening HR people call me and tell me off because they said they checked my degree and some places that I work do not exist. My degree is under my maiden name and some of the places I have worked at are no longer in business. Usually I could discuss this in an interview but people don't even give me that chance. Even some places where I have worked, it was years ago and no one there remembers me. They just call up and ask to speak to anyone, not just people given as references. So if they talk to the boss or co-worker who harassed and bullied me, am I supposed to get a job for that?
I registered with one nanny agency that asked me for much personal information and ID they needed to do a police check. This woman called me and said there was a problem. I know I have never had a problem with the police. I told her to send me the report. She won't. Probably she was lying and never did a check.
I talked to the police and they told me that when a report is being done, the person will receive a letter from the police telling them it is being done and they have to sign a consent form first.
One of the problems is that if someone had the police stop them and ask for their name because they were walking around looking "suspicious" -- it could be recorded on their report. This is stupid. I look suspicious walking around most of the time but really I am not breaking any laws or doing anything wrong. How many other people with autism are affected by this?
I know one man who was given a ticket for "loitering" because he was sitting on a bench in front of a school on a sunday for five minutes. He was not doing anything wrong. It was only because of his race and the prejudice of the police officer. This affected him getting his citizenship.
I am so sick of needing all these "courses" and "certificates" for event the most basic jobs. I can't afford to get them and then not get any work because I don't have "experience" or "work references".
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - M - 04-29-2009 06:57 PM
Actually the weirdest job application story happened to me. I applied to a newspaper ad for a childcare agency. This person called me and said they wanted to let them alone with the children. I asked why. They said they had been in jail for molesting and that they were on parole. I told them to get lost. Later the police called me and said this person was put back in jail and asked me why he had my application. Then they told me that I should not give out my name and phone number to strangers. I asked them how the hell was I supposed to get a job then? so now is my name in the police computer concerning this? I didn't do anything wrong.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - A True Monotheist - 04-30-2009 04:22 AM
"ATM PANOPTICON is here. What can we do about it?"
ATM's response: That is almost a separate question from the issue of workplace rights, even though the two are related on a deeper level. As for workplace rights, I do not have the solution, which is why I am asking for a broad-based democratic conversation.
As for privacy rights in general, against employers, governments, religious institutions, Universities (et al), I am caught between three basic solutions. All of them are non-violent, because they have to be. Any solution requiring violence would lead to total repression, I mean, TOTAL repression. So, here are the only three solutions that I could possibly see...
A)A voting boycott. No participation in a political process that legitimate repression in the name of democracy. Such are tactics used by democracy activists in the Third World whenever elections are rigged. It can also be used when there is no real choice in the major political parties, as is the case in the Anglo-Saxon countries. The voting boycott would end when certain key demands are met (end to cameras, et al), and would not continue indefinitely.
B)The other possibility might be a new political party centered primarily around privacy. It would unify libertarians on the right and democrats on the left, all around a common ground. The problem with this one is that it is easily predictable, and relies on electoral politics which does not seem to lead to freedom as much as it used to in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
C)Collective jamming of the system for all non-criminal background checks. In other words, a leaderless resistance around all background checks not related to criminal matters, or matters of misconduct around children, or matters of having hurt someone et al. We could play creative games with all matters not related to education or past employment that relates to the job. It would also be discouraged for government jobs, of course, or any matter related to perjury.
Where you worked twenty years ago, in unrelated job, would be answered very creatively by a massive number of people. For instance; you could all say that you worked at AFF corporation. We could then enter a name that would register. The employer would then come across a thread like this, with a definite social message. The purpose would NOT be to deceive, but to jam the system. The joke would be revealed, but then repeated by massive numbers of people as a social protest. This is one possibility. With all of the creativity here, there might be others.
As for where you went to school, one could give the correct answer. However, if you did not do so well in school, then you could get a letter of recommendation from a local hippie, artist, homeless person, visionary philosopher, or religious nut. You could have the letter say, "best eco-philosopher," or "most likely to solve Goldbach's Hypothesis by moving a quilt pen with his teeth." Again, the purpose would not be to deceive, but to confound. Stimulating thought among otherwise droll HR people would be the objective.
