Wells Fargo fires employee for '72 shoplifting conviction

[Caliga]

Past behavior predicts future behavior.

[crazy canuck]

People here are assuming she lied.  There is no indication in the story that she did.  It is just as likely that the question was not asked and she was simply offered the job pending a background check - which is very common.

[DGuller]

People here are assuming she lied.  There is no indication in the story that she did.  It is just as likely that the question was not asked and she was simply offered the job pending a background check - which is very common.

There must've been a hell of a backlog at the background check company.

[Darth Wagtaros]

People here are assuming she lied.  There is no indication in the story that she did.  It is just as likely that the question was not asked and she was simply offered the job pending a background check - which is very common.

There must've been a hell of a backlog at the background check company.

Background checks aren't usually very thorough.  But I'd be very surprised if she wasn't asked during an interview or the application if she had any convictions.  I was asked when I applied at Wendy's in high school.

[PDH]

But I'd be very surprised if she wasn't asked during an interview or the application if she had any convictions.  I was asked when I applied at Wendy's in high school.

Wags - "Convicted of LOVING Wendy's!!!!"

Manager (in clip on tie) - "This guy is a little too eager to make hamburgers."

[Darth Wagtaros]

But I'd be very surprised if she wasn't asked during an interview or the application if she had any convictions.  I was asked when I applied at Wendy's in high school.

Wags - "Convicted of LOVING Wendy's!!!!"

Manager (in clip on tie) - "This guy is a little too eager to make hamburgers."

It was worse than that. I couldn't even get a job at Wendy's. Though seeing how self-destructive it made my friends I guess it was a good thing.

[garbon]

People here are assuming she lied.  There is no indication in the story that she did.  It is just as likely that the question was not asked and she was simply offered the job pending a background check - which is very common.

There must've been a hell of a backlog at the background check company.

Mine took place a couple months after I got hired.

[Jaron]

I have to go through a background check at work. They're giving me access to their accounting database.

[crazy canuck]

I might add that the reason the company gave for firing her was not that she lied but that they were forced by the legislation to terminate her once they discovered the prior conviction.  That lends more support that the Grumbler theory that she was terminated for dishonesty is pure speculation and likely wrong.

[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.

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

As a blanket rule, no.

But when you're entrusted with handling money?  Pretty sure they can.

[MadBurgerMaker]

I might add that the reason the company gave for firing her was not that she lied but that they were forced by the legislation to terminate her once they discovered the prior conviction.  That lends more support that the Grumbler theory that she was terminated for dishonesty is pure speculation and likely wrong.

If she had said she had done this when she applied, they wouldn't have hired her in the first place.

[crazy canuck]

I might add that the reason the company gave for firing her was not that she lied but that they were forced by the legislation to terminate her once they discovered the prior conviction.  That lends more support that the Grumbler theory that she was terminated for dishonesty is pure speculation and likely wrong.

If she had said she had done this when she applied, they wouldn't have hired her in the first place.

and?

[DontSayBanana]

Actually, she could easily have thought she didn't actually need to report it; a lot of criminal check questions I've seen on applications read something alone the lines of "Have you been convicted of any crimes?  Do not include minor traffic offenses or convictions greater than 10 years ago."

[MadBurgerMaker]

E:  ^^  The ones I've seen for places like this are usually pretty clear, and they usually seem to omit shit like traffic violations ^^

and?

Which part don't you understand?  The part where she would have been disqualified in the first place, or the part where she failed to mention the thing that would have disqualified her?

[CountDeMoney]

I might add that the reason the company gave for firing her was not that she lied but that they were forced by the legislation to terminate her once they discovered the prior conviction.  That lends more support that the Grumbler theory that she was terminated for dishonesty is pure speculation and likely wrong.

I dunno...not a labor lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there's a few legal backstops to protect existing employees from retroactively applied termination rules.