BlackChampagne -- no longer new; improvement also in question.: Bookstores and Presidents
Monday, November 24, 2008
Bookstores and Presidents
I've got quick notes for about 8 blog topics, so I'm just going to shoehorn several into each post this week, to get them up (instead of forever rotting on my notes page, where most of my potential blog posts have gone the past months). This time it's job applications and P.E. Obama.
So, jobs. Partially inspired by the IG and the eleventeen jobs she's had since I've known her, partially from the germination of a long time professional curiosity of mine, and largely thanks to the collapse of the US financial industry and the stock market it took with it, I'm looking for work in a bookstore. Seasonal, to make some extra cash between now and the new year, or perhaps longer, if it works out that way. It's not a career concept, at any rate.
I've applied to several local bookstores, and chains as well. My first choice was The Book Passage, a legendary Bay Area bookstore located just a few miles south on 101. They're not doing any seasonal hiring, unfortunately. Times = tough. Neither are a couple of smaller bookstores in downtown San Rafael, which leaves the big chain outlets. Borders and Barnes and Noble are the two in this area, and when I went into the Borders in SR on Friday, while doing my various back-from-vacation shopping, I was told that they don't take or accept applications in person at Borders, and can't even tell you if they're hiring. The only way you can get a job with them is to go to their website and fill out an application online, which is then transferred to the local store.
That didn't sound so bad. After all, I hate the slowness and inefficiency of handwriting, and I was dreading the physical waste of time that comes from physically filling out forms. So it was with some anticipation that I began the process on Friday night. That mood didn't last long. I'm usually a proponent of automation, but in this case it sucked. I'm talking a mouthful of sweaty digital donkey balls. Before I rant, I'll offer disclosure. Here's the Borders Jobs page where you can, "Apply for a Seller, Supervisor, or temporary holiday position." and see for yourself if I'm lying.
The first stages aren't bad. I much prefer typing my personal information over handwriting it, and the forms are pretty well laid out, aside from lacking an automatic field advance. So when you're entering your phone number, for instance, you have to hit Tab (or use the mouse) to move to the next box, when a smart form would automatically advance you to the next box when you've filled the previous one with the requisite numerals. A minor complaint, though.
Much more annoying was the inflexibility of the fields. My current employer is an internet gaming company located in the UK. Guess how much luck I had entering a non-US phone number into the form? Yes, that's right. It's impossible, since the UK number isn't divided up into XXX-XXX-XXXX like a US number. It doesn't even have 10 digits. And since the other fields for name and address only allow about 15-20 characters in each, I couldn't cheat and put the number after the name or company title. And since there aren't any boxes provided for additional information, there's basically no way to enter anything that's not a normal length/format US address or phone number.
Better yet, the entire online application never has any fields for personal input. It's 100% just-the-facts. Names, dates, locations, salary earned, etc. That's fine if you worked at a Starbucks down the street within the last couple of years. But if you've done unconventional employment, volunteered in a library, want to mention how highly computer literate you are, want to stress how much you read and have knowledge about books, that your previous job involved constant interaction with and sales to drunken football fans, etc... there's no way to do it. If I were a Borders store manager I'd hate to have to rely on that form to find my new hires, since it's so easily lied to or manipulated, and it can't do anything to whittle down the idiots and lunatics with acceptable resumes (fake or otherwise); people you'd need half a minute of face to face conversation to determine that their resume was going straight into the bin the minute they walked away -- assuming the act of affecting their departure didn't require mall security and the judicious use of a taser gun.
Needless to say, I'm bitching about this since their online application was singularly ill-suited to let me stress (what I think) are my strengths for the job. More annoying for anyone was the fact that the application only allowed me to select one location, when I'd be happy to work at any of their three stores in my general vicinity. I guess I'm supposed to fill it out again each time, for each store? On top of that, the "which position are you applying for" part was equally limiting, since it only allowed one to be chosen, and they had them needlessly segregated.
