Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Your Rights Online

A New Meaning For Geotargeting At Monster.com 537

Posted by timothy from the painting-with-a-broad-brush dept.
Duke submits a link to this New York Times story, according to which "it seems that Monster.com has taken the U.S. government's policy of sanctions against certain countries and run with it where no man has gone before. Monster 'has deleted resumes that list current addresses in those countries.' and more fun stuff. If you haven't had the opportunity for a really self-rightous post in a while, Monster.com has made it simple for you." Update: 04/28 01:34 GMT by T : Note that the New York Times ran the story, but like many other newspaper stories, the real credit goes to the Associated Press.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A New Meaning For Geotargeting At Monster.com More

A New Meaning For Geotargeting At Monster.com

Comments Filter:
  • Yes, it's a dupe.

  • uhh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deadsaijinx* ( 637410 ) <animemeken@hotmail.com> on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:12AM (#5817479) Homepage
    it's their service, it's 100% free, and something tells me they covered there ass in the EULA. Is it nice? is it moral? probably not. But it is their company, and their service. Is this smart of them to do? Probably not, bad publicity could spell disaster for them.
    If you don't agree with me, then discuss your view point, don't just mod me down cuz you disagree with me. FP.

    • Re:uhh (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Coocha ( 114826 )
      Probably not, bad publicity could spell disaster for them.

      Isn't monster.com a corporation based in the USA? Maybe it's not even bad publicity, considering current events. They say any publicity is good publicity ;-)

      Ride the apocalypse...

    • Soo (Score:5, Insightful)

      by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @03:04AM (#5818029) Homepage Journal
      I suppose you think it's perfictly alright for a club keep out black people? or for a company not to hire mexicans?

      Just because you own something dosn't mean you should be able to do whatever the hell you want on it.

      • Re:Soo (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Robert1 ( 513674 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @03:21AM (#5818072) Homepage
        I'm so going to get modded down for this "negative opinion" but here it goes anyway.

        Yes, a private club should be able to do anything they please. A company that provides a free service should be allowed to give it to whomever they please.

        Hey, if I don't want you coming to my house, I can kick you out. If I were to give free car-washes down the street and I don't like you, too bad, you're not getting one.

        The hiring practices of corporations is unrelated to the issue. No one is hiring anyone to work at monster.com, they're simply denying their FREE SERVICE to whomever they please.

        Remember when you walk into a store and they " reserve the right to kick you out for any reason?" Yeah, same idea.

        Public does not equal private.
        Paying service does not equal gift.

        That's my 2 cents.

      • Too much PC bad too (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @03:26AM (#5818087) Journal
        I suppose you think it's perfictly alright for a club keep out black people?

        Sure, I don't have any problem with it. It's perfectly legitimate for organizations that practice discrimination along just about any lines they want to exist. There are a few very specific rules: government organizations and even private businesses when it comes to employment have some constraints on them. It's part of letting ideas flow freely. If people want to hang out with a bunch of other white supremacists and not let blacks join a club, I think they should certainly be entitled to do so. Trying to prohibit something like this becomes completely unenforceable, because race plays a role in all sorts of small organizations.

        However, a business is more than entitled not to sell their product to anyone they want to, if they so choose.

        or for a company not to hire mexicans?

        As long as they're Mexican-Americans, legal citizens of the United States of America, I don't think it's legal to hire based on race, though it can be hard to prove.

        Actually, I wish even this restriction was eliminated. Let natural selection take over. If IBM decides that it doesn't want to hire any Hispanics at all, and Apple does, and Miguel de Izaca works for Apple instead, it's IBM's loss.

        When I see lawsuits like the infamous Hooters one (where a male was suing because he couldn't work as a waiter in a Hooters restauraunt), I get a little disgusted with the state of enforced PCness.

        • Re:Too much PC bad too (Score:5, Insightful)

          by skillet-thief ( 622320 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @06:02AM (#5818388) Homepage Journal
          However, a business is more than entitled not to sell their product to anyone they want to, if they so choose.

