Sociopath Community

Being qualified for a job doesn’t make you good at it.

Yes but being qualified for a job is a requirement for you to do the job.

LeggaLegga said: 

Being qualified for a job doesn’t make you good at it.

Yes but being qualified for a job is a requirement for you to do the job.

 Not to be good at it though. Plenty of underqualified people would be better than you at your job. 

I know if you work at a McDonald you probably don't need an education. However, to do many jobs, you need to be qualified.

LeggaLegga said: 

I know if you work at a McDonald you probably don't need an education. However, to do many jobs, you need to be qualified.

 Not to be good at them.

Chapo said: 

 Not to be good at it though. Plenty of underqualified people would be better than you at your job. 

It's not a question of being underqualified. You are not qualified at all.

It is literally impossible for you to do my job.

Perhaps before proclaiming all these things and making value judgements about my job, it might be a good idea to first ask me what it is I do?

LeggaLegga said: 

Turncoat said: 

If you had to pick between a lazy good for nothing sober dude who ignores his responsibilities with his head in the clouds versus a high productivity ganja user, which do you really see as a worse hire?

The lazy person who does nothing.

Then you're literally asking for your business to fail.

Even when I was working supermarkets their best cake decorator would occasionally come in hopped up on shrooms. Considering how he worked in the back on the cakes themselves it didn't interrupt the work flow, he didn't make any scenes, and the cakes themselves were not lacking in quality from it. While I would never go to work on a psychedelic from how it'd probably break my fragile little mind, he proved he could do it from it not hindering his abilities. 

Back when I did free samples for Crossmark, they'd station me in Walmarts most of the time for it, and believe me the Walmart staff who were alcoholics or smoked in their spare time seemed to have better work morale compared to the soulless husks who didn't have such distractions while doing such purposeless mind numbing work. 

Why would you prefer to hire the guy who doesn't do his job? You'd rather have your employees napping in the back than have someone who knows how to do their job(s)? Are you really saying you'd rather have no work done than have workers who partake in substances? Why not at that point extend it towards medications, or is that 'okay' because of a doctor? 

I think you misread what I said.

LeggaLegga said: 

Chapo said: 

LeggaLegga said: 

Really? Well, I wasn't expecting that since you refused to give me your qualifications. Congrats, I'm a bit surprised they promoted a junkie.

Management position where?

 I should be a shift leader at five guys hopefully over the summer, but I plan to quit pretty shortly after.

Management position at five guys. You mean this five guys?

Well....... I'm not going to beat you up. That's something to be proud of.

Is it? I mostly see people hire poor workaholic saps into those positions from the relative hire base not being as prone to it. 

Management to me looks like an unfortunate fate in these jobs, especially if the place works with a Union. The lower rung positions have more privileges than management these days with only a small pay cut to show for it, and taking such a position means it's harder to throw someone else into the mix to cover your shift if you're otherwise sick. 

You also can end up with your entire team hating you over being the middleman between corporate and staff, they will often blame said middleman over how it's presented if they otherwise don't have a friendly yet professional reputation on the team, as it's them who is giving orders to said team. 

I don't think you have a very clear picture of where I work if you think you would qualify for my job because you're a shift leader at a burger king.

Having that piece of paper that proves you're qualified for your field does not necessarily mean you're by extension qualified for the jobs in that field, much like how there's hundreds of terrible schoolteachers out there. 

LeggaLegga said: 

I think you misread what I said.

Technically... I misread what I said. 😆

Okay, so we've established a line where you'd rather hire the 'junkie', that's good I like lines. To further understand said lines; What makes them a junkie versus a user when it comes to substances, or do you even split the two apart?