I'm trying to work in a bookstore. Ideally I'd be on the floor, helping idiots customers find their books, or recommending other books if what they want isn't available. As part of that job I assume I'd be responsible for looking things up on the inventory computer, checking in the back room, restocking shelves as necessary, etc. Or I might be working up front at the cash register, though I assume the people who do that are usually just cashiers who don't handle other bookstore tasks. I don't want to work in the Starbucks or Seattle's Best Coffee or whatever their "cafe" is called. I don't drink coffee, I don't know (or want to learn) the complicated ingredient combinations found in any of those 800 calorie desserts in a cup, and I really don't want to smell the steaming shit all day. If I wanted to work in a coffee store I'd just apply at Starbucks; there are 10 of those closer to my house than any bookstore, and they pay better too.
On the Borders application I couldn't say that. Not that I would have, at least in so many words. (One of the Barnes and Nobles I was going to apply to had no openings in the book section, but had immediate opening in the cafe. I wasn't interested, for reasons elaborated in the prior paragraph.) But I was flummoxed by the application form, which had different, overly-detailed descriptions of the job positions of customer help on the floor, store manager, assistant manager, cashier, stocker, and I think one other, something like inventory management. And no, of course you couldn't check more than one -- because there's no way the same person would want to do floor help, stocking, inventory, and maybe move up to assistant managing over time. Oh wait, that's what everyone there does now. Pity their application form has no idea of that basic fact.
All this was a pain, but I probably wouldn't have been moved to blog about it. What really put the whipped cream on the mochachino was the personality quiz I had to complete after the resume portion. Yes, really. There's a 99 question personality survey you have to fill out, which works like an idiot's version of the Myers-Briggs personality test. The test consists of 99 questions, all of which you must answer with strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree. I say it's an idiot's version of the test not since it's designed to catch idiots (though it might work for that purpose), but because it was clearly written by one.
I should have copied some of the questions down while taking it, since I knew I'd want to rant about it later. I don't care enough to go back and fill out the resume again just to get to the test, but the questions were all indirectly job-oriented, and so ham-fistedly unsubtle that I frequently eloeled while reading over them. There were 99 questions, but actually there were only about 15. They just had 7 or 8 different versions of each, slightly reworded and scattered in random order. Most of them were about human interactions, and they said things like, "I get annoyed when people ask me questions." "I find people who ask questions annoying." "I enjoy answering questions." "I dislike helping people find things." "I think people are often annoying." "I enjoy helping people find things." and so on. Keep in mind that these are to be answered on the agree/disagree metric, so they're mostly statements. And keep in mind that they were written by an idiot, so lots of them got into double-negative confusion. Statements like, "I do not dislike tidying up disordered inventory." Um... maybe?
The dumbest thing about it was how obvious the questions were, in their intent. That was what I spent my agree/disagree box clicking thinking about. How much of a brown-nosing yes-man do they want me to be? "I sometimes find other people annoying." Well obviously everyone on earth is going to say "agree" to that one, and "strongly agree" if they're honest. No one with a cerebellum in their brain doesn't find other people annoying, at least some of the time. Equally obvious is the fact that the test is written to get idiots to honest themselves right out of a job. So by that right, you should say "disagree," even though you know, and the test-reader knows, you're lying. But should you say "strongly disagree?" Would the computer scoring algorithm be set up cleverly enough to red flag people who are so obviously and blatantly lying by saying the right thing? Probably not. Probably you should go all Smithers on every single damn question. I didn't, and combined with my lack of a resume that fit neatly into their preset fields, I don't expect that I'll ever hear back from Borders.
Fortunately, B&N has 4 stores in the immediate vicinity, not even counting the ones in SF (which I didn't, since it's just such a pain to get into the city and try to park somewhere for less than your actual hourly job wage), and while they have their application online, it's just a two-page PDF you can print off, fill out by hand, and take into a local B&N. Which I did. Four times. Saturday and yesterday, before a semi-date in the evening with the IG. The B&N application is straight forward, with space to put in appropriate comments, job skills, positions you're applying for, etc. Plus you give it to a real person, in person, and if they like you enough to not reject you out of hand, they'll call you to come in for an interview. Which is what I'll be doing tomorrow afternoon at two of the stores I applied to.