          This is just not true...

          From a legal point of view, all the court decisions on segregration should be more than enough to prove that. A grocery store can't refuse to sell food to people based on race, a restaurant can't refuse to serve people based on race. You can't refuse to sell your house to someone for racial reasons. Etc. etc.

          The rest of your post just shows how far unbridled libertarianism can lead you.

      • Re:Soo (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GileadGreene ( 539584 )
        I suppose you think it's perfictly alright for a club keep out black people?

        Yes.

        or for a company not to hire mexicans?

        Yes.

        Just because you own something dosn't mean you should be able to do whatever the hell you want on it.

        Actually, it does. That's what ownership is.

        I may think that it's stupid and bigoted for a club to not accept black members, and I think I have a right to tell them so, but I don't think it's my right to force a private club to do something it doesn't choose to do. Similarly, I may

        • Re:Soo (Score:5, Insightful)

          by skillet-thief ( 622320 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @06:14AM (#5818395) Homepage Journal
          The whole point of private ownership is that the owner of something has control over that something. If they don't have ultimate control, they are not the owner - by definition.

          The whole point of private ownership is that no one can take your stuff away from you. They have to buy it. Private ownership doesn't give you ultimate control over anything.

          If I own a gun, it doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with it. Ditto for a car, and so on. Private ownership means the gov't shouldn't be able to come along and take those things away from me without some kind of due process.

          The basic problem here is that, even if you own something, including a business, you still have to live in society with other people who also have rights. Private ownership doesn't eliminate all concern for other people or their rights, or their aspirations for equality.

    • Re:uhh (Score:3, Funny)

      by bedouin ( 248624 )
      Greetings Brother deadsaijinx:

      You probably know me, I'm Attorney John Ashcroft.

      I was browsing Slashdot this morning and stumbled upon your wonderfully written, and highly objective post. I'm hoping, my dear friend, that you would contact me. You seem to have the right attitude for helping my colleagues and I with our pursuit of Total Information Awareness.

      Just five minutes ago I spoke with Condoleezza and she agreed you have what it takes: absolute submission to authority and belief in the morality of

  • In other news.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Musashi Miyamoto ( 662091 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:12AM (#5817481)
    Monster has removed all resumes with Arab-sounding names and has forward their contact information to der fuhrer^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Mr. Ashcroft.

  • Makes sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)

    by George Walker Bush ( 306766 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:15AM (#5817489) Homepage
    If we have sanctions against other countries, people from those countries shouldn't be able to make money from jobs or companies in the US anyhow. So we are just preventing them from violating the law.

    Thank you and God bless America.

    • Re:Makes sense to me (Score:5, Funny)

      by localghost ( 659616 ) <dleblanc@gmail.com> on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:21AM (#5817508)
      Are you really the President? That would be pretty cool if GWB posted on Slashdot.
    • Dear Mr President,
      If I mod you up, will you find me a nice job in the DC area?

      (p.s. since I just posted to this discussion, I can't mod it any more.)

    • Re:Makes sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alonsoac ( 180192 ) *
      Sactions against countries are often imposed because of policies of the administration of that country. It does not mean that every single human being in that country deserves that treatment. I figure that often people seeking jobs abroad are trying to escape from a regime that they dislike. If someone form country X comes and asks for a job and proves he can do it, am I supposed to tell him to fuck off just because the president of his country is an asshole? Hmm, I think the president of my country is an a

  • This just in! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Cutriss ( 262920 )
    Slashdot endorses Karma-whoring!

    "If you haven't had the opportunity for a really self-rightous post in a while, Monster.com has made it simple for you."

  • The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Metallic Matty ( 579124 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:17AM (#5817495)
    After all, if its not the American Way, its the highway.

    This isn't quite as bad as the "Freedom Fries" bullshit, but its pretty bad.. Can't people deal with the world at large without placing labels on certain ethnic groups, nationalities, etc. Perhaps that's too much to ask.

    Yay patriotism..