We can defend privacy by being unpredictable in a creative way. Dressing as space aliens in front of survaillence cameras can help confound the system. Spouting random philosophy in the public square (I so admire the English for this freedom!) would also help free minds. Holding signs stating "SHUT DOWN THE JUDGE ROTTENBERG CENTER" at sports stadiums would help spread the word. Again, these should be non-threatening actions. Threatening actions, or actions with offensive language and hostile intent, lead to repression. It turns the public against you. There is nothing worse than a twenty-something radical who spouts the f-word every other word, and yet who is always on to some cause here and there. He is the best friend that the System has.
So, come to think of it, "C" might work for privacy and workplace rights. We need to be careful, however. None of these will work if people are atomized. Hispanic day laborers cannot effectively use A and C. A lot of them are undocumented, so they cannot use B. If we do this, we have to think of people who cannot defend themselves, be they Hispanic day laborers or inmates in the JRC. Make sure that you do nothing unintelligent. And, make sure that whatever you do will influence the young people correctly. The last concern is why I am not comfortable advocating "C", because stupidity can high-jack intelligence very easily. I leave it for consideration, but I do not advocate it necessarily.
And, make no mistake about it, there will be infiltrators (google "CONINTELPRO"). Be ware of those who advocate violence, or who denounce others in harsh tones. I have denounced others at times, but only when I felt it was necessary to expose people. At this point, I no longer feel it is necessary. Only engage in an action if you can remain positive throughout. I am between A and B personally. C is a nice idea, but one with possible abuses.
God bless.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - windy - 04-30-2009 02:44 PM
A True Monotheist Wrote:
"ATM PANOPTICON is here. What can we do about it?"
ATM's response: That is almost a separate question from the issue of workplace rights, even though the two are related on a deeper level. As for workplace rights, I do not have the solution, which is why I am asking for a broad-based democratic conversation.......................
deleted body....................
C)Collective jamming of the system for all non-criminal background checks. In other words, a leaderless resistance around all background checks not related to criminal matters, or matters of misconduct around children, or matters of having hurt someone et al. We could play creative games with all matters not related to education or past employment that relates to the job. It would also be discouraged for government jobs, of course, or any matter related to perjury.
Where you worked twenty years ago, in unrelated job, would be answered very creatively by a massive number of people. For instance; you could all say that you worked at AFF corporation. We could then enter a name that would register. The employer would then come across a thread like this, with a definite social message. The purpose would NOT be to deceive, but to jam the system. The joke would be revealed, but then repeated by massive numbers of people as a social protest. This is one possibility. With all of the creativity here, there might be others.
.............................. Only engage in an action if you can remain positive throughout. I am between A and B personally. C is a nice idea, but one with possible abuses.
God bless.
ATM's response: That is almost a separate question from the issue of workplace rights, even though the two are related on a deeper level. As for workplace rights, I do not have the solution, which is why I am asking for a broad-based democratic conversation.......................
deleted body....................
C)Collective jamming of the system for all non-criminal background checks. In other words, a leaderless resistance around all background checks not related to criminal matters, or matters of misconduct around children, or matters of having hurt someone et al. We could play creative games with all matters not related to education or past employment that relates to the job. It would also be discouraged for government jobs, of course, or any matter related to perjury.
Where you worked twenty years ago, in unrelated job, would be answered very creatively by a massive number of people. For instance; you could all say that you worked at AFF corporation. We could then enter a name that would register. The employer would then come across a thread like this, with a definite social message. The purpose would NOT be to deceive, but to jam the system. The joke would be revealed, but then repeated by massive numbers of people as a social protest. This is one possibility. With all of the creativity here, there might be others.
.............................. Only engage in an action if you can remain positive throughout. I am between A and B personally. C is a nice idea, but one with possible abuses.
God bless.
I recommend reading the entire post by ATM - but I just quoted a few portions...
Thanks ATM.. (love hearing from you)
I am fond of C as an option.