I'm not exactly excited, but I would like a decent part time job for a month or so. I also look at it sort of as market research. What books do people really want, how do they ask for them, how do they make up their minds about what to buy, which types of books and covers stand out to people, how do stores stock their shelves, what factors go into the books that get better placement (I do know that the recent releases on the big tables near the entrance are allocated by publisher payment), and so on. Plus, as with all "real" jobs, the frequent boredom and misery should serve as suitable motivation to get more writing done in my "spare" time, so I can earn a living with my actual skills, doing something I actually enjoy. That's the theory, anyway.
I might let you know, or quite possibly elect to say nothing more about it until after the holiday season (and my seasonal job) comes to an end. Lest I Dooce myself right out of the job I've just narrowly obtained.
Just to cram in something totally unrelated, you might enjoy the recent Sixty Minutes piece on the Obamas. It's just an interview, basically a puff piece, but it's interesting since Barack talks so clearly and cogently about the financial crisis issue. I also liked the personal stuff afterward. I'd never seen an interview with the future First Lady, and hadn't seen she and Barack interact at all. I follow politics pretty closely, but I do it online and concentrate on policy and positions -- I don't watch TV or personality stuff. So I was curious to see Barack and Michelle talking about personal issues, and doing it side by side on camera. Their couple dynamics, the way they tease each other about certain things, their pet jokes, their inside knowledge of each other, the old story about Barack's rusted out car and crappy Washington apartment... all fascinating, since I'd never seen any of it before. I took it as two real people talking candidly about their lives in an amazing situation. I'm sure an Obama-hater could see it as artifice and carefully packaged media-friendly bullshit. YMMV.
I must admit to some love for Obama's comments on the stupidity of the BCS and the lack of a college football playoff. They were prescient, since this year, like almost every year, we're most likely not going to have a clear choice for national champion. Well, if Alabama wins out they'll be the only undefeated team with a really hard schedule, and they'll deserve to be #1. But the choice of who plays them in the final game is a total dart toss, and if they lose then the top 2 teams will be entirely arbitrary, since everyone will have at least 1 loss, and the only undefeated teams will be from minor conferences who don't have the strength of schedule to rank in the top 5.
Here's the current top 9 in the BCS standings. These are the only teams with a legitimate claim to be in the title game. The #10 team now is Ohio State and with 2 losses and a weak conference schedule they're not in the conversation.
1. Alabama 11-0 2. Texas 10-1 3. Oklahoma 10-1 4. Florida 10-1 5. USC 9-1 6. Utah 12-0 7. Texas Tech 10-1 8. Penn State 11-1 9. Boise State 11-0
Texas Tech had a chance to make it a clear #1 vs. #2, but they just lost to Oklahoma (who had previously lost to Texas, who in true rock-paper-scissors fashion, had previously lost to Texas Tech). Florida is going to play Alabama in the SEC title game, and while Alabama is ranked higher, Florida looks better. If Florida wins that one, there won't be a true national champion. Oh, the polls will crown someone, but it'll be based on opinions and arguments and sentiment, not an actual winner on the field. You know, like in every other sport known to modern man.
Obama's argument is one I've advocated myself in the past. Put the top 8 teams into a mini-tournament, and find a true champion. This year it would be tough to pick the top 8, with 9 strong contenders, but several of those teams have another game, and might drop out of the ranks with a loss. At any rate, it's far better to have controversy over #8 vs. #9 to enter a tournament in which they'd have to win three games, than over #1 for the title between teams that have never played each other at all.
The biggest stumbling block to the tournament is the entrenched bowl game system, but that seems easily overcome. Just pick 7 bowls to host the games and rotate the games each year, so in 7 years every bowl gets to host an equal number of games from each round. Or if only 3 or 4 bowl games bid high enough, those host the semis and finals, while lesser bowls host the first round games. Which would, I'll point out, feature much more highly ranked teams than all but one or two bowl games do in the current system.
Or it could be done with fewer bowl games if there were more than one round in a given location each year. There's also an objection that the teams would play too many games, but that's pretty fatuous. It's not like anyone confuses the enrollees in the semi-pro football programs at these schools with actual students, and anyway, only 4 teams would play an extra bowl game and only 2 would play 2 extra games. Plus the games take place in late December or early January, when school isn't in session or the semester is just starting. Everyone knows you miss nothing the first week of a class other than a boring hour reading over the syllabus.