    • Re:The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jhon ( 241832 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:26AM (#5817519) Homepage Journal
      There are three basic ways you can deal with a country that is unfriendly or just plain mean -- once diplomatic pressure fails.

      (1) Ignore them (Has little effect al la China)
      (2) Sanctions (Cuba, Iraq, Libia)
      (3) War

      Do you have any suggestions? Remember, "dealing" with people goes both ways. All the worlds problems aren't the fault of the US.

      • Re:The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)

        by deadsaijinx* ( 637410 ) <animemeken@hotmail.com> on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:46AM (#5817586) Homepage
        lets not try diplomatic pressure at all? lets try true diplomacy. let's try to see their problems, express our own problems, and then have an intelligent negotiation with compromises that leave people satisfied. Course, we'd have to assume that politicians are socially-conscious and intelligent persons capable of actually caring that the world is a better place for everyone. Course, they dont, which is why we have the other three options. sad.

      • Re:The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)

        by EinarH ( 583836 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @01:25AM (#5817733) Journal
        There are three basic ways you can deal with a country that is unfriendly or just plain mean -- once diplomatic pressure fails.

        Where is this obsession on "dealing" with a country come from? Why do you have to deal with a country?
        Ignoring* a "evil" country/regime/place worked fine in the case of USA vs. Soviet Union. Eventually Soviet Union broke down inside by itself without any serious war.
        Think about this: If the Soviet Union had existed today it would probably be one of the Axis of Evil- states. Bush-administration plans for preventive/pre-emptive warfare probably would have resulted in an attack on this "evil empire". Imagien the result if every other country on earth should start to "deal" with counties they don't like?
        China would have started to deal with Taiwan, Japan and India. India would follow up with Pakistan. Russia would deal with some former republics... And Africa and the Middle East would be in total chaos.

        *Ignoring here means not going to war or placing sanctions, not to ignore it completly or quit paying attention to a country.

        (1) Ignore them (Has little effect al la China)
        Wored fine on Soviet Union. (in this context a little war over Vietnam/Afghanistan/some South-American contries don't count) It will probablly work on China in some years too.
        (2) Sanctions (Cuba, Iraq, Libia)
        Cuba: Castro still rules...Do I really need to say more?
        Iraq: 600000 childrens dead under the sanctions; didn't work, Instead they strnghtened Saddams regime.
        Libia: I would call it even. Sanctions have crippled their economy, but Ghadaffi still in power.

        (3) War
        Going to war over every disagreement ain't a long term solution in conflicts.

        Do you have any suggestions? Remember, "dealing" with people goes both ways. All the worlds problems aren't the fault of the US.
        I agree. I think this is the problem with some parts of the corrent US administration; failing to see that they don't have to try t correct (in terms of correcting with military force) every regime they don't like.

        But what I don't like about about your rethoric is that you try to limit the possible actions USA can take against other countries into two possibillities; either
        1. Do nothing. When some republicans talk about this option on dubius radio shows they make it look like this is bound to result in every fucking country whom disagree with US will start supplying Osama with nukes.
        2. Harsh reactions like sanctions or war.

        When you do that, you and everyone following your rhetoric fail to see that there are other options; such as trying to work out a deal trough UN.

        • Re:The American Way (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Jhon ( 241832 )

          Ignoring* a "evil" country/regime/place worked fine in the case of USA vs. Soviet Union.

          Yeah. We ignored them. Sure.

          Ever hear of the Cuban Missle Crisis? We had a gun on their temple for over 40 years -- and they had one on ours.

          We did EVERYTHING we could to force them in to economic ruin. "Ignoring" was never an option.

          Cuba: Castro still rules...Do I really need to say more?

          Yeah. Say more. Like the part where Cuba suffers from such an economic burden that it can in no way be a threat to the US.

          Ira

          • Re:The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)

            by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @02:14AM (#5817906) Homepage
            And the UN is so good at working things out, huh? There's a huge number of dead in Rwanda, the Balkens, Ivory Coast, etc... that might disagree with you -- were they alive to voice their opinion. The UN is a good place to TRY and work out deals, but it's not the END of the road when it fails.