We have to stop the system from getting more fixated on someones past background when it has nothing to do with the present. The tides are turning against people with medical conditions particularly in hard economic times - it will be easier for many to discriminate against people.... Privacy doesn't really exist when the majority of people give away their information so freely. We do need a movement of people to realize it is not in THEIR best interest and that discrimination can happen to them, very easily.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - M - 04-30-2009 04:12 PM
I have heard about people giving out fake work histories and giving a phone number. They would get a friend to answer the phone and pretend that they were working at that company and give a good reference. I know someone who hired someone to work in an office and the person said they had a previous job doing typing and computer. It turns out that they didn't know how to type or use a computer.
So now to protect myself when applying to jobs -- I look up the company in the 411 directory. I find that phone number and address and any other information available. I do not apply to listings that just have a fax number or email address and no company name.
I agree that privacy is a huge issue. There is too much fraud and exploitation going on -- especially by some employers. I want to ask them to apply for a police check before I work for them.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 04-30-2009 04:41 PM
There is a rally in Washington DC tomorrow (May 1 2009) 3 PM in Malcolm X Park in support of workers/immigrants. I was reading it at Subway on a sign in Spanish posted outside (backwards). Pretty good skill if you ask me.
If I was not working I would join a counter demonstration against illegal immigration.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - M - 04-30-2009 08:53 PM
But is the protest going to block the whole road and all traffic?
Why do some people seem to think that they have some right to do that? People have a right to assemble -- it does not mean blocking the roads, intimidating people, making a mess, costing the police and city $1000's.
Illegal immigration -- how do all these people find jobs? Who is hiring them?
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Vulcan613 - 04-30-2009 11:49 PM
A True Monotheist Wrote:
In addition to a new political party, I am open to something that I have never advocated before, an organized and vocal boycott of voting itself. I am reluctant to take that step, since I consider voting a civic duty, but I am beginning to think that a strategic boycott of the voting booth might deny legitimacy to the System itself. If the reasons are stated outrightly, that the people involved are not apathetic, but that they have a specific reason for abstention, then it might be extraordinarily effective. Once certain demands are met, voting would resume.
All this would do is give more power to the bigots in the system. I think openly protesting would be a better venue. Picketing works for other groups, why not us?
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Vulcan613 - 04-30-2009 11:55 PM
I've had several bacground checks so far, but all were legitimate IMHO: once to work in a kids' summer camp, once to substitute teach, and once to do volunteer ministry at the federal prison. The first two were looking for pedophiles. I have no idea what the prison was looking for -- terrorists maybe? Illegal aliens? (Martians beware -- they WILL find you!)
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 05-01-2009 01:51 AM
Apparently employment verification checks are not being enforced well enough or there is identity theft. Another system is proposed (E-Verify I think). The reasoning is if you take away their employment with strict verification of checking legal status, they will go home because they can't work, can't beg, and (I guess) can't get welfare (if they're illegal and they're trying to hide from the system).
Build a nice high fence. The Burrito Wall.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Alison - 05-01-2009 01:58 AM
Shrek Wrote:
I was recently cleared for an interim Secret Government clearance.
Hi Shrek. Do you have to kill us now you've told us? 
Alison
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Marcia - 05-01-2009 02:03 AM
Alison Wrote:
Shrek Wrote:
I was recently cleared for an interim Secret Government clearance.
Hi Shrek. Do you have to kill us now you've told us?
Alison
ROFL!!!
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - M - 05-01-2009 01:49 PM
Picketing is not very effective. It is really a lazy and low tech way of trying to give a message. Most people don't want to listen to picketters. If I see a protest, I will walk the other way.
So HR people seem to be the problem -- target them with the information that autists are humans, have resources and if they continue to discriminate against us, they will suffer legal consequences.
Talk to politicians and explain to them how personality testing discriminates against people with autism.
