Jump to content
TAHAWK

Job opening at National

Recommended Posts

Also, given their financial situation, I wonder if they should be hiring at all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NJCubScouter said:

I don't know why they even bother saying that.  How do you know whether an applicant has that "ability," and what's really more to the point, whether they will exercise that "ability" and keep confidential information confidential?  The only way to really know for certain is after the person has leaked or misused confidential information.

I would like to know WHY that was included? Previous leakers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NJCubScouter said:

I don't know why they even bother saying that.  How do you know whether an applicant has that "ability," and what's really more to the point, whether they will exercise that "ability" and keep confidential information confidential?  The only way to really know for certain is after the person has leaked or misused confidential information.

They probably meant to say that maintaining confidences is a job requirement.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Tampa Turtle said:

I would like to know WHY that was included? Previous leakers?

Russian hackers...

Also - 

Don't want any of this foolishness

MV5BNjIzNzYwMDI0OF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTY3MTUyMQ@@._V1_.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

I hear the guy who set up Hillary's email server is applying.

Maybe also whoever(s) in the current White House decided it was ok for people who can't get permanent security clearances to see tip-top secret documents.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

They probably meant to say that maintaining confidences is a job requirement.   

I understand that, but that's what they should have done, and put it in the "responsibilites" section.  To talk about maintaining confidentiality as an "ability" is silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

Maybe also whoever(s) in the current White House decided it was ok for people who can't get permanent security clearances to see tip-top secret documents.  :)

It's the same person who let Huma Abedin take her non-secured laptop with TS-SCI data on it and leave it in a Russian hotel room, and then let her uncleared husband use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Col. Flagg said:

It's the same person who let Huma Abedin take her non-secured laptop with TS-SCI data on it and leave it in a Russian hotel room, and then let her uncleared husband use it.

Hey...those photos weren't sending themselves

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, NJCubScouter said:

I understand that, but that's what they should have done, and put it in the "responsibilites" section.  To talk about maintaining confidentiality as an "ability" is silly.

Hanlon's Razor again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be the strangest discussion I have ever seen in this forum.

You guys can read significance into anything.

This is nothing more than a job description for a just past entry level HR department position.  Someone with either a bachelor's degree and a couple years of experience or maybe someone straight out of an MBA or Master's program.  This is the type of back office position that helps the wheels of any organization keep turning --- the equivalent of a junior level accountant or finance person --- a bean counter.  Nobody thinks these positions are sexy, but the fact is the beans need to be counted, and organizations that don't do that well on either the finance or the people side end up adding unnecessarily to whatever challenges they may have in the core of their mission.

I spent the middle chunk of my professional career as a Fortune 500 HR Director.  I despise some of the ways that job descriptions like this are written.  It has a lot to do with being able to make comparisons for compensation across a large organization.  It's not pretty, and can be done better, but I find it no worse than the terrible verbiage I come across every day in my role as an attorney.

As to the confidential stuff, folks in HR have access to all sorts of confidential information, everyone's salary, medical conditions, disabilities, folks who may have performance problems, people who may get fired or layed off, investigations into misbehavior, etc.  The way you find out whether someone can handle the information (other than holding your breath and hoping) is you ask in the interview what kind of information they've had to handle in the past, ask about previous employers' process for maintaining confidentiality, and generally make sure that the person understands what confidences are and how how to handle them.  Again, these same inquiries occur in all sorts of organizations, and are more particular in some organizations where its core to their mission, like law and accounting firms, or medical practices.

This is a really low level job, about the same as a new DE, and you guys are combing through it like it's the next RichardB.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NJCubScouter said:

I spent the middle chunk of my professional career as a Fortune 500 HR Director.  I despise some of the ways that job descriptions like this are written.  It has a lot to do with being able to make comparisons for compensation across a large organization.  It's not pretty, and can be done better, but I find it no worse than the terrible verbiage I come across every day in my role as an attorney.nderstand that, but that's what they should have done, and put it in the "responsibilites" section.  To talk about maintaining confidentiality as an "ability" is silly.

The software attached the above attribution to NJC when I cut and pasted from T2EAGLE's post

T2, I don't despise the announcement that I posted.   I thought it was funny -- nothing darker than that.  Maybe all the way to kids trying to play grown-up.

It is no worse than other verbiage I came across working for what was then the world's largest company with over 1,000,000 employees.  Indeed, the "System" had books full of "Bell Speak" that amounted to a code and/or cipher when addressed to anyone not a "Bellhead," such as our regulators.  Bell engineers writing to non-engineers in Bell Speak could often confuse non-engineer Bellheads.  It was one of my jobs to "fix" such garbage by turning it into clear, more-or-less standard English.  Fortunately, I had a super "Administrative Assistant" to proof MY work (I kant tipe gud.).   (At AT&T, it was "Bellhead" and not "Bell head."   [Add to dictionary.] )

(The problem of jargon did not improve when AT&T decided to get out of the local telephone business and offered to break up the Bell System in return for being allowed back into "general trades computing"(like IBM) (at which AT&T failed badly).  The "Baby Bells" were still full of Bellheads who would NOT stop calling hanging up on a telephone call, "going on hook." )  (And "going off hook" = ?   [hint: Think candlestick telephone set.)

Communication.  It might be important sometime.

 

 

 

 

Edited by TAHAWK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TAHAWK said:

The software attached the above attribution to NJC when I cut and pasted from T2EAGLE's post

That's a relief, because I definitely don't remember typing that.  Nor doing any of that.  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, T2Eagle said:

You guys can read significance into anything.

Nine years in this forum and you're just figuring that out now?  :D

But seriously, I took it the same way TAHAWK apparently meant it - just another opportunity to poke a little fun at National for something that doesn't really have that much significance.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T2Eagle said:

You guys can read significance into anything.

The significance is this shows the level of pointless corporate speak within the BSA, dare I say lack of professionalism, and almost looks like the kids are playing at being a corporation.  This is from the highest levels of the same organization that made a major organization change with really poor roll out, weak plans, amateurish communications, no full understanding of the impact to the units, and no serious plan on how to carry out their master stroke.

This "job" posting shows how poorly the corporate BSA is run.  Not saying the same about councils, but helps fill in the holes we have all wondered about what really is going on with all the Gold Tabs

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×