            As an American, I say "what fucking business is it of ours?" Not a single one of the so-called 'threats to national security' is any threat at all, if we just mind our own goddamned business and stop trying to impose a 'Pax Americana' on the rest of the world.

            I don't want an empire, thanks. And no, I'm not so fucking paranoid as to think that every goddamned Third World country is out to 'get me' and that I have to conquer one of their asses every once in a while to show who's boss. That's the purview of dick-measuring loons, much like our own King George.

            Let the world work out its own problems. All we need are places to buy things from, and places to sell things to. Other than that the rest just isn't our goddamned business.

            Unfortunately both the government and my own people seem to think that *everything* is their business nowadays, including my own private life. Seems to me the only thing that'll teach the average American to keep the fuck out of my life and the life of others is to bitch-slap the cocksuckers into submission, much like those very same cocksuckers are doing to others right now.

            Max

          • Re:The American Way (Score:5, Informative)

            by EinarH ( 583836 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @02:55AM (#5818016) Journal
            We did EVERYTHING we could to force them in to economic ruin. "Ignoring" was never an option.
            My point was that you don't have to go to military action or start with sanctions to crush a country.
            I wrote: "*Ignoring here means not going to war or placing sanctions, not to ignore it completly or quit paying attention to a country."

            Yeah. Say more. Like the part where Cuba suffers from such an economic burden that it can in no way be a threat to the US.
            Where they ever a treat to US? Yah, maybe 40 yeas ago during the Cubile missile crisis. (you started the whole thing by placing nukes in Turkey BTW. But the Soviet Union did not start with sanctions agaist them even though they also was a country pretty close with a diffrient type of government di they?
            But, you know what? I Castro wanted to blow Miami to pices with a warhead today ( he don't as far as I know) he could probably done it.

            While luxury palaces were built and funds skimmed off the "oil for food" programs. Yeah, that was the USs fault. It did do quite a bit to keep them from rebuilding their miltary to any great degree.
            The luxary palaces was not build from money from the oil-for food prog. UN has stated that 95% of the money in the programm where used correctly (food, aid, drugs etc.) The remaining 5% went for UN admnistration of the program.
            If Saddam built any major new palaces after '91 it was probably from money either from smuggling or from taxes
            Yes, the sanctions worked in keeping them from rebuilding their military. But putting sanctions on a country is not a long term sollution on a problem as it hurts the people of the country more than the government.
            Dealing with whoms fault it is... USA supported Saddams regime greatly (economic support,political and weapons as chemical and biological)during the eighties when it served US interest. Running away and saying it's all one mad mans faullt is to easy.

            Then you missed my point. I said AFTER diplomacy fails. What I dont like about YOUR rethoric is that diplomacy seems to be the ONLY option. It's not.
            I have never said that diplomacy is the only way of handling conflicts. But in many conflict even after diplomacy has ended is it possible to solving problems without the use of millitary.
            In the recent case of Iraq it was your goverment who did not want to continue with inspections. In some cases the use of military force is legitimate, in some it's not.

            And the UN is so good at working things out, huh? There's a huge number of dead in Rwanda, the Balkens, Ivory Coast, etc... that might disagree with you -- were they alive to voice their opinion. The UN is a good place to TRY and work out deals, but it's not the END of the road when it fails.
            UN is nothing more then what it members wants it to be. Noone have ever said its a perfect system.
            In the recent case of Iraq it was in fact USA who did not want to continue with pressure on Iraq and continuing of weapon inspections. Probably because they would not have been able to remove Saddam that way. The UN sanctions where made to keep Saddam from getting WMD, not to remove him.

            According to the UN charter when diplomacy fails and the security council faills to agrre on a resolutions that is the end of the road per se. The fact that your country choose to ignore this and attack Iraq anyway says alot about the USA today.