Make human rights cases when necessary. I was really shocked to find out that Michelle Dawson won the first discrimination case for autism in Canada. Another surprise was that she was working for Canada Post, a government agency.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Pakrat - 05-01-2009 02:41 PM
Shrek Wrote:
Apparently employment verification checks are not being enforced well enough or there is identity theft. Another system is proposed (E-Verify I think). The reasoning is if you take away their employment with strict verification of checking legal status, they will go home because they can't work, can't beg, and (I guess) can't get welfare (if they're illegal and they're trying to hide from the system).
Build a nice high fence. The Burrito Wall.
Build a nice high fence. The Burrito Wall.
You know, I think these comments are quite bigoted. Wouldn't it be better to just worry about your own life and leave these people be? If they are doing the wrong thing, rest assured they will eventually be caught out.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 05-01-2009 04:43 PM
I think looking to solutions from south of the border (or a high tech visa) is an excuse to ignore Americans (which by the way include lawfully naturalized Hispanic citizens and permanent residents)
Americans need to learn to work with each other. If that means higher wages, so be it.
They would be forced to if the labor pipeline were cut off by a 25 foot concrete wall topped with barbed wire from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific.
If Americans could learn to work with Americans, we would see a lot less unemployment, welfare, and in theory, disability benefits. Those are all good and desirable things.
Americans would have to change too, both the employers and the workers.
I was reading HisPANIC last night by Geraldo Rivera (sympathetic to the illegal immigrant). Elvira had a baby in America and said "he has a right to stay in the U.S." "I have a right to raise him" (but not in the U.S., sister).
Elvira you are a coward using your own child to break the U.S. law. You think a judge, INS agent, etc. is too scared to separate a child from his mother. Guess again. Judges often need to be brave to enforce justice. The child is with his godmother in Chicago and she is in Tijuana, Mexico.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - windy - 05-01-2009 07:41 PM
I also think that some of the comments on the UNDOCUMENTED workers seem bigoted. Many tried to follow the official course but it takes many years to get the paperwork through... I think the US is a joke for the way we are handling our border security and upholding our laws (we aren't).
By the way, MANY, protests are actually done by HIRING immigrants to stand and hold signs.
Also, I think we can learn a lot about protesting from the very active latino population (whether citizens or not) they know how to be effective in getting their message across. They care and they KNOW that their life and livelyhood depends on voicing thier opinion and needs. If only we all realized our life depends on speaking out also. This is the supposed american way.
Boycotts are pretty effective.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Pakrat - 05-01-2009 08:01 PM
Shrek Wrote:
I think looking to solutions from south of the border (or a high tech visa) is an excuse to ignore Americans (which by the way include lawfully naturalized Hispanic citizens and permanent residents)
Americans need to learn to work with each other. If that means higher wages, so be it.
They would be forced to if the labor pipeline were cut off by a 25 foot concrete wall topped with barbed wire from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific.
If Americans could learn to work with Americans, we would see a lot less unemployment, welfare, and in theory, disability benefits. Those are all good and desirable things.
Americans would have to change too, both the employers and the workers.
I was reading HisPANIC last night by Geraldo Rivera (sympathetic to the illegal immigrant). Elvira had a baby in America and said "he has a right to stay in the U.S." "I have a right to raise him" (but not in the U.S., sister).
Elvira you are a coward using your own child to break the U.S. law. You think a judge, INS agent, etc. is too scared to separate a child from his mother. Guess again. Judges often need to be brave to enforce justice. The child is with his godmother in Chicago and she is in Tijuana, Mexico.
Americans need to learn to work with each other. If that means higher wages, so be it.
They would be forced to if the labor pipeline were cut off by a 25 foot concrete wall topped with barbed wire from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific.
If Americans could learn to work with Americans, we would see a lot less unemployment, welfare, and in theory, disability benefits. Those are all good and desirable things.
Americans would have to change too, both the employers and the workers.
I was reading HisPANIC last night by Geraldo Rivera (sympathetic to the illegal immigrant). Elvira had a baby in America and said "he has a right to stay in the U.S." "I have a right to raise him" (but not in the U.S., sister).
Elvira you are a coward using your own child to break the U.S. law. You think a judge, INS agent, etc. is too scared to separate a child from his mother. Guess again. Judges often need to be brave to enforce justice. The child is with his godmother in Chicago and she is in Tijuana, Mexico.
