It always has amazed me that americans think that they are the only people in the world. This is a world based message board and thus people from any where in the world post questions here.
Also he did say in his original post that he was from a province.
Do americans not read clearly either?
In any case I recall someone telling me years ago that they applied to McDonalds to get a job and when they were hired they were asked to have their picture taken and is McDonalds an american company?
I do not really see a problem with empoyers taking pics anyway I think it could be for security purposes if they discriminate they are steps to overcome that but I think his best course of action is not to make waves.
Please feel free to email me.
I’m not conceited, I’m convinced! Dandmb50@aol.com
The only stupid question is the one YOU do not ask !!
{{{Also he did say in his original post that he was from a province.
Do americans not read clearly either?}}}—Damdmb50
:::Gently chiding:::
You have a bit of egg on your face.
–Kalél TheHungerSite.com
“If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.”
“Well, there was that thing with the Cheese-Wiz…but I’m feeling much better now!” – John Astin, Night Court
It’s not that unusual. I’m looking for work at the moment (here in the UK), and Arthur Andersen’s application form has space for a photo (although it states it as “optional”). I’ve certainly seen it for a number of large, international corporations. My guess is that they’d try to justify it as “wanting people with a professional appearance”, but I can completely understand the concerns of everyone here.
“You know you talk so hip man, you’re twisting my melon man,” Crusoe Takes A Trip
In Saskatchewan you are not allowed to ask for a photo of someone when they apply for a job (You also aren’t allowed to ask about height, weight, sex, age as well). I dunno what the restrictions are after you are hired, but I suspect that you can ask for a photo for security purposes. I suspect that since we are a fairly enlightened province that they have placed statutory restrictions on what the photo can be used for, but it would be difficult to prove what it was actually used for.
Is this legal? …[Anyway] I have no intention of attaching any picture more recent that first grade.**
[/QUOTE]
My understanding is that it is no longer generally “legal” to require / review photos in employment applications / as a basis for hiring decisions. It hasn’t been for decades. Now, if you indicate in your written application that you are physically qualified to satisfy the job requirements (i.e., not underage, type wpm, etc.), and yet you opt to accept (needless?) demand for your picture, the baby picture you send still offers timeless physical representation of yourself. Why send a baby picture if you want to make the statement that the position does not require direct photographic review of your person for purposes of determining your specific hire? If, however, you simply want to make an inflammatory and usless expression of disgust, fine.
We Merkins do get alot of exercise by jumping to conclusions, but when we do it on this board, there’s generally someone there to show us the error of our ways.
Now, if I said that I’m amazed at the jealous, pathetic furriners that latch on to the most minute shred of possible misunderstanding in order to upbraid someone from the country they envy most in the hope slightly elevating their own ego, I’d be as wrong as you.
Most of you are missing the major distinction here. This photo was not for a job application, it was a control document for current employees. Huge difference.
In Canada, prospective employers are not allowed to ask you your race, age, sex, marital status, whether you have children, or anything else personal like that. However, once you are hired they can ask you just about anything. Demanding a new photo is obviously legal, since many companies issue photo-id and need one just for that.
If you think it’s a sinister plot to discriminate based on sex, age, good looks, or whatever, you’re being paranoid. Any manager deciding whether or not to promote you ALREADY knows all that!
The probable explanation is that the HR department has some fancy employee-tracking software that allows the storage of a photo with the employee records, and they are just collecting data for that, for whatever use they might have in the future. That use could be something like publishing a corporate directory with photos so managers can learn to put names and faces together, or a photo database so that employee awards in a company newsletter can have a photo attached, or whatever. Some employees may need security badges, and the HR department doesn’t want to go chasing people whenever they need a photo - they’d rather just have them all on file and print them as needed.
Your answer is entirely clear. You are obviously superintelligent in that you managed a clearly entire answer without an entire understanding of the text to which you answered. How much heck would a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck heck.
You must mean to point out how employee photo-IDs (for all purposes, including security posts) are generally taken, put to plastic, and lamenated with other information, all by the corporation, right upon, and not after or during, hire. We know that requests for photo submissions to be made directly by a CANDIDATE-for-hire will come from model and acting agents. In instances where request is made for revised or new photo-IDs DURING employment—by either the employee or the employer—we may well expect the due reason to be stated along with the request. Apparently, the original post (from the already-employed person) was to ask possible reasons here, and not posing question to the company.