            12 years of the UN unwillingness to either hard pressure Iraq or otherwise force Iraq to disarm should be a CLEAR example of this. 17 resolutions... 17. A piece of paper doesn't do anything to destroy poison gas -- but 250,000 highly armed soldiers sure do.
            In those 12 years Iraq never attacked any of their neighbours or used any WMD. As long as the inspections had continud it is also unlikly that Iraq would have been able to build, import or use WMD.

            An please show me where that poison gas is hidden will you?

          • Re:The American Way (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Telex4 ( 265980 )
            And the UN is so good at working things out, huh? There's a huge number of dead in Rwanda, the Balkens, Ivory Coast, etc.

            Actually, you provide two good examples that immediately rubbish any idea that America and Britain "police" the world for humanitarian reasons, and any idea that America and Britain give a damn about the UN as a method of dealing with humanitarian crises. If you look at every intervention the two nations been involved with since WW2, then in every single one there is an obvious politica

      • Re:The American Way (Score:3, Interesting)

        by phutureboy ( 70690 )
        Coincidentally, I just finished a piece on this exact subject earlier tonight. I would be interested in hearing what others think. Text follows:

        Free trade is the "third way" toward world peace

        In the wake of the recent war in Iraq, there has been much public debate over the best approach for the United States to take in response to perceived threats from North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and other countries, and as to how the U.S. can play a role in promoting democratic values in those nations. Most have

    • Re:The American Way (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:37AM (#5817557) Homepage Journal
      Sorry, but perhaps the other countries need to look at cleaning up their own act. If you want to find the current worst examples of intolerance and mass discrimination, you won't find them in America.

      I know quite a few Europeans who make no secret of their disdain for everything and everyone American. Also, I know some native Mexicans who openly discriminate against blacks and Chinese.

      If I may use a loaded phrase: it's like the pot calling the kettle black.

      Show me the freshly-bulldozed mass graves of America, and I'll admit you have a point.

    • I've always felt that the best way to make people like you is to completely isolate them, bomb them occassionally, and gradually starve them to death.

      Because that really is the issue here, countries that don't like the U.S. History has shown that no matter how bad the dictator, no matter how repressive the regime, the U.S. has no problem with any country as long as they like America.

      I think the problem is that the United States' public/government is generally incapable of understanding why people do

  • waiting (Score:4, Funny)

    by thanjee ( 263266 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:20AM (#5817505) Journal
    I am just waiting for someone to include the link to view the article online without having to sign up. I always forget it :)

    Once I can read the article you will get my self-righteous response :p

    • Monster.com Restrictions Anger Customers By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 11:04 a.m. ET NEW YORK (AP) -- Monster.com says it is only trying to follow the rules. But the nation's largest Internet job board is taking heat from some users over a new policy blocking consumers or employers from seeking work or posting jobs in countries sanctioned by the U.S. government. Under the policy, which took effect Thursday, Monster will no longer allow posting of resumes or job openings originating from Cuba, Iran, I

  • Does it even work? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Daleks ( 226923 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:20AM (#5817506)
    Has anyone here ever even got a job using monster.com? I heard their success rate is something like less than a hundredth of a percent.

    • Re:Does it even work? (Score:5, Informative)

      by nija ( 667087 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:30AM (#5817534)
      Yes. I've gotten job interviews, and I know of at least two others, that have gotten jobs. Dice.com was much better though.

    • Re:Does it even work? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Graelin ( 309958 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:31AM (#5817539)
      3 Years ago it worked very well for me. I placed my resume up there and spent the next 72 hours on the phone with various companies and headhunters looking to buy me or sell me.

      Had I not limited my availablity to the Kansas area it would (probably) have been much worse. I did receive 3 offers from it, but I turned them all down for a job out of the local paper. Ahh the irony...

      Does it work as well today? Probably not, I think that site, and others like it, have become over-saturated.

      ---
      I dunt preveww meye stuff.
    • Try Craig's List. Each time I send an email inquiring about a position, I get an email back saying, "No thank you" but at least those people actually take the time to get back to me... I've yet to hear something back from responding to a position on monster...