Shrek, I find these comments offensive because we are a marginalised group ourselves and how does it help our cause if we wish to marginalise others who are not as fortunate as ourselves? Would you object so much if these immigrants were white anglo saxon protestants?
Again I say, forget about fences, barbed wire & whatever. Even if there weren't so many immigrants, there is no guarantee that employers will take on many more aspies. We will still be discriminated against for not being "team players" and for our other oddities and differences. Let's stop scapegoating immigrants for our own misfortunes.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 05-01-2009 09:10 PM
Yes.
Forcing employers to consider hiring a long laundry list of untouchables only works in a closed system, not an open one.
* disabled including invisible disabilities including Asperger
* ex convicts
* veterans including those from the Vietnam era and conflict
* people getting off welfare
* people with low levels of education and experience
* various ethnicities (African American, Native American, but also Pacific Islander, and yes, Spanish speaking people lawfully admitted)
* various social classes
* the elderly or those "to young"
* women trying to work in "men"'s jobs or vice-versia
Open up the labor system and all the bets are off.
Close off the supply of foreign labor, end welfare and reform disability, and we could force a lot of employers and employees to do things neither of them wanted to do (hire certain people, perform certain jobs). In practice this would probably drive wages up for toilet cleaners, but hey, toilet cleaners are adults with certain rights, too.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 05-01-2009 09:21 PM
* homosexuals and bisexuals if they are "out"
It's the Rosie the Riveter theory. You gotta do what you gotta do.
At least when it is critical (riveting ships and tanks and planes during a war), employers will set aside their taboos about women working. The U.S. almost drafted women as nurses for the invasion of Japan too (another taboo). Didn't Britain draft women? I know the Soviets put women in combat taking Berlin (see World at War). At that point the Germans put a rifle in the hands of every able bodied boy as young as 12, man, and old man they could find.
Someone in business needs someone, they get someone. It seems important enough. Even if they don't like the guy, if the guy they like isn't around, what else to do? Go out of business??
Necessity shatters taboos against hiring "those people". It may not give them the same pay but it does give them a foot in the door.
Got that???
Employer: I gotta do this, I need you, I might not like you, grrrrrr
Employee: I don't like you either, just tell me what to do and pay me on schedule, grrrrrrrr
That is the first step to acceptance and friendship- working together, by necessity.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - micgrace - 05-02-2009 12:30 AM
Women were used by all combatant nations in WW2 in active service, usually behind frontlines. Training, operating stuff, delivering supplies etc.
Apparently the Germans had some active frontline women units. The Russians certainly did. But come the 1950's no side will admit to it, including us.
Switch to today, women are active in all branches and go on active frontline service. The OZ navy has quite a few active women in the Submarine service, the last frontier. This includes people from most nationalities, provided, of course they pass the necessary background checks.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 05-02-2009 01:20 AM
We ought to have a lady sub of our own, a sub with just women on it, maybe until guys can handle having a lady around.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - micgrace - 05-02-2009 01:39 AM
Us Aussies have no problem. Almost all active OZ subs (which mainly patrol around the Indian and Pacific oceans, keeping an eye on our regional enemy and the nutcase Nth Korea, not to forget China) have women as part of the crew. And surface ships are just as likely to have a female captain or officers.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 05-02-2009 02:56 AM
It's the Americans who have sex on their minds too much. The rest of the world can be professional and not think about sex when on duty.
They're over paid
over sexed and
they're over here
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 05-02-2009 03:02 AM
I remember the Weapons of Choice/Designated Targets trilogy (future military ships from 2019 are sucked back to 1943). A Hawaiian police agent can't handle the fact that a murdered vessel captain is more than just African American and female. The ship doctor is disgusted to receive a race-specific request for blood from a wounded racist, she slaps him, he *** slaps her, and plenty of volunteers start a riot.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Shrek - 05-02-2009 03:10 AM
check out the military grade industrial strength interconnected PDAs. They turn on FDR, Einstein, and possibly also Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and Churchill. Also the VR googles on the WW2 ship captain showing him a collage of African American future.
