Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Snowflake Test

#1
Zinjanthropos Offline
Design by Silent Partner Marketing CEO Mark Reyes, used by clients for hiring job applicants. He made a bundle with it but eventually made it public. I suppose now that these questions are out in the public domain that the test is either changed, no longer in use or that people could be dishonest and lie when answering. There's videos out there of him explaining it and there are some questions where there isn't a right answer, or so he says. 

I wonder how many people would have taken a day or two off of work, upset should Biden have lost election? Somehow I can't see much of that happening for Trump supporters but they could have taken days off in protest because he lost. Either way economy suffers Sad

Copied from a website I didn't want to burden you with. You know, in case you get upset with clickbait and ads. American economy doesn't need you to call in sick, so I'm doing what little bit I can to help you guys out.

Here it is- the full Snowflake Test!

1. Outside of standard benefits, what benefits should a company offer employees? 
2. What should the national minimum wage be? 
3. How many sick days should be given to employees? 
4. How often should employees get raises? 
5. How do you feel about guns? 
6. What are your feelings about employees or clients carrying guns? 
7. What are your feelings about safe spaces in challenging work environments? 
8. In a creative environment like The Silent Partner Marketing, what do you envision work attire looking like? 
9. Should “trigger warnings” be issued before we release content for clients or the company that might be considered “controversial”? 
10. How do you feel about police? 
11. If you owned the company and were to find out that a client is operating unethically but was a high paying client…how would you handle it? 
12. When was the last time you cried and why? 
13. You arrive at an event for work and there’s a major celebrity you’ve always wanted to meet. What happens next? 
14. What’s your favorite kind of adult beverage? 
15. What’s the best way to communicate with clients? 
16. What’s your favorite thing to do in your free time? 
17. What are your thoughts on the current college environment as it pertains to a future workforce? 
18. What’s your typical breakfast? 
19. What’s your favorite drink when you go to a coffeehouse? 
20. How do you handle bullies? 
21. How do you handle it when your ideas are shot down? 
22. What do you do if a coworker comes to the table with an idea and it sucks? 
23. What does the first amendment mean to you? 
24. What does faith mean to you? 
25. Who is your role model and why? 
26. "You're in Starbucks with two friends. Someone runs in and says someone is coming in with a gun in 15 seconds to shoot patrons. They offer you a gun. Do you take it? What do you do next?" 
27. What does America mean to you? 
28. You see someone stepping on an American flag. What do you do? 
29. What does “privilege” mean to you? 
30. What’s more important? Book smarts or street smarts? Why?
Reply
#2
Leigha Offline
So, this test in essence, is to weed out ''whiny, entitled'' employment candidates, during the interview process. It's fascinating and all, but it's really none of an employer's business, what side of politics one sits on, and these questions are so politically loaded. The Starbucks question? Oh my. lol

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/snowflake...-moomjian/

Wanting people who are ''proud to be Americans'' to work for you seems innocent enough, but me thinks a lawsuit will come of this because it leans towards political bias when hiring someone for a job.
Reply
#3
Syne Offline
(Nov 27, 2020 03:47 AM)Leigha Wrote: So, this test in essence, is to weed out ''whiny, entitled'' employment candidates, during the interview process. It's fascinating and all, but it's really none of an employer's business, what side of politics one sits on, and these questions are so politically loaded. The Starbucks question? Oh my. lol

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/snowflake...-moomjian/

Wanting people who are ''proud to be Americans'' to work for you seems innocent enough, but me thinks a lawsuit will come of this because it leans towards political bias when hiring someone for a job.

No, political views, especially when not directly asked, are not a protected class in anti-discrimination law. Doesn't matter what is or is not their business...if you want their job. They have the right to ask whatever they like, you have the right to avoid answering, and they have the right not to hire you.

That article is ignorant of the law. Especially:

Mr. Reyes responded: "I want some hardcore Americans, people who are proud to be American." Any halfway decent plaintiff's lawyer will weaponize Mr. Reyes' response when his company might happen to interview -- but not hire -- a protected non-citizen like a green card holder.

No non-citizen is guaranteed a job. A lawyer might try to claim it discriminates against citizenship status, but that would only fly if that one question determined the hiring decision all by itself. The employer could honestly say that other questions exposed the applicants view of America, regardless of citizenship.
Reply
#4
Leigha Offline
I just dug a little further on this, and you're right - there is no law prohibiting an employer from indirectly or directly asking about a potential employee's political views. o_O I learned something new today, wow. Perhaps, like this snowflake test, the employer simply wants to know one's ideological ''triggers,'' but it still seems uncouth to ask a candidate about that in an interview.

If you weren't hired due to your conservative political views what would you do? (but you're qualified for the job, otherwise)
Reply
#5
Syne Offline
(Nov 27, 2020 07:26 AM)Leigha Wrote: I just dug a little further on this, and you're right - there is no law prohibiting an employer from indirectly or directly asking about a potential employee's political views. o_O  I learned something new today, wow. Perhaps, like this snowflake test, the employer simply wants to know one's ideological ''triggers,'' but it still seems uncouth to ask a candidate about that in an interview.

