wellsir, PC changes things -- trophies for all contestants,
regardless of finishing order, and the like. . the huge
distortions of language which mean that Pam Geller
is the villain, not the killers with their assault rifles,
cause the low-info-voters to identify victims where
there are actually thugs. . cultural change, sir. -- j
.

My understanding of PC is it's when you're supposed to use euphemisms like differently-abled for disabled. Most people just ignore that stuff. To me it's a tempest in a teapot.

probably true. . amazing how corruption is catching,
like the flu. -- j
.

Actually, welfare mom (should be her Facebook name) hates "working" at all. The fact that it was a day care makes no difference. She was probably hoping that they would fire her so she could get back on the dole.

I wonder how they search for John Q. Doe when his
online name is gamer998877? -- j
.

the central authority condemning/approving is the
bureaucratic Ds and Rs through political correctness
and the like -- Big Brother coming to fruition right
in front of our eyes. -- j
.

the BHOs of the world love it as a tool to control enemies! -- j
.

This has nothing to do with Party doctrine. We're a world of billions of people serving one another, fulfilling others'wants and needs in exchange for money or other trades. There's no cental authority to condemn or approve of how well we do. We're just people finding arrangements that are mutually beneficial.

where'sthe love part of the love/hate? :)

like our love-hate relationship with the IRS? -- j
.

Social media searches have become something of a norm when considering someone for employment.

Use it accordingly ;)

What I'm seeing in your reply, and in several other replies as well, is the Party's conditioning of the sheeple to not being judgmental. I see two problems with this - one, is that the Party teaches us to only excuse failure, but it comes down really hard on any vestiges of success; and two, why should stupidity and failure be excused? Excusing them just breeds more stupidity and failure, figuratively and literally.

Maybe she likes working alone and detests disorder. She might love diagnosing problems on a production line and writing suggested corrective action. If she puts her mind to it, it's likely she and some other employer will soon be happy things worked out as they did. I've seen this happen time and again where employers and employees hold on to each other even though they are wrong for each other.

Now you're talking... like a bureaucrat :)

Edit; cheesy grin added

I know that you have our wellbing at heart; but with those hooks in her face, please, think of the customers! And the potential lawsuits! Naa, Social Services, being in charge of how others raise their kids would be the only qualified employment for her...

Nicely done.

There are some ranches in Nevada....

Besides her other obvious disqualifications, can you think of any job that she is not too stupid to do? Well, perhaps she can work for Social Services...

Not for that job.

Didn't Hank Reardon's brother, Phillip, "really need a job"!?

Say what you mean and mean what you say. Or don't say it

Ok, joking aside, let's logically dissect this issue. I was hoping that it would be self evident.
Her comment: “I start my new job today, but I absolutely hate working at day care.” This is not a case where she disliked a particular kid, a specific person, or a specific aspect of a job. She hates working at day care. Period. If you, as a teacher, hated working in a school (college, etc.), would you still think of yourself as a good teacher? Obviously, the interviewer did not pick that up, either because the person was a poor interviewer or because she was a good liar. Wouldn't you, as either an employer or a parent of the kids there, prefer to correct that error?
Now, you may consider taking care and educating small kids as a non-critical function, but many people, I am certain, will disagree with you. Especially those whose kids are at the day care center and those whose livelihoods depend on trouble-free, litigation-free and police-free functioning of that establishment. However, let's take an undeniably critical function, like surgery, for example. So, you're scheduled for a critical surgery, with certain associated risks. You don't know the doctor, since the doctor is new at the hospital. So you go home, do some internet searches, and find out that the doctor's FB page has this statement: "I start my new job today, but I absolutely hate being a doctor." No doubt, in order to not appear biased by anything (facts included) and to not allow your colleagues to judge you, you, of course, will show up for that operation on Monday morning and let the surgeon prove that biases are unfounded, right? Oh, yes, do let us know how that works out for you, would you?

Point taken!

That is what the interview process and reviews are for. Quite frankly neither you nor I actually k ow with any facts as to whether or not she can do it. All we know is one comment about being around a lot of kids. To conclude based on that one comment she is incapable is only demonstrative of our bias rather than any objective measure - not of her capabities.

I've disliked students yet still teach them well. I've disliked coworkers yet still coached them well. And I've hated several jobs I was really good at. I've written good apple and scripts in languages I detest.

This, among other things, has taught me to not make such unfounded negative assumptions about someone's qualifications.