Opinion: The president of the senate just said nepotism is not morally wrong; we’re not kidding

[Rhys]

...the tokers union strikes...

[Stargeezr]

Could it be that they do not know the meaning of nepotism?

[jacob29]

On 6/21/2022 at 8:51 AM, KhunLA said:

I don't think it is wrong, for anywhere, for any citation.  Gov't or workplace.

 

As long as they are qualified, or can learn the job, task at hand quickly, why not hire someone you know & trust.

Just like it's not wrong to accept a bribe or kickback for giving someone a position eh? As long as they are qualified, or can learn the job, why not hire someone who gives you a bit of money under the table.

[KhunLA]

10 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

Just like it's not wrong to accept a bribe or kickback 

Please point out where I stated that.

[Will B Good]

Only place nepotism would be acceptable in my book is a privately owned company.....not in a public company and certainly not in the equivalent of the civil service or government.

 

Nepotism is rife in the UK government, with ministers and MP's employing a spouse daughter, son.......and in Bunter's case, if he had got away with it, his lover (recently invited to leave her employment with the Tory party having fiddled her expenses)

[Enzian]

Nepos is a Latin word that started out during the Roman Republic meaning grandson but which came over time to be used more often for nephew. When Julius Caesar died (unexpected to him) his will revealed he had designated his great nephew Gaius Octavius (his nepos magnus) to be his adopted son and heir. Octavian of course, as Emperor Caesar Augustus, went on to found the Julio Claudian dynasty, thus providing the greatest example of nepotism in history.

 

Edited June 23, 2022 by Enzian

[jacob29]

On 6/23/2022 at 10:00 AM, KhunLA said:

Please point out where I stated that.

I never said you stated that. However your justification for nepotism can be equally applied to these other variants of corruption. Unless you can explain the difference?

[KhunLA]

39 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

I never said you stated that. However your justification for nepotism can be equally applied to these other variants of corruption. Unless you can explain the difference?

No, it can not be equally applied.  I stated nothing wrong with nepo... IF.. qualified (enough) & honest people are filling the jobs.   Those 2 eliminate the variants of corruption.

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, KhunLA said:

No, it can not be equally applied.  I stated nothing wrong with nepo... IF.. qualified (enough) & honest people are filling the jobs.   Those 2 eliminate the variants of corruption.

So in your opinion government employees who can influence hiring have no obligation to hire the best qualified for a job.  A job in which pay and benefits are not paid by the hiring official but by the taxpayers.

 

In other words, it's not problem for a bigshot with influence to hire a barely qualified and otherwise unemployable relative at taxpayer expense.

 

I'm curious, are you a past beneficiary of nepotism?

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

So in your opinion government employees who can influence hiring have no obligation to hire the best qualified for a job.  A job in which pay and benefits are not paid by the hiring official but by the taxpayers.

 

In other words, it's not problem for a bigshot with influence to hire a barely qualified and otherwise unemployable relative at taxpayer expense.

 

I'm curious, are you a past beneficiary of nepotism?

If you had good reading comprehension, you'd stop replying to me, as nothing in your replies has yet to be relevant to anything I've posted.

 

Please stop quoting me ... THANK YOU

Have a nice day ... PEACE OUT

[jacob29]

On 6/27/2022 at 3:31 PM, KhunLA said:

No, it can not be equally applied.  I stated nothing wrong with nepo... IF.. qualified (enough) & honest people are filling the jobs.   Those 2 eliminate the variants of corruption.

If qualified and honest people are giving brown envelopes to get the job, yes it applies equally. Multiple applicants may be qualified and honest, where the brown envelope tips the scales. 

[KhunLA]

6 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

If qualified and honest people are giving brown envelopes to get the job, yes it applies equally. Multiple applicants may be qualified and honest, where the brown envelope tips the scales. 

You may want to read that back to yourself.

 

Would an honest person, pay to get a job ?  Also, if so called nepo. job, doesn't say much about the family or friend doing the hiring.