    • Re:Does it even work? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Duncan3 ( 10537 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:46AM (#5817591) Homepage
      Like most job services these days, it's completely useless.

      Companies are only posting jobs to meet legal requirements on companies over a certain size. Which is probably the only thing keeping Monster in business at all.

      Think about it, everyone knows at least 20 people out of work right now (more like 50), so if you are hiring you hire your friends, or the friends of a coworker.

      So my advice if you are hiring, is to post the job, but use a temporary Yahoo/hotmail address for resumes. Do NOT list a phone number. That way you never have to deal with one resume, you're in the clear legally, and you can hire your friend right away.
      • Think about it, everyone knows at least 20 people out of work right now (more like 50), so if you are hiring you hire your friends, or the friends of a coworker.

        So my advice if you are hiring, is to post the job, but use a temporary Yahoo/hotmail address for resumes. Do NOT list a phone number. That way you never have to deal with one resume, you're in the clear legally, and you can hire your friend right away.

        Some friends and I were thinking about starting our own recruiting company and just hiring our

  • It goes both ways. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cutriss ( 262920 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:26AM (#5817520) Homepage
    On the one hand, Monster does have a legal responsibility to respect sanctions on the nations which they have been imposed on by the government, so I can see disabling or removal of resumes of individuals residing in sanctioned nations, and job-postings for businesses in those nations.

    On the other hand, editing resumes to remove instances where an individual noted that he or she obtained education in one of those countries? That's freakin' insane! Barring any stupid legalese on Monster's part with regards to copyright of files hosted on their systems, that's tampering with someone's published work, and could definitely inconvenience someone who has perfectly fine qualifications, but happened to get his BS in, say, Iran.

    Following the law with regards to sanctions is one thing, but please...let the DoJ sort out who's a terrorist and who isn't. (I can't believe I just said that...)
    • What's worse- assuming that's what's being done and it's not the entire resume being trashed- is that it makes the resume technically inaccurate- and therefore illegal.

      So who gets into legal trouble? Monster, I'd assume, for editing the resume to be illegal, but what about the person who suddenly has an inaccurate resume- for example, it no longer listing a college that the would-be job applicant failed out of?
    • The truly bad part is that the laws Monster is supposedly complying with only regard finacial transactions and cryptography.
    • International sanctions usually target trading of goods and information only. It should never include individual trying to communication with the outside for personal reason. After all, an American is still allowed to send mail to or from Cuba (which is single-handedly sanctioned by US and its buddies). An American can still visit a Cuban address, too. As for as I know, the US government or DOJ has never mentioned that the outside world cannot communicate with anyone in the sanctioned country. So Monst
  • not sure if it's a weird financial tie or what, but I don't see why NYT articles that require a ridiculous logon procedure are posted so often here when easier options are available:

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/aptech_stor y.asp?category=1700&slug=Restricted%20Resumes

  • Monster.com: Unethical Pirates (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Crispin Cowan ( 20238 ) <crispin@NospAm.crispincowan.com> on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:32AM (#5817541) Homepage
    Two months ago, I posted some job ads (open position) to various forums, noting clearly that I did not want to work with recruiters or third parties. Then I started getting candidate applications responding to a post on flipdog.com (a Monster subsidiary). But I could not access this ad describing my own position unless I paid flipdog.com for the privilege.

    Advice to job seekers: never, ever, ever deal with Monster.com or their subsidiaries. I have monster.com and flipdog.com in my spam filters.

    Crispin
    ----
    Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
    Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. [wirex.com]
    Immunix: [immunix.org] Security Hardened Linux Distribution
    Available for purchase [wirex.com]

  • Ignorant Policy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jmping ( 641741 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:32AM (#5817542) Homepage
    The biggest problem in many of the countries that the United States is currently sanctioning is that (relative) poverty has driven people to hate the United States. Terrorism is a funtion of that very hatred of our economic superiority. The only way to deal with a problem like this is to address the economic discrepancies between our nation and theirs and help to allow countries and people that have gotten left behind to join the global community. By preventing US companies from hiring these people, job sites can exacerbate that discrepancy and become part of the problem instead of a possible solution.

