Gainful Employment, Society is At Fault

draft

Fragment of a larger essay.

I had the misfortune of working at RAND as a college drop out and being part of the early ARPA community, and that set expectations for the workplace which have not been met. Symbolics (an MIT AI Lab spinoff was part of this enlightened conspiracy, so was the MIT Media Lab in its earlier Architecture Machine form). I blame society because I was treated so well to begin with.

Gainful Employment, The Backstory

draft

Several friends have expressed concern about my lack of traditonal employment (or non-traditional employment) and have offered to help.  I appreciate their offer very much.  Its just that the situation is complicated and there are many things, boring things, that they do not or may not know.

But I want to thank everyone for thinking of me.  Yes, its important.  Yes, pretty much all my friends and certainly those who have volunteered to give me advice have probably done better than I in so many ways.

So lets go over some of these issues.

1. I made choices that resulted in taking risks.  Those risks did not pan out, and combined with unexpected health related issues, means that there are non-traditional gaps on my resume. The generic job opening can not accomodate this without special pleading.  Applying over the internet in some anonymous fashion will not work.

2. In fact, applying for a random job over the internet has never worked.

3. I generally have to think about a job before I apply for it.  Its important to me to feel as though, were I to get the job, that I would do well at it. But this approach does not match the "internet clusterfuck apply in quantity and pray" strategy.  That is right, it doesn't.

4. For better or worse, there are health considerations and not every job can accomodate these things.

5. Money has never been important.  What has been important has been the people I work with and the organization I work for.  Think RAND Corporation, Symbolics (MIT AI spinoff), MASS ILLUSION or the American Museum of Natural History. It can be hard to predict these things I admit.  I had a wonderful time consulting to Viacom in various guises, but that had to do with special circumstances and special people.

6. Its hard to be quanititative about this, but quite a few of my work experiences have involved being abused by management or my fellow workers.  But that would never happen in an elite place like RAND.  So it behooves me to work in such a place and avoid places where management does not protect its people.

7. You can learn technology all you want on your own, but being employable in a field means full time dedication and resources to learn and keep up with that specific field.  So you are not just going to be a web developer, you are going to dedicate your life to web development if you want a job in it. I dont want a job in it.

8. Regarding entrepreneurial activity.  I decided I did not want to try that again with out money.  Now that I have learned that getting a job is impossible, I may as well have abused myself through stupid attempts to be entrepreneurial without money.  It would have been more fun.  Live and learn, I guess.

I could go on, but there is no point.  If you want to help, the best way to do so is to introduce me to someone who might have some project or position where there might be a fit.  A few friends have tried this and it has almost worked, or worked for short periods.  But sadly it has not worked in the long run.

I appreciate your time very much.

Notes About Working All In One Place

All of these posts were written to address various issues that have been brought up as I discuss projects and/or jobs with various companies.  

Three Interview Issues Worthy of Discussion

http://globalwahrman.blogspot.com/2016/06/three-interview-issues-worthy-of.html

Working With Other People

http://globalwahrman.blogspot.com/2016/05/working-with-other-people-project.html

Notes on Making Deadlines and Client Management

http://globalwahrman.blogspot.com/2016/06/notes-on-making-deadlines-and-client.html

Notes on Consulting (Consultant to the Captain of the Titanic)

http://globalwahrman.blogspot.com/2012/12/adviser-to-captain-of-titanic.html

Biography

http://globalwahrman.blogspot.com/2016/06/biography.html

Test of Receding Media Technology

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLjdEeGq8HA

Three Interview Issues Worthy of Discussion

Three recent “interview worthy” issues were recently brought up by a friend who has the misfortune of managing several hundred researchers of various types at a well-known entertainment company.

The three issues are (a) working with other people, (b) deadlines, (c) recent programming experience.

As always, I take these things personally.  But probably these questions have nothing to do with me. I suspect that it has to do with having to deal with self-entitled, prima donna researchers at his international facility combined with possibly a misunderstanding about my recent work.