The aircraft carrier U.S.S. Hillary Clinton, supposedly the first female President (well it could still happen, I thought in 2009-2013), but Colin Powell is not the first African American President.....
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - A True Monotheist - 05-02-2009 03:48 AM
The issue of Mexican labor must be understood as a labor issue. Mexicans who are here "illegally" will never be able to exercise democratic rights. Nor will they ever be deported. In essence, we are seeing capital as a transcending reality. Call it the Golden Calf, or what have you. Karl Marx was an atheist and a deceiver. However, his understanding of capitalism is really common sense. Really, to say that we have a class system is like saying that the sun comes up in the morning. It is common sense. Marxists and Commies call him a genius, but any fool can see it.
The reality is that Mexican undocumented workers will never be deported. It will never happen. So, we have two choices, both of them very stark.
Option One:
We can continue to have the open sieve of a border, coinciding with repression against Mexicans on the border, BOTH the open border AND the repression against undocumented immigrants being necessary to Martial Law and control. In other words, option one means that we can continue an open border policy, *right along* with the Sheriff Apaio strategy of repression, since both are necessary to maintaining elite repression against all of us, Americans and Mexicans.
This option will lead to the North American Union, with repression against all of us, American and Mexican.
Option Two:
Coalitions between Mexicans and Americans around worker rights, and against NAFTA/GATT globalization. Fighting back. This is a stark option because repression also becomes a reality. We will ALL become illegal aliens on our own soil because American citizenship will mean nothing when people who protest become "domestic terrorists." This has happened. It can happen.
So, the choices are stark, but this is reality. So, we really need to face facts. The world is not as it seems, whether we are discussing swine flu, Kennedy, or Princess Diana over there in England. Never mind the specifics on these things. They are not important. The important thing is that very little of our daily experience is really democratic. That is the real problem here. Mexicans, if anything, are more awake than we are. They at least understand and are not lost in delusion.
ATM
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - micgrace - 05-02-2009 09:13 AM
Shrek Wrote:
I remember the Weapons of Choice/Designated Targets trilogy (future military ships from 2019 are sucked back to 1943). A Hawaiian police agent can't handle the fact that a murdered vessel captain is more than just African American and female. The ship doctor is disgusted to receive a race-specific request for blood from a wounded racist, she slaps him, he *** slaps her, and plenty of volunteers start a riot.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - micgrace - 05-02-2009 09:30 AM
Shrek Wrote:
I remember the Weapons of Choice/Designated Targets trilogy (future military ships from 2019 are sucked back to 1943). A Hawaiian police agent can't handle the fact that a murdered vessel captain is more than just African American and female. The ship doctor is disgusted to receive a race-specific request for blood from a wounded racist, she slaps him, he *** slaps her, and plenty of volunteers start a riot.
Stupid computer did its posting trick again. I have the same books and enjoyed the unique genre very much. I liked the OZ sub captain in it and her rather efficient method.
Our gov gave the go ahead for an additional 12 subs today (looks like the W.A. shipyards will be busy), along with heavy frigates, destroyers etc (East coast OZ will be busy too) along with a purchase of 100 F35's etc.
I think there is something not being told somehow, as this buildup announced is unprecendented except just prior to entry of WW2 where OZ got caught with its pants down.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Pakrat - 05-02-2009 10:33 AM
Shrek Wrote:
* homosexuals and bisexuals if they are "out"
It's the Rosie the Riveter theory. You gotta do what you gotta do.
At least when it is critical (riveting ships and tanks and planes during a war), employers will set aside their taboos about women working. The U.S. almost drafted women as nurses for the invasion of Japan too (another taboo). Didn't Britain draft women? I know the Soviets put women in combat taking Berlin (see World at War). At that point the Germans put a rifle in the hands of every able bodied boy as young as 12, man, and old man they could find.
Someone in business needs someone, they get someone. It seems important enough. Even if they don't like the guy, if the guy they like isn't around, what else to do? Go out of business??