The real sticking point, unfortunately, is that there's no commissioner of college football to organize things and drive through sweeping legislation. There are a bunch of banana republic conferences with their own rules and allegiances, uncooperative bowl games, TV networks with long term contracts, and plenty of people who don't really care if there's a "true" national champion, so long as the TV ratings remain high and the alumni keep giving donations for new weight rooms and "loaner" vehicles for star athletes.
When I was out looking for work a couple of years ago I found myself at the user end of that personality test you are talking about. I remember wondering throughout just how honestly I should answer each of the questions, and in the end chose to go with as near the truth as I could. None of applications I turned in to those sites resulted in a callback. I take that to mean one of two things: 1) That they are looking for an absolute brown-noser; someone who would chop off his own balls if he thought it was what they were asking, or 2) They actually expect you to lie and give the best possible response to each question, such that if you don't they just assume you weren't smart enough to realize you needed to lie to get the job.
While neither of those conclusions are particularly comforting, I think there is evidence to back up at least one of them. I was applying for a management position. The stores that required me to fill out that silly test were (if memory serves) Foot Locker and Tower Records. So if we add Borders to the short list, we are talking about three chain stores that all regularly appear in malls. Now, have you ever met an employee at any mall store that was even remotely competent? My vote goes that they expect -require- you to lie. Further, it could be that they don't give you any latitude in choosing the position because they require more lying for the higher positions, so the standard personality test would have to be bull-shitted to a different degree for a management position than for a stock clerk: You would have to say you have never felt anger in your life to get into management while getting angry very rarely would only qualify you to stock shelves. They ought to let you bullshit your way through the personality profile first, then tell you which position to apply for.
Similarly annoying was a follow-up questionnaire from another store I had applied at (possibly the one I work for now, I filled out so many damn forms during that month) which was a series of 20 essay questions. A sample question would be "A customer approaches you complaining that her child slipped and fell in the restroom. How would you handle the situation?" A great opportunity to showcase your ability to react to and solve problems, right? Wrong. Maximum response 100 CHARACTERS. I would begin to write a response and then have to start cutting words, then sentences, until it was reading like caveman speak "Fall bad. Kid okay? Need call ambulance? Sign liability waiver = free cookie."
I have still had to interview in person for all the jobs I have had in my life, and it's probably a good thing. You really can get across far more information, and more accurate information, in 30 seconds of dialogue than in pages of silly profiles.
that college football playoff article focuses on why an 8 team playoff wouldn't work, by trying to graft it onto the current BCS system with its reliance on conference champions. Those are indeed a challenge to work in, which is why I didn't give them a thought in my comments. The conference winners are legit in the SEC and ACC and Big 12, since they've got championship games, but in the other major conferences they're often bullshit. Entirely bullshit some years, since not all the teams in a conference even play each other.
When I've blogged about this issue in the past, I've gone for the 4-team playoff, since that's usually sufficient. There are very seldom more than 2 or 3 teams that are undefeated, and there's usually just 1 or 2 really good 1 loss teams. There would always be argument over the #3-4-5-6 teams in a 4-team tournament, but again, that's better than what we're going to have this year, with (at most) 1 undefeated major conference team, and a bunch of 1 loss teams clamoring to play them for the title.
This year is an outlier and would flummox the 4-team system, largely thanks to Boise State and Utah going undefeated from their mid-major conferences, plus the unsquarable circle of 1-loss texas, texas tech, and oklahoma. (Assuming OK doesn't lose to OKS this weekend, or Missouri in the Big-12 title game).
The 8 team system is more complicated, but its advantage is that it will always include all serious title contenders. Assuming the selection of said teams isn't hobbled by archaic conference winner obligations.
On that, Oregon State is an interesting case. They beat USC and will win the Pac 10 if they win this week against Oregon. But they've got 3 losses, so they get no respect. They lost their opening game @ Stanford in a fluke; vastly outgained them, but had a ton of turnovers. Their other two losses: @ Penn State and @ Utah. Those teams are 24-1 this year, and are both in the top 8. Those are pretty respectable defeats, as such things go, and you've got to give OS credit for the out of conference scheduling, going to Utah and Penn State, in this day and age of teams fattening up their records by hanging half a hundred on Lesser Muskogee Tech.
