Does the August Awake! applaud illegal hiring of European JWs? Euro opinions sought.

by Open mind 16 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  BluesBrother

  O K , I am going to stick my neck out here and add some very subjective stuff , based on what has been touted around word of mouth in the U K dubland for decades...

  It was always said that "Marks and Spencers like to employ Jehovah's Witnesses because they believe them to honest, conscientious workers"

  That was decades before any employment law was framed to deal with "Equality in the Workplace" or "Equal Opportunities". This Awake comment refers to a situation that, if it ever existed, was so long ago that this H R Consultant must have retired years ago!

  As I understand, it was said that Pioneers often could get temp work at Christmas .....but I never heard of real career recruitment at M & S. I never knew any dubs who worked there..

  BTW.. I never put the theory to the test and applied in the name of a J W !
• 

  pr0ner

  lol some of the comments in here are laughable (thus why I started with lol). Jeez this is what makes us "apostates" look like nut jobs. Taking some random innocent quote and making a frame job out of it. Thank God, TheOldHippy was here to actually speak subjectively on it.
• 

  Open mind

  Thanks for all the replies.

  To pr0ner:

  "Taking some random innocent quote and making a frame job out of it."

  Random? Not sure what relevance that has, but yes, the quote was from a random source (unnamed as is typical of WT publications). It's placement in the series of articles though was far from random. It was point number 2 in the lead article on what's to be admired about JWs.

  Innocent? Well, I never said the WT was "guilty", but let me clarify. The Human Resources guy was clearly "guilty" of illegal hiring practices. IMO, the WT is tacitly condoning this practice by placing it where they did in this Awake! magazine.

  Frame job? Uh, I think you're overstating your case just a bit. Nowhere did I imply that there was any sort of collusion or conspiracy on the part of the Watchtower. My $.02.

  As for Old Hippie's comments, I too always look forward to hearing his perspective on things since he seems very level-headed. He's clearly got a pro-JW bias, but hey, I'm very glad he's here. At the risk of putting words in your mouth, I think you meant to say that Old Hippie speaks objectively. If so, I agree. He's got a pro-JW bias, but he tries to be objective in most of the opinions I've seen him give here.

  Best regards,

  om
• 

  pr0ner

  What organization doesn't brag about having good people? Who cares if they say someone prefers hiring them? Is this really what we have to stoop to? That is why I was saying it was a frame job, take something they said and try to figure out some nefarious or illegal reasoning behind it. I was probably reading more into it because of other peoples responses though and I see you were just simply asking if it was OK to admit to such things over there instead of implying the JWs were up to no good. So yea my apologies.

  BTW: Subjectively - Relating to the real nature of something; essential.
• 

  Open mind

  Thanks for the reply pr0ner.

  Could you please give your source for the definition of subjectively?

  A quick look at dictionary.com shows that type of definition as #6 in a list of 8.

  Just curious.

  Here's how I've always understood the difference between objective and subjective. If my usage has been in error, I'd like to stand corrected.

  Thanks,

  http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-objective-and-subjective/

  Definition of Objective and Subjective
  Objective – is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
  Subjective – is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.

  om
• 

  Earnest

  I don't think it would be illegal to specify as a condition of employment that the prospective employee must be honest, conscientious and hard working. Now how do you know that the prospective employee meets these criteria before employing him? You may insist on references but today a company gives a bad reference at its peril. So if your experience of JWs is that they are honest, conscientious and hard working you are not employing them because of their doctrinal beliefs but because of the type of people that they are...they meet your criteria of being honest, conscientious and hard working. It is a form of reference and I cannot see that it is in any way wrong or illegal.
• 

  zagor

  Any company will employ low level workers who appear to be honest, or to the best of employer's knowledge have "higher reasons" to be honest, be it religious or otherwise. But if you want a real job that is just one of prerequisites along with people skills, communication skill, emotional intelligence (thats a biggie), flexibility and on top of it all relevant technical skills. As for wtbs highlighting one case where someone was favorable toward its members its to create 'impression of commonality' that subliminally tells to the reader "be one of us and you will not have to worry about your bread and butter". Which is of course complete nonsense. If you search wtbs own literature you will find numerous instances where speaking of say South America or Africa where you find many JW on brink of starvation, not a whisper "being taken care of". (actually you can find cases in Europe and America too but I'll leave that for some other thread)
  
  Truth is when you are looking for any job your new employer has usually little to base his decision on if you don't have many references so having something to at least make you seem honest will grant you a benefit of a doubt and a foot into job market, but a very small foot. I you don't have other relevant skills you are destined to be on the bottom, pretty much forever or until after many years of practical experience they entrust you with something else, usually not much further then where you started from.