First, I am probably easier to work with than anyone else I know assuming you actually want to get the job done which is a big assumption. I did time at UCLA in the 1970s, I know what teamwork means and I dont just pay lip service to it. I let people know what they need to know to get a job done, I help them when they get stuck. I explain potential problems and suggest possible solutions to them when appropriate. If anything I have the character flaw of “oversharing”.

There can be a problem when people are insecure and defensive, as they often think I am talking down to them, as I tend to explain things using the English language which has words of more than two syllables. This can be especially problematic with self-identified “producers”.  There can also be a problem when people say that they want to go to the moon, but really want to go to the corner. There are other issues as well, but in general working with people is not a problem when we are all people of good faith trying to get the job done.  

Second, deadlines were problematical in my youth due to my genuine contempt for arbitrary ones. Over the years, I have learned that organizations rely on arbitrary deadlines in order to manage large projects and get anything done. Thus the problem becomes not whether or not a deadline makes sense but about everything else involved with the process of making a deadline, which is to say such things as scope of work, schedule, approval processes, client management, project strategy, resources allocated, the talents and personalities of the people on the project, technologies in development, training, and most of all whether a system has been put into place, engineered if you will, to be able to make deadlines of this nature without too much blood and mangled bodies.

With no false modesty, I will tell you that I am one of the best persons I know to help conceptualize and engineer such a deadline-making system as well as being excellent at managing a process to completion. I can also tell you that, particularly in the entertainment industry, there are people who do anything in their power to prevent and sabotage such a system from being put in place or working. At that point, it is up to senior management to step in and discipline the producer who is damaging the organization or discipline the prima donna who uses chaos and insubordination for their own purposes of self-aggrandizement.

I have often been involved with projects whose goals were so lofty, and the resources and time allowed so limited, that compromises are required to make anything happen at all.  This kind of situation, which often feels like the story of my life, requires everyone to work together.  Decisions have to be made, directions have to be set, people have to be honest.  This is why we get paid.  

Third, the issue of recent programming experience has more to do with structural economic issues and confusion about what the talent for technical work is. Back when there were far fewer technical people available, I was recognized as one of the best on the West Coast. Now that there are so many good technical people in the various fields, I feel, modestly, that I am one of the best technical people on the West Coast. But this can be difficult to communicate to many people today because they are confused about what they want.

Do they want someone who knows the technology inside and out, and can be creative with that technology or do they want someone who knows what -1 means in a stupid software package that they are using on a project because someone thought it was trendy and they might more often get laid? Do they want someone who can design software and has taste, or do they want a moron who is easy to control and knows how to type. Decide what you want.

And then, if you are still concerned, talk to my references, who are near the top of their fields, and see what they say.  

I hope this has helped.

Internet Provides A New Way for Human Resources to Confuse Victims

When I first worked for a large corporation, I had a very benign view of Human Resources.  I assumed that HR was there to help everybody get their job done in an organized and civil manner. Yes I was so naive that I believed that HR had the employee's and potential employee's welfare in mind as well as that of the corporation. Of course as years went by I realized that this was rarely so, and that HR was there first and foremost to protect the corporation and nothing else.

Nevertheless, in spite of our experience, most American's seem to have a very naive view of various elements of the HR process.  They believe, against all experience, that many HR mediated processes are fair, that there are rules to the game and that the game is not entirely crooked.   They believe that people only get fired for just cause, that everyone gets the same shot at opportunities, and that corporations work hard to get the best person for the job, not merely the one that has surface validity or who expresses the same corrupt values as the people they will work for.

Of course the reality is different.  And not all of these differences are necessarily bad.  For example, one reason that not everyone gets the same opportunities, is that for most people I know at a fairly senior level, their jobs are created for them, in some sense tailored to the person who is being hired.   That has often been the case for me in the past, and is very much the case for many friends who are further along in their career.  Of course one side effect of this is that not everyone gets the same opportunity.