    • Re:Ignorant Policy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @01:03AM (#5817647)
      So let me get this straight: it's OK to kill people because you're jealous of them? "I'm poor, so you deserve to die" is a corrupt, immoral philosophy, to say the least. Screw "cultural differences" - I haven't seen a single religion that says it's OK to kill someone and take his stuff just because he's done better in life than you.

      Also, why is it the US's responsibility to address the economic discrepancies? At the end of the day, the only person who can improve your lot in life is you. Certainly, it makes no sense to _reward_ countries which we consider our enemies with economic aid. It only amounts to simple blackmail. I also doubt that sending money to a corrupt regime would prove effective for anything except lining Swiss bank accounts.

      Throwing money at a problem isn't the solution. Some of these countries are still trying to get a grip on the aftershocks of centuries of BRITISH and FRENCH colonialism. If anyone's fully responsible for cleaning up some of those places, it's those two former colonial powers. Don't underestimate cultural problems which arose with colonization, such as corruption and the like. But, of course, it's much simpler to blame the US, as any /.'er has seen.

      This is not to say the US is blameless - indeed, every country makes mistakes, and the US certainly made more than its fair share of them. But thrusting full and total responsibility on the US for fixing broken former colonies is stupid. It is a problem which needs to be addressed by _EVERYONE_. The policy may or may not be ignorant, but your solution is certainly naive.

      -Erwos
    • It's an outdated, Marxist view of conflict as "class struggle".

      The fact is the majority of terrorism that exists today is state sponsored and has nothing to do with economics. To steal from Mark Steyn:

      As Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, neatly put it, 'We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.'.

      From the horses mouth, that little quote destroys your argument.

      Ultimately terrorism isn't about getting money, it's about getting power. After all,

  • Associated Press (Score:5, Informative)

    by ramzak2k ( 596734 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:32AM (#5817543)
    This is an associated press article and u can access it without the registration here [nwsource.com]

  • Proofreading wotj pleasure (Score:3, Funny)

    by AllieA ( 170303 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:42AM (#5817572) Homepage
    ".. including immigrants wotj ties to some of the countries in question.."

    Glad to see the New York Times have their spellcheckers working correctly.

  • I hope this doesn't start a trend.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by switched4OSX ( 668686 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:45AM (#5817578)
    Hopefully, companies will realize that there is some talent out there that cannot be filled by a US citizen. I'd like to see Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf get his own late -night talk show. He'd beat the crap out of Conan or Letterman (or at least strenously deny there presence).
  • Now if we can get india, china and russia out of the picture, We can bring programming jobs back!

    or not.

  • Old news, out of date (Score:5, Informative)

    by ActMatrix ( 246577 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @12:53AM (#5817611) Homepage
    Monster.com has already partially retracted this new policy. Now you just can't pick one of the blacklisted countries as a place you'd like to work. News.com has the updated [com.com] story.
  • Why doesn't monster.com do us all a favor and disallow resumes from India as well.
    Okay, okay, I'm kidding. Well, sort of.
  • For the last few months whenever I've been forced to register for any site, in the process of making up a fictitious address, I've set my country of origin to some random third world country. Afghanistan is nice and close to the top of the list, so it certainly gets used a lot. Otherwise, I tend to prefer Sudan. Lots of sun. Of course, I wouldn't do this on something like monster where they actually have a REASON for asking my address. I guess I'll have to stop though before the practice becomes more w

  • Off Topic: Spyware? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Seeker51 ( 596386 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @01:06AM (#5817657) Homepage
    Didn't know where else to put this, but I hope that one of the admins here will see it. A lot of your adds seem to be trying to install the Avenue A Inc. Cookie on my comp. Is Spyware really something Slashdot should be supporting?
    • Its almost impossible to get web based spyware using mozilla. IE is damn permissive in letting spyware into your box, espcially cookies.

