|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Jul 2, 2014 13:30:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 4, 2014 7:16:10 GMT -5
If she is qualified for a spot in the NFL then I would hate to see her bypassed because she is female. That being said, I would not hire her just because she is female
|
|
|
|
Post by JAYJAYSTRIPES on Jul 5, 2014 7:04:03 GMT -5
Mike:
To me I think there will be detractors on either side of the ball, this is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't.
The article mentions two female officials, who's the other, I must have missed that when it was announced.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jul 5, 2014 8:25:15 GMT -5
Maia Chaka is also in the program this year
|
|
|
|
Post by I've been warned on Jul 7, 2014 16:10:32 GMT -5
If she is qualified for a spot in the NFL then I would hate to see her bypassed because she is female. That being said, I would not hire her just because she is female I agree, Mike. I'm finding that out now myself. I've been unemployed for 10 months and am constantly running up against potential employers who give "veterans preference" to those who qualify. Please don't misunderstand -- there is nobody on the planet more thankful or appreciative of what our veterans, past and present, have given to our country than I am; but I don't believe that status should move you to the front of the line for a job for which, all other things being equal, you're not the best candidate. If there are multiple candidates all equally-qualified in every respect and one is a veteran and the others aren't -- fine, hire the veteran. Don't hire the veteran just BECAUSE of that status. Sarah Thomas should be evaluated the same way... her gender should mean nothing in the selection process. I'm sure she would want it that way. |
|
|
|
Post by FredFan7 on Jul 7, 2014 16:24:19 GMT -5
Hang in there, mdhutton. I was unemployed for three years before getting a job about a year ago.
|
|