Related to that is the phenomena where jobs are not listed until there is a candidate in mind, or that a job is listed but will not be filled, or that the real qualifications are not the ones that are listed, or that the job is listed for pro forma reasons only, or that the job opening(s) is/are created as a way of gathering data about one's competition.

The single biggest lie is that people get hired without having contacts at the company that hires them.  In other words, that it can be done anonymously via the internet, a cover letter and a resume. It turns out that there are people for whom this has occurred, but it is not very common in my experience.  Usually you need someone inside pulling for you.

But even if the above is all true, it is certainly not a new phenomenon.  All of these issues have existed for years and decades and maybe even longer.

But there is one part that is new.  It used to be that there was a job board that was never quite up to date, with job openings tacked to the wall.   Or a book of job openings at the corporation that was unwieldy and difficult to use.  But now all corporations have Internet job boards online and what is great about these job boards, which the potential job seeker is required to use, is that they, in my humble experience, are rarely up to date and often are just wrong.

For the last several years, I have at irregular intervals, and purely manually, reviewed the job boards for a series of companies that are on a select list. In some cases I am interested in jobs at that company, in some cases I am just interested in the kinds of jobs that they advertise and what skills they need. There are a variety of reasons for this research, if that is what it is, and one of the reasons is to see to what extent companies perceive computer animation as a desirable skill.

But for whatever reasons I do this, I have noticed the odd situation where jobs seem to appear or disappear on a daily basis. One day here, one day not here, and seemingly at random. At first I just thought that the job opening had been pulled, or was filled, or some other normal explanation.

But recently I had a very egregious situation and proved to myself that the job listing did exist, but only if you knew the correct term to search for.  If you just did a general search for all job openings, it might or might not appear.

In other words, the Internet has helped create a whole new dysfunction for Human Resources to exhibit: the database-backed web page that is broken.

Computer Language Preference by Country

Let us say for a moment that I had to get a real job instead of doing what I do now, which is writing a blog, writing little programs for my friend in NYC, reading books and surfing the web, etc.

Although I know (literally) at least 100 (computer) languages, there are only a few of them that I routinely use to "get something done" and which I am comfortable that I know the full extent of that language such that I could be professional at it. It turns out that language use (computer languages) preference differs by country. Here is a map of that use.

So apparently I can work in France and Finland.

Is emigration an option?

Why I am Not Working for the NSA

Many friends wonder, what with my strange beliefs about intelligence and national defense, that I am not working for that center of evil itself, the NSA. Why not go to work for the great oppressor of freedom that even now examines each individuals internet pornography use and deduces whether or not they are having kinky sex with women in order to inform the local Gestapo and have them beat in the doors to seize the miscreant and hang them in their cell?

But it is not out of a misguided sense of privacy rights that I am not working for the NSA.  The real reason is that I could not figure out how to apply.  

Applying for the NSA requires applying through the Internet, a bold new paradigm. Just applying for the NSA through the Internet requires hours of your time, and requires a reasonable understanding of our nation's civil service structure. And the NSA internal job classifications. 

The potential candidate for national security work is presented with a series of questions that to those of us filled with patriotism but outside the beltway will find completely baffling. What job classification was your dog when your dog applied for TS clearance? What job classification was your mother-in-law when she was denied SCI tickets? Did you or did you not visit NMIC in the basement of the pentagon when you were 23 years old with Dr. Stockton Gaines? What did you hope to gain from that stunt for your communist masters?

And then, forget about uploading a resume. Resumes are old fashioned here, son, put your old fashioned ideas away and get ready for some rocket science. Instead you must type in your resume and experience and education in carefully prepared html forms. What was the name of your 6^th grade Science teacher? If we contacted Mrs. Winkler, as you allege, what would she say about you and your commitment to the American Way? When you heard about the assassination of Kennedy, were you (a) happy, (b) distressed, (c) thinking only about the cute girl two rows up and to the left?