 

I'll add you to the ever growing list it seems of posters with extreme reading comprehension difficulty.

[jacob29]

Just now, KhunLA said:

Would an honest person, pay to get a job ?  Also, if so called nepo. job, doesn't say much about the family or friend doing the hiring.

If they shared your worldview that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with favouring one applicant over another equally qualified candidate, provided they are qualified and honest (or can learn the job).. yes why wouldn't they? That's the core issue here, it's not about specifically family favouritism, but in general favouring a less qualified candidate for reasons unrelated to qualifications for the job. If the person was in fact the ideal applicant, it ceases to be nepotism. Though conflict of interest remains a concern as far as that judgement goes.

 

You may as well ask would an 'honest' family member accept a job when they knew there were more qualified candidates more deserving of the job. Of course some would.

[KhunLA]

2 minutes ago, jacob29 said:

If they shared your worldview that there's nothing fundamentally wrong with favouring one applicant over another equally qualified candidate, provided they are qualified and honest (or can learn the job).. yes why wouldn't they? That's the core issue here, it's not about specifically family favouritism, but in general favouring a less qualified candidate for reasons unrelated to qualifications for the job. If the person was in fact the ideal applicant, it ceases to be nepotism. Though conflict of interest remains a concern as far as that judgement goes.

 

You may as well ask would an 'honest' family member accept a job when they knew there were more qualified candidates more deserving of the job. Of course some would.

Mind boggling ... words escape me ????

[jacob29]

3 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Mind boggling ... words escape me ????

Entirely unsurprising, as there are no words to justify nepotism. In case it wasn't entirely clear, not every situation where someone hires a family member is nepotism, but it certainly warrants oversight.

 

Also when you say honest - honest to whom? Honest to other family members? That's not a predictor of being honest to the business. If your family is into graft (as some are), that hire could be perfectly honest to family members, but that says nothing of whether they're good for the company/department. You seem to conveniently ignore all of this, there's a good reason why it's almost universally acknowledged as problematic. The potential for abuse is too high.

[fgmr]

On 6/21/2022 at 7:09 AM, klauskunkel said:

Yup. It's genetic. Having the right genes makes one righteous, not corrupt.

LOL, corruption in Thailand is righteous already. Why change the status quo?

 

 

[heybruce]

21 hours ago, KhunLA said:

If you had good reading comprehension, you'd stop replying to me, as nothing in your replies has yet to be relevant to anything I've posted.

 

Please stop quoting me ... THANK YOU

Have a nice day ... PEACE OUT

I have above average reading ability.  You talk about merely qualified, I maintain that people who work for the public and are paid by the taxpayers have an obligation to hire the best qualified.

 

In you defense of nepotism you have studiously avoided the subject of hiring the best qualified.  Perhaps that is because you know nepotism rarely results in the best qualified getting the job.

 

You seem to have a stubborn bias in favor of nepotism.  Have you benefited from the practice?  Have you practiced nepotism?

[bendejo]

Patriotism and defense of family are two of the favorite hiding places of the coward.  When they get real adamant it's a sign they feel the threat closing in on them.

 

 

[it is what it is]

53 minutes ago, bendejo said:

Patriotism and defense of family are two of the favorite hiding places of the coward.  When they get real adamant it's a sign they feel the threat closing in on them.

 

 

 

as mr zimmerman said; patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings

[jacob29]

On 6/29/2022 at 1:53 AM, heybruce said:

defense of nepotism you have studiously avoided the subject of hiring the best qualified.  

After hiring a cousin, I can picture the awkward conversation with big boss when it doesn't work out..

 

Boss - "This new hire doesn't have the skills for this job, why is it so hard to find employees with relevant experience? Do we need to increase the salary?"

 

"Well about that boss, we had multiple qualified candidates.. but my cousin promised me they could learn the skills quickly, and I trust them!"