Wells Fargo fires employee for '72 shoplifting conviction

[Darth Wagtaros]

Again, this isn't like she's applying for a job at the supermarket or something. It's a bank.  They and their customers don't necessarily want a convicted thief working there. Think of the scandal.

I guess this is another cultural gulf with Americans.  Fuck up in one really minor incident 40 years ago, except to pay for it for the rest of your life = reasonable

It would be the same here - lying on your application form is grounds for termination.

Yeah, except would the same need to lie in the first place exist - i.e. no forgiving of past minor sins?

[CountDeMoney]

Again, this isn't like she's applying for a job at the supermarket or something. It's a bank.  They and their customers don't necessarily want a convicted thief working there. Think of the scandal.

Think it's tough working for a financial institution with an arrest record dating back to the Nixon Administration? 
Try doing it with a credit rating below 750.

Ladies, want a man with ironclad credit?  Date an armored car driver.

[MadImmortalMan]

Maybe she didn't lie about it originally, and that's how the bank knew. Maybe they didn't have a problem with it when they hired her, but then this law comes along...

[Darth Wagtaros]

Again, this isn't like she's applying for a job at the supermarket or something. It's a bank.  They and their customers don't necessarily want a convicted thief working there. Think of the scandal.

Think it's tough working for a financial institution with an arrest record dating back to the Nixon Administration? 
Try doing it with a credit rating below 750.

Ladies, want a man with ironclad credit?  Date an armored car driver.

Yes. Executives dont want the competition.

[crazy canuck]

My guess is it was discovered during some kind of promotion process.  She was after all an excellent employee.  Wouldnt that be ironic.

The US has all kinds of odd rules regarding ineligability to work because of prior convictions.  You folks are not exactly the forgiving types.

[Barrister]

I guess this is another cultural gulf with Americans.  Fuck up in one really minor incident 40 years ago, except to pay for it for the rest of your life = reasonable

It would be the same here - lying on your application form is grounds for termination.

Yeah, except would the same need to lie in the first place exist - i.e. no forgiving of past minor sins?

An employer is perfectly entitled to ask whether or not you have been convicted of a crime of dishonesty for which you have not been granted a pardon.

[Razgovory]

I wonder if I can get a pardon for the traffic ticket back in 2001.  I am genuinely sorry.

[dps]

My guess is it was discovered during some kind of promotion process.  She was after all an excellent employee.  Wouldnt that be ironic.

The US has all kinds of odd rules regarding ineligability to work because of prior convictions.  You folks are not exactly the forgiving types.

I think that in general, we're much too forgiving, actually.

[Barrister]

My guess is it was discovered during some kind of promotion process.  She was after all an excellent employee.  Wouldnt that be ironic.

The US has all kinds of odd rules regarding ineligability to work because of prior convictions.  You folks are not exactly the forgiving types.

I think that in general, we're much too forgiving, actually.

Disagree.

Raz - up here records of traffic convictions are only retained for 10 years.

[crazy canuck]

I guess this is another cultural gulf with Americans.  Fuck up in one really minor incident 40 years ago, except to pay for it for the rest of your life = reasonable

It would be the same here - lying on your application form is grounds for termination.

Yeah, except would the same need to lie in the first place exist - i.e. no forgiving of past minor sins?

An employer is perfectly entitled to ask whether or not you have been convicted of a crime of dishonesty for which you have not been granted a pardon.

Not in BC they dont.  There may be circumstances in which they can but there is no such blanket rule.

[mongers]

No surprise that there's a lack of compassion from the usual suspect, for someone else difficulties.

[crazy canuck]

My guess is it was discovered during some kind of promotion process.  She was after all an excellent employee.  Wouldnt that be ironic.

The US has all kinds of odd rules regarding ineligability to work because of prior convictions.  You folks are not exactly the forgiving types.

I think that in general, we're much too forgiving, actually.

A case in point which may change your view.  The case is currently on reserve in the District of Columbia Appeals Court - I think thats how you refer to it.

Anyway people are awaiting the decision for a number of reasons that I wont bore you with but for the purposes of this thread here is the silly rule part.



An in house lawyer who was also a part of the executive of a drug company was, under the regulations, liable by way of payment of a fine for a breach of the regulations of the company.  The breach was minor and the lawyer had no knowedge the breach had occured and the evidence was there was not way he could have known.  But the regulation created a strict liability offence meaning he was guitly of the offence simply by virture of holding that office.  OK fair enough. He pled guilty since there was no defence (it being a strict liability offence) and he paid the fine - a very minor amount.

It was basically a pro forma slap on the wrist.


Now here is the silly part.  There was another statute that said that anyone convicted of an offence under the other statute would not be permitted to be employed by a drug company for 10 years.  As a result, by operation of the statute this guy who was blameless and convicted on a strict liability offence could no longer work in his field.

The lower court upheld the decision to ban and this is one of the issues being considered by the Appellate Court.

[crazy canuck]

No surprise that there's a lack of compassion from the usual suspect, for someone else difficulties.

What do you mean. I have plenty of compassion in this thread.

[Admiral Yi]

No surprise that there's a lack of compassion from the usual suspect, for someone else difficulties.

I didn't think Wells Fargo's situation was all that bad really.

[Monoriu]

I will be very surprised if a bank doesn't fire such an employee.  The HK government will certainly do so.  The point isn't the date of the crime.  It is the employee lied.