And on and on it goes, from Elementary School, to Middle School, to High School, to college. What was your grade in differential equations? Why did you have to take it over? What does your failure to excel at diff eq say about your lack of ethical standards?

And finally, when you think it is over, it isn't over.

Pick your job classification? Slovenian linguist or Finno-Ugric semiotics, junior grade? Sino-Soviet relations as manifested by their choice of profanity or perhaps Korean synonyms? Its your choice, boy, but choose carefully because forever is your destiny affected.

And then, if you think you finished but you did not get a reply, that means you did not finish. Yes, you left some box unchecked, and after those hours of work they did not actually get that application which they would use to ignore you. You were never officially ignored. You did not even get that far.

And that is what happened.

I went through this process, somehow missed some box to check, and did not actually submit. Should I try again?  What's the point?   No one ever gets a job by applying through the Internet.

Maybe this is a way to weed out the weak and find only those who are truly worthy?

The Josh Pines Job Interview Technique

Today when one applies for a job you are rejected out of hand either by a computer, or in some cases, by a human resources person who is no where close to being qualified to evaluate your suitability for the job. The old system of working through colleagues and recommendations and then interviewing the human in person (or at least by telephone) is a practice that was abandoned long ago in America, never to return.

But in 1989, when my partner and I were trying to build a new production company in Los Angeles, we had the naive belief that it was important to find out who was right for the job and to interview them in person.   This was usually easy to do because most everyone we wanted to hire lived in LA or SF.  But there were two exceptions, and both worked at R/Greenberg in NYC.   

This is the story of the interview of one of them, Josh Pines.  The story has become for me the iconic job interview, the one by which all others are measured.   I tell the story of this interview to potential employers (the very few that bother to talk to me, that is, before rejecting me) to see how they react. 

deGraf/Wahrman (dWi) had been in business about a year, maybe a little longer, and with a lot of difficulty we were being considered for the very few entertainment projects that planned to use computer animation in their production.  It may be hard to believe or relate to, but in 1989 computer animation was far from an accepted technique in motion picture or other entertainment industries (e.g. theme parks).   There were very few projects, and we got awarded not one, but two of them, and so we had to grow and we had to get film capability in place.

Back then, film recording of computer imagery for motion picture use was rarely done.  There was hardware you could buy if you could live with the record times, but everyone who had ever successfully used that hardware for this purpose, and there were three companies in the world that had, had written all the software from scratch.   If one was starting from the raw hardware, I estimated that it would take at least six months before one could start recording film reliably and with the kinds of control we needed. 

I am also a film snob, which means that I believed (and still believe) that most computer people know nothing about film and unfortunately (back then at least) most film people knew nothing about computers.   But there were a few people who I felt knew film the way a film person did, yet also knew computers.   One of them, who might be available as the others were not, was the person who had made the film recording work at R/Greenberg, and he was the person we invited to come set up high quality film recording at dWi.

So we flew him out to Los Angeles from NYC and he spent the day with us.  I forget why it took all day, but probably because we had to fly him all the way out here, we thought it was right for him to have a chance to hang with us and see if he felt good about it.   

dWi had just recently moved to their second location, behind the Margo Leavin Gallery in West Hollywood (what is popularly known as the Norma Talmadge barn, although I don't think that Norma Talmadge had ever actually owned it).  It was a big wooden barn with a back patio with offices on two sides of a courtyard.  One side had a second story, on that second story was a hair salon.  dWi moved into the bottom floors of both sides of the courtyard.

The courtyard behind the Margo Leavin Gallery in West Hollywood, where deGraf/Wahrman was located.  My office was on the left, the hair salon was upstairs on the right.

So Josh shows up suitably scruffy, like a good anarchist from New York City should look, and we talk to him.   Then people go away for lunch, and we had another meeting scheduled with him later in the afternoon.   When he showed up at that meeting, he looked completely different.  During lunch time, he had gone upstairs to the hair salon and had his dark and scruffy hair chopped into a crew cut and dyed platinum blonde.

