Sow’s Ear

He’s always dealt with the specific project managers themselves. Never HR.
Half the problem is HR filtering the job applicants.
The other half is HR disciplining employees.
The third half is HR conducting “sensitivity” and “bias” training programs.

Thus demonstrating Lindsay’s greatest sin: Exposing the Maoists to public scrutiny and ridicule.
I ought to write an article on the many inexpensive ways one can record one’s surroundings in a virtually undetectable manner. One day everyone will be James O’Keefe out of sheer necessity.
HR had bugger all to do with hiring
They don’t have to have anything to do with hiring to run the company with an iron fist. The last two companies I worked for, engineering firms both, were absolutely dominated by the HR staff. Who were to a woman a bunch of bitter, incompetent and jealous old bints.

And we’re not just talking out of our ass, like we’re smart as fuck, you know what I mean? We read books, and we know shit;
Uhm, yes, you are, in fact, talking out of your ass.
You are, as a group, and as individuals, a strikingly banal gaggle of ass-talkers. In fact, listening to you, I can tell that you can’t actually *do* anything, except talk out of your ass.
You don’t belong in university, at all. The only reason you are in university at all is because it makes a certain class of overly-credentialed white women and soft-as-silky-pajamas white men feel better about themselves. Well, that, and your skin color is currently fashionable. You are a drag on society. You add nothing and subtract a considerable amount.
You don’t belong in a trade school, either. They’d kick you out for being an arrogant pecker-headed moron who can’t learn.
You belong in a care home for illiterate sub-morons.
You deserve to be ignored and/or scorned until you produce something that someone else is willing to pay for. Until then, fuck off.

You don’t belong in university, at all.
The Mao-lings’ fitness for a learning environment does seem rather doubtful, and their behaviour is an insult to those who do belong there, and who’ve worked hard to get there, and who are keen to make the most of their expensive, one-time opportunity. And contrary to the fantasies of many leftist educators, you can’t hammer an above-average IQ into just anyone’s brain.
Or as my dear grey-haired gran used to say, you can’t shovel toothpaste up a hummingbird’s arse.

Half the problem is HR filtering the job applicants.
I can remember HR insisting that I interviewed a batch of applicants from their “preferred supplier”. None of them had any of the basic skills for my bit of the business. I lasted two before throwing my teddies out of the pram.
I later found out that the reason they thought I should insist was that our department’s specialist suppliers didn’t provide diverse enough candidates. (By this point I had a Sikh, two women and even a Kiwi amongst my core team.)

Very few HR people have technical knowledge, which in itself is not that big of a deal but additionally they are increasingly populated with non-techies who have a resentment of technical types.
Which is why I am seriously thinking of going into HR. I reckon a guy with HR qualifications and common sense with a technical background will be as rare as hen’s teeth. Sure, many corporations wouldn’t employ me, but I suspect one or two smaller companies might, particularly start-ups looking to expand and reluctantly conceding they need to hire an HR manager.

Which is why I am seriously thinking of going into HR. I reckon a guy with HR qualifications and common sense with a technical background will be as rare as hen’s teeth
Yes. My observations have had me consider similar career change. But it would have to be similar to as you say, a smaller company where all I did was recruitment. Just going on recruiting trips with HR people in a larger corporation has convinced me that I could not stomach being surrounded by such people 40 hours a week. And I have no desire to push paper around to satisfy government bureaucrats. So of course my options would be quite limited.

Revise and extend: before it goes down the memory hole, the story causing the Campus KGB to destroy the papers at WLU.
RTWT as the kids say, it is actual reporting, just the facts, no opining, and not a damn thing that anyone among the perpetually aggrieved would find offensive or controversial except perhaps their own words in a quote from the WLU “Rainbow Centre” which is the usual “my feels are hurt” SJW boilerplate jabberwocky.

“Characterizing these debates as “polarizing” is a misrepresentation of the incredible inequity on which they are founded, requiring trans people to defend their humanity against arguments that invalidate their experiences of gender. Silencing the voices of trans people in this context only compounds the transphobic violence which has been inherent in this discussion and has created an environment in which trans students fear to speak out against transphobia.

I wish they would come up with a new shitck once in a while. The good news, however, is that WLU may take it in the wallet.

Shepherd said that since the situation was publicized, she has received hundreds of emails from Laurier alumni and other individuals who have allegedly told Shepherd they will be ceasing to provide donations to Laurier and will not be recommending Laurier to potential students.

However, Thoughtcriminal Shepherd goes on with her violent™ heresy.

However, Shepherd said she stands firm in her stance that a university should be able to discuss controversial topics despite the possibility that it might offend an individual or a group of individuals.

She needs to didi mao from that miserable place ASAP.

I ought to write an article on the many inexpensive ways one can record one’s surroundings in a virtually undetectable manner. One day everyone will be James O’Keefe out of sheer necessity.

That sounds well worth reading but you’d need to be very careful, at least in the U.S. Surreptitiously recording people in some jurisdictions can land you on the wrong side of a wiretapping charge (I believe) and looking at a long stretch in the pokey.

And I have no desire to push paper around to satisfy government bureaucrats.

I completely agree, and that’s how the bastards win. They make it too boring for anyone of a normal disposition to stomach and ensure they’re left alone to wreak havoc.

Are we certain about this, though?
Oh, there’d be angry letters. A Twitter campaign at least.

In others, all parties must consent. As you might imagine the latter jurisdictions tend to be (though not exclusively) those with more progressive governments, which don’t care to have their or their allies’ activities subject to public scrutiny
Yep, that’s California, which will applaud a progressive animal-rights groups gathering secret video tapes inside a slaughter house of cows (investigative journalism, you know), but has our toady Attorney General going after pro-life investigative journalists exposing the trafficking in baby parts.

But how often do I get to say “cat lady comeuppance”? 🐱

Surreptitiously recording people in some jurisdictions can land you on the wrong side of a wiretapping charge (I believe) and looking at a long stretch in the pokey.
Better to have incriminating material and not use than not have it when you need it. Given a choice between a spurious “wiretapping” charge and having one’s career, livelihood and potentially freedom destroyed by a malicious monolithic bureaucracy, one sometimes must make hard choices.

Cat lady comeuppance
An odd story, oddly written:
She was allegedly upset with Gov. Abbott for not receiving support from her ex-husband.
Federal investigators say they were able to connect Poff to the packages using pieces of the shipping labels, and also matched cat hair found in the box mailed to President Obama with her cat.
I don’t care how upset she was that the governor of Texas wasn’t supported by her ex-husband, it’s no excuse for her to mail her cat to the president.

sH2: Has anyone tried?

… we know shit
Agreed.

See also, Linda Tripp recording Monica Lewinsky during Oval Office B.J. controversy of the mid-90’s.

Better to have incriminating material and not use than not have it when you need it.

Yes, despite the potential legal difficulties it’s always better to have proof and not need it then to be desperately in need and empty handed. Daniel’s comment prompted the memory that incriminating, but illegally obtained, evidence saved the protagonist’s bacon in Bonfire of the Vanities.