If you weren't hired due to your conservative political views what would you do? (but you're qualified for the job, otherwise)

If I weren't hired due to my conservative views, I'd consider myself lucky to avoid working for leftist pieces of crap.
You should notice that none of those questions expose whether someone is Democrat or Republican. Democrats can support the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. Democrats can love America. Granted, both are vanishingly rare nowadays.
The difference is that conservatives/Republicans/Libertarians are all very tolerant of opposing views, as long as they don't adversely affect your work. Leftists/Democrats regularly fire (including at major news outlets) and try to dox anyone who disagrees with them. And outspoken conservatives are essentially blacklisted in Hollywood and for academic tenure.
Reply
#6
stryder Offline
The problem with any such questionaire is that it would likely yield extremist results from either reactions fitting of "Snow flakes" or just outright sociopaths (Both ends of the spectrum) If a person is a shill then all questions answered will be constructed as a lie to get what they want over whatever the employer desires.

Some of the questions themselves can cause a debancle, for instance:
Quote:"You're in Starbucks with two friends. Someone runs in and says someone is coming in with a gun in 15 seconds to shoot patrons. They offer you a gun. Do you take it? What do you do next?"

First off you have a random someone feed you a story and throw you a gun. It could of been used in a homocide or robber before it's tossed your way. You'd be reliant upon timestamps, video footage as well as other patrons to prove your innocence, otherwise you could be unwittingly tampering with evidence. Furthermore it could be a prelude to a setup, lets say the persons a radicalist and a group of people of a different ethnicity or religion have decided to visit Starbucks. It could be a trick to create a complicated stand-off which could then be filmed and uploaded or used to trigger further public dissonance.

Technically there is also a legal stance, while you might be legally allowed to carry a firearm in a public place, to carry one in Starbucks is actually a private property operating in a public capacity. In other words if they want to ban guns from the property, they can. To carry one on their property in that regards could be classed as an offense in itself. Last thing you'd want is a mexican standoff over a skinny latte.

The act answer to the question usually involves. Turning off the lights, locking doors, putting the closed sign up, getting people to step away from the windows (hiding behind counters/tables) and trying to maintain a low target profile. It might seem cowardly to be non-confrontational, however it makes more sense to not put yourself (or your company) at risk in regards to further litigation from acting irresponsibly.

It's not like Starbucks staff are trained to be Navy Seals or Blackwater employees. (well any further than a triple expresso)
Reply
#7
Syne Offline
(Nov 27, 2020 12:48 PM)stryder Wrote: The problem with any such questionaire is that it would likely yield extremist results from either reactions fitting of "Snow flakes" or just outright sociopaths (Both ends of the spectrum)  If a person is a shill then all questions answered will be constructed as a lie to get what they want over whatever the employer desires.
That's not as easy as it sounds, as many are open ended questions and the employer likely wants your rationale for each answer, and that's a lot harder to fake, especially with consistency over so many questions.

Quote:Some of the questions themselves can cause a debancle, for instance:
Quote:"You're in Starbucks with two friends. Someone runs in and says someone is coming in with a gun in 15 seconds to shoot patrons. They offer you a gun. Do you take it? What do you do next?"

First off you have  a random someone feed you a story and throw you a gun.  It could of been used in a homocide or robber before it's tossed your way.  You'd be reliant upon timestamps, video footage as well as other patrons to prove your innocence, otherwise you could be unwittingly tampering with evidence.  Furthermore it could be a prelude to a setup, lets say the persons a radicalist and a group of people of a different ethnicity or religion have decided to visit Starbucks.  It could be a trick to create a complicated stand-off which could then be filmed and uploaded or used to trigger further public dissonance.
First, tampering with evidence requires intent, which has to be proven in court with evidence. Second, just like any self-defense situation, you only act when there is an identifiable and immediate threat. If there is, you either act to defend yourself and others or don't. And if the person who gave you the gun ends up being the aggressor, you defend against them...and they get the dumbest criminal award for arming you. Doesn't matter if it's a stand off, as you'll be caught in the middle, armed or helpless victim.

Quote:Technically there is also a legal stance, while you might be legally allowed to carry a firearm in a public place, to carry one in Starbucks is actually a private property operating in a public capacity.  In other words if they want to ban guns from the property, they can.  To carry one on their property in that regards could be classed as an offense in itself.  Last thing you'd want is a mexican standoff over a skinny latte.
There are no legal penalties for carrying a gun into a business that bans them, unless they find out. And even then, they can only ask you to leave. Now if you don't leave, they can call the cops and charge you with trespassing (a very minor misdemeanor). And as long as you are carrying a gun legally and cooperate with the police, that's the worst penalty you can get.

So no, carrying a gun into a business that bans them is not, itself, a criminal offense. Being asked to leave and refusing is trespassing, whether you're armed or not.

Quote:The act answer to the question usually involves.  Turning off the lights, locking doors, putting the closed sign up, getting people to step away from the windows (hiding behind counters/tables) and trying to maintain a low target profile.  It might seem cowardly to be non-confrontational, however it makes more sense to not put yourself (or your company) at risk in regards to further litigation from acting irresponsibly. 
And if you could do that in "15 seconds", that's exactly what you would do first. But once you start taking fire, which can go through door, windows, and counters, you then have a choice to return fire, with your life in jeopardy.

The question doesn't presume you work for Starbucks, nor do they have any right to tel you how to respond to a threat against your own life. If they intervened in your actions, and you ended up dying, they would definitely be liable.

Quote:It's not like Starbucks staff are trained to be Navy Seals or Blackwater employees. (well any further than a triple expresso)
You don't have to be trained to attempt to defend your own life, working there or not.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)