I thought it was very amusing.  This is our kind of guy, I said to myself.    I think it was also a way for him to communicate to us that if we hired him, that he was going to do things like this; things that many people would never consider doing.  My interpretation was that he wanted to give us "fair warning".   

So I always tell this story to potential employers to see if they understand the reason I am telling them this story.  Its something of an intelligence test.   In my own way, I am also giving them fair warning.

Defamation, Employment Contracts and the Case of "El Naschie vs Nature Publishing"

How lucky we are today to have our first legal judgment on Global Wahrman !

In this case, we have the case of El Naschie vs Nature Publishing regarding an article published in Nature which El Naschie claims/claimed was defamation.

Apparently El Naschie, if I read this correctly, started his own academic journal, and then set himself up to review his own papers,  which he had submitted to his journal.   It certainly makes sense to me that one would like one's own papers, don't you agree?    This is a peer-reviewed journal and by definition the author of a paper is his own peer.  This principle was definitively established by von Strindberg and Broadway  in their 1948 paper in Transactions on Publishing entitled "On Self-Peering".   [Editors note: this is Michael's idea of a joke, he is being sarcastic, just in case you didn't notice.] So what is the problem?    It just seems like a very efficient way to get a lot of papers published.   Anyway, these picky academics: always complaining about something. Nature published an essay about the situation and was quite clear and opinionated about the ethics of starting a "peer-reviewed journal", then personally writing most of the articles, and acting as his own peer-reviewer for those articles before publication.  As a result,  El Naschie sued Nature for defamation.

Defamation has been on my mind recently because of various contracts for employment that I have reviewed and which have "strong", or at least strongly-worded,  anti-defamation clauses.  Defamation, though, is a legal term that has a meaning slightly different from its use in the vernacular.  To the courts, "defamation" refers to the act of saying something about somebody that hurts their reputation, as you would expect.  But to be defamation, these statements also need to be  (a) not true and (b) intended to cause harm.   If the nasty thing you say about someone or some thing turns out to be true then it isn't defamation by definition.

It is also not defamation when you express your opinion as opposed to asserting something as being a statement of fact.   So for example, if I say that "such-and-such company has, in my opinion, a ridiculous employment contract that will cause them trouble in the long run because I think it will discourage people from working with them", that is not defamation.  That is just me expressing my opinion, as I am legally entitled to do.

If however I say that "so-and-so is wanted for felony assault in the State of NY and is a well-known pederast who got booted out of his home town because of his sexual proclivities," and if  that was not true, then that would almost certainly be defamation.

Why do these employment contracts have such odd and apparently unnecessary anti-defamation clauses?  I am told by my Oxford / Harvard Business School friend that it is to scare immature 23 year olds and keep them from spraying their self-righteous phlegm all over some social media web page when they get pissed off about something the company has done (e.g. for laying them off or something).   Such clauses should be unnecessary of course because defamation is illegal.   Contracts do not need to contain clauses that say "the employee promises not to have kinky sex with underage women," because sleeping with underage women is illegal in this country, whether kinky or not.  It even has its own well-defined term in the vernacular, jailbait, which is really a wonderful word when you think about it.   (And what a good example of a Germanic languages' process of creating a new word by concatenating existing words together.)    Thus no such clause is necessary in any contract, and if it were, it might be covered by a boilerplate that might say something such as "all parties agree to obey the law".  I mean really, that seems like an unnecessary thing to say, but I guess it might be worth reminding people of that general guideline in the fast-paced world of internet startups.

Now that I think about it, isn't there some large software company in Redmond, Wa. that routinely used to violate anti-trust law ?   Maybe we should have a clause in the contracts of corporate executives requiring them to obey the law in the execution of their duties.   Its just a thought.

Anyway, this case is full of juicy charges and counter-charges, nasty emails from mysterious people, and a lot of biped mammals acting very immaturely, if you ask me.   I think it is worth a look.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/1809.html

Here is the first page of the judgment.