Necessity shatters taboos against hiring "those people". It may not give them the same pay but it does give them a foot in the door.
Got that???
Employer: I gotta do this, I need you, I might not like you, grrrrrr
Employee: I don't like you either, just tell me what to do and pay me on schedule, grrrrrrrr
That is the first step to acceptance and friendship- working together, by necessity.
It's the Rosie the Riveter theory. You gotta do what you gotta do.
At least when it is critical (riveting ships and tanks and planes during a war), employers will set aside their taboos about women working. The U.S. almost drafted women as nurses for the invasion of Japan too (another taboo). Didn't Britain draft women? I know the Soviets put women in combat taking Berlin (see World at War). At that point the Germans put a rifle in the hands of every able bodied boy as young as 12, man, and old man they could find.
Someone in business needs someone, they get someone. It seems important enough. Even if they don't like the guy, if the guy they like isn't around, what else to do? Go out of business??
Necessity shatters taboos against hiring "those people". It may not give them the same pay but it does give them a foot in the door.
Got that???
Employer: I gotta do this, I need you, I might not like you, grrrrrr
Employee: I don't like you either, just tell me what to do and pay me on schedule, grrrrrrrr
That is the first step to acceptance and friendship- working together, by necessity.
Okay, but would you please knock off the sexist, racist and ableist comments because they only antagonise and cloud the issue.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - micgrace - 05-02-2009 11:00 AM
The job problem and attendent economic meltdown is a direct result of pure greed. Its all about maximum profit, never about the individual. Well, now we have a global economic mess as a result. And it seems to be gettin worse with no end in sight.
Even my area, chemistry, where work is as simple as calling someone due to the extreme shortage of chemists, is having jobs disappear. Well, at least there is academia.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Pakrat - 05-02-2009 02:09 PM
It's odd, but I never really found a niche in academia. Mind you, it is good when you can and some aspies really flourish if they can find the right area of study. The public service used to be a good place for aspies as the emphasis was on attention to detail and specialisation and a bit of eccentricity was more tolerated than it is now.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - micgrace - 05-03-2009 12:17 AM
Shrek Wrote:
check out the military grade industrial strength interconnected PDAs. They turn on FDR, Einstein, and possibly also Hitler, Tojo, Stalin, and Churchill. Also the VR googles on the WW2 ship captain showing him a collage of African American future.
The aircraft carrier U.S.S. Hillary Clinton, supposedly the first female President (well it could still happen, I thought in 2009-2013), but Colin Powell is not the first African American President.....
The aircraft carrier U.S.S. Hillary Clinton, supposedly the first female President (well it could still happen, I thought in 2009-2013), but Colin Powell is not the first African American President.....
It is fiction of course. Hillary is certainly biding her time, but is still in a position of power. But quite fascinating none the less. Trying to get the third installment, but it seems to have disappeared of the bookshelves before I got around to it.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - A True Monotheist - 05-04-2009 03:38 AM
Perhaps we could focus on the question at hand. How do we effectively fight discrimination against ourselves?
How do we effectively mobilize? For real. In other words, I do not just want to talk about it. I actually want to do it.
ATM
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Pakrat - 05-04-2009 10:13 AM
I don't really know exactly. Educating people is a key area, but how do we get them to listen when they don't want to? There are so many negative stereotypes out there and yet adult aspies have so much to offer if only it were possible to get a voice. I can see a real gap in the area of books written by aspies that aren't simply trying to sell some kind of miracle cure or telling "how I overcame my aspieness".
Unfortunately, many in society do not wish to know the truth ie. that we don't necessarily want to "overcome" anything, we don't want to be a poster child for some vaunted treatment and want to be truthful both about the advantages and disadvantages of living with autism.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - M - 05-04-2009 02:40 PM
A True Monotheist Wrote:
Perhaps we could focus on the question at hand. How do we effectively fight discrimination against ourselves?
How do we effectively mobilize? For real. In other words, I do not just want to talk about it. I actually want to do it.
