Good morning all,
It seems to me that we are looking at bureaucratic rules and
proceduremanuals, so loved by those at the top, as they are specifically
written to protect and ensure the comfort zone of those in authority by
shifting all responsibility to the other end. Personally I have always
refused to read procedure manuals, and relied on my own professional
judgement.
Getting back to the discussion: It seems that 5 yrs of experience must
be five times better than one year (this does not account for those who
have one years experience five times) What the requirement should really
be about is a parameter that is an abstract: attitude.
Have a good time, rgds John
donam wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> Just a thought, but might a possible way around/through/encompassing
> both sides of the debate be to word such an ad with an ambiguous-yet-
> restrictive phrase such as:
> 'Disability experience required.'
> This does not demand that applicants HAVE a disabling condition (for
> who would define what conditions qualify, and why??); yet it acts as
> a safeguard to make sure that applicants are genuinely aware of
> certain facets of disability (those necessary facets being determined
> by the employer).
>
> ??
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dona
> Dona M. Avery
> Arizona State University
> Tempe, AZ 85287-0302
> www.public.asu.edu/~donam
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|