  • Sanctions Instead of Military Force? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pantropik ( 604178 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @01:07AM (#5817663)
    Here is an interesting article [crosscurrents.org].

    An excerpt:

    The sanctions against Iraq, and the massive, long-term human suffering they have inflicted, have undermined this common view of sanctions. Since 1991, international agencies have documented Iraq's explosion in child mortality rates, water-borne diseases from untreated water supplies, malnutrition in large sectors of the population, and on and on. The most reliable estimate holds that 237,000 Iraqi children under five are dead as a result of sanctions, with other estimates going as high as one million.(2) The deaths from sanctions are far greater than the number of Iraqis directly killed in the Persian Gulf War -- an estimated 40,000 casualties, both military and civilian.(3) But the sanctions are shocking not only because of the extent of the human damage, but also because the suffering has been borne primarily by women, children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor; the state and the wealthy classes seem to be inconvenienced, but are otherwise exempt from extreme hardship.


    All this while Hussein et al were shitting on golden toilets. Did the sanctions hurt Saddam? Sure. But the damage done to the Iraqi people was orders of magnitude worse. Twelve years of sanctions, and what was accomplished? The task of removing Saddam through the use of military force was made easier, I suppose. But the primary reason for using sanctions in the first place is to avoid the use of military force. So, our sanctions against Iraq inconvenienced Saddam, killed a quarter-million children, and failed miserably at their stated purpose.

    Way to go, Monster. That'll teach 'em.
    • When the sanctions were in place the United States sent large quantities of food and medicine to help the common Iraqi people. Unfortunately, Saddam just gave the food and medicine to his military. The US decided that subsidizing the Iraqi military was not such a good idea, so the aid packages were terminated. Stop trying to blame the US for killing Iraqi citizens. We didn't do it. Saddam did it.

      BTW, using worst-case estimates for civilian casualties in the Iraqi war (aka Three Week War), fewer Iraqi

  • Why does it matter... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PhiloHmm ( 200352 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @01:35AM (#5817774)
    ...it's not like anybody is really hiring, sponsoring visas, etc. That and it sounds like a publicity stunt to me (no such thing as bad PR).

  • Oh No! (Score:4, Funny)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @01:42AM (#5817798) Journal

    I was planning to hire 20 contract programmers from Libya. Where else can I find some guys to code Java widgets? I'm like, so at a loss. Can anybody give me a clue as to some other country at least as big as Libya with lots of Java programmers for hire on the cheap? How can they do this to us. It just isn't fair.

  • Why? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 27, 2003 @01:42AM (#5817799)
    Why do we care? It's not like anyone is getting jobs off Monster anyways. How many phony recruiter postings do you have do view before you realize this.

    "Downtown firm seeking entry level technical professionals for a fast paced career with a competitive salary."

    You're better off working for frickin' Amway than trying Monster.
  • NEW YORK (AP) -- Monster.com says it is only trying to follow the rules.

    But the nation's largest Internet job board is taking heat from some users over a new policy blocking consumers or employers from seeking work or posting jobs in countries sanctioned by the U.S. government.

    Under the policy, which took effect Thursday, Monster will no longer allow posting of resumes or job openings originating from Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Sudan or Syria.

    In an e-mail explaining the change, Monste

  • Self-rightous post (Score:3, Funny)

    by Torgo's Pizza ( 547926 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @02:08AM (#5817894) Homepage Journal
    If you haven't had the opportunity for a really self-rightous post in a while, Monster.com has made it simple for you.

    Not to stray too far off topic here, but since when has any story submission not prevented people at Slashdot from making a self-rightous post? ;-)

  • Can this be legal? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jeti ( 105266 ) on Sunday April 27, 2003 @03:11AM (#5818050)
    (Ok, slashdot is not the place to ask this.)

    But don't the USA have laws against racism and discrimination that might apply?

Slashdot Top Deals

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Close