ATM
How do we effectively mobilize? For real. In other words, I do not just want to talk about it. I actually want to do it.
ATM
I was told by the disability employment office worker that disclosure might be a good idea. I think that I might need a longer discussion with him about how and when to do that.
I would not disclose until after I was hired and maybe after training was finished unless I needed extra help there. If I was doing a good job, I would get a good review. I would tell them after that and they could not suddenly say that I was doing a bad job.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - A True Monotheist - 05-04-2009 09:51 PM
I am thinking that the political caucus option is a good one. Such an option would be different than that of a political party. Caucuses could exist within any one party, or a number of them. They would operate as the Black, Hispanic, Pro-Life, Animal Rights, or any other pressure group would operate. The difference is that we would try to get out people promoted in to office. Forget pressure on politicians. Become the politicians. In America, immigrant groups of old did this very effectively. Political machines were formed, many of them unethical, but all of them effective.
Can we form an Autistic/Asperger version of Tammany Hall? I think that it could be worth a try. Obviously, the less ethical aspects of Tammany Hall would not be emulated, but the effective use of political pressure could be. With enough politicians from our ranks in Congress or Parliament, we can actually tip the balance of power between political parties in our favor. Have a system of triangular diplomacy at work here. Now, one area that we must consider is the fact that our position under the Americans with Disabilities Act is somewhat precarious if we are "high functioning." (Forgive me, my English readers, since I am not familiar with your legal system.) I believe that firming up our rights as not-so-obiously-disabled people, but as people existing outside of certain norms, would be a worthy goal.
I forward the motion because I think that it would be more effective than other ideas. An actual pressure group to help promote talented people and vet them in to office would be a good thing. One caveat; NO entangling alliances. I would not join with other pressure groups on any kind of permanent basis. Let us simply focus on anti-discrimination legislation as pertaining to Autism/Asperger, along with such goals as ending electro-shock treatment in Massachusetts. Other issues can be tackled in other venues. One can be a member of this caucus and join other caucuses, but alliances have a strange way of producing compromises and I do not think that those work for us.
I will leave this alone for you all to discuss. If there is enough interest, let us do this thing. At long last, let us do something other than talk.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Vulcan613 - 05-05-2009 03:31 AM
M Wrote:
I talked to the police and they told me that when a report is being done, the person will receive a letter from the police telling them it is being done and they have to sign a consent form first.
This is true. I have had several background checks for legitimate reasons (to work with children and my prison ministry) and every time I have had to sign a release form.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - Vulcan613 - 05-05-2009 03:34 AM
A True Monotheist Wrote:
C)Collective jamming of the system for all non-criminal background checks. In other words, a leaderless resistance around all background checks not related to criminal matters, or matters of misconduct around children, or matters of having hurt someone et al. We could play creative games with all matters not related to education or past employment that relates to the job. It would also be discouraged for government jobs, of course, or any matter related to perjury.
Back when it was still legal to ask your race, I used to write "50-yard dash."
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - M - 05-05-2009 02:52 PM
I don't have to become a politician to be politically active. Just going and talking to your government rep is better than doing nothing. You can also write, email or phone elected government officials with your concerns. Encourage others to do the same.
As people like us become more politically active and visible, leaders will naturally come out. It is not something that needs to be forced. Radical leaders might end up having a bad reaction.
People didn't elect gay leaders just because they were gay. It was because they were competent and had more than just gays interests to uphold.
For some people just disclosing their diagnosis might be their political action. I am having enough difficulty with that.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - ADoyle - 05-05-2009 09:41 PM
Pretty much every job I've applied for or had has required a background check of some type. Usually, those checks were to make sure there were no felony convictions, unless it was to work with children in some way. I always signed a release form, often included with the application as a separate thing to sign, or when I was offered a job.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - M - 05-06-2009 03:16 PM
Actually I think that some help or advice on how and when to disclose my asperger's would be very welcome. I think that offering this service might be a first step in helping everyone accept autism.
RE: Changing Perceptions of Not Being Able to Retain a Job - skyblue1 - 03-17-2010 11:06 PM
bump....