Wells Fargo fires employee for '72 shoplifting conviction

[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.

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.

See my comment about stupid rules you Yanks legislate from time to time.

[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.

See my comment about stupid rules you Yanks legislate from time to time.

That's far too much reading for me this late at night. 

[11B4V]

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.

See my comment about stupid rules you Yanks legislate from time to time.

[Ideologue]

I'm curious as to how it got on the radar in the first place.

Yeah, lying on an application is an instant termination, but today's background verification services are principally phone- and internet-based, and to be honest, bullshit from the early 70s very rarely gets transferred into modern storage media unless it had lead to serious jail time.

Hell, we can't always get traffic citation history prior to 1990 anymore.

An arrest record from 1972?  Somebody had to go digging through the archives, log books and microfiche in the county courthouse sub-basement for that one.  It's all paper and triplicate, typed Barney Miller-style.  You would really have to look for that stuff;  even the FBI fingerprint database doesn't go that far back.

Unless it popped in the process for a new position she was looking at, and went through another round of background interviews, and tipped her own hand.

[Jaron]

I'm curious as to how it got on the radar in the first place.

Yeah, lying on an application is an instant termination, but today's background verification services are principally phone- and internet-based, and to be honest, bullshit from the early 70s very rarely gets transferred into modern storage media unless it had lead to serious jail time.

Hell, we can't always get traffic citation history prior to 1990 anymore.

An arrest record from 1972?  Somebody had to go digging through the archives, log books and microfiche in the county courthouse sub-basement for that one.  It's all paper and triplicate, typed Barney Miller-style.  You would really have to look for that stuff;  even the FBI fingerprint database doesn't go that far back.

Unless it popped in the process for a new position she was looking at, and went through another round of background interviews, and tipped her own hand.

[Ideologue]

Oops. Yis gonna be mad.

Anyway, yeah, my old (redacted) conviction from 1999 is only findable if you already knew about it, in complete detail--and even then it took someone who knew the ecact date of the arrest over an hour to find!

[Razgovory]

You look a lot better in a Bikini then I thought you would.

[11B4V]

You look a lot better in a Bikini then I thought you would.

AND I PLAY WITH MY BOOBIES TO BE SURE.

[grumbler]

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.

It is not very common in the US to have job applications that don't ask about prior convictions.  I've never seen one.  The WF online application asks the question.  I don't know how you can reach the conclusion that "it is just as likely that the question was not asked" unless you are just pulling that out of your ass.  Do you have any actual knowledge about the Wells Fargo job application that isn't in the public domain?

[Caliga]

Yeah, asking that question on a job application is standard.  If Wells Fargo didn't do so, that's a huge oversight on the part of their HR and legal departments.

[grumbler]

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.

You might not be a labor lawyer, or any kind of a lawyer, but I'll bet you can read better than CC can, since he has somehow morphed something I said into a "Grumbler theory that she was terminated for dishonesty"!   

Normally cRAZY cANUCK waits a few more posts down the road before he starts building his straw men.  Must be in a rush this time.

[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.

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.

See my comment about stupid rules you Yanks legislate from time to time.

Ok, you got me.  Yanks dont confine their stupidity to rules making.

[crazy canuck]

You might not be a labor lawyer, or any kind of a lawyer, but I'll bet you can read better than CC can, since he has somehow morphed something I said into a "Grumbler theory that she was terminated for dishonesty"!   

Ok if you want to deny the fact you were the fist to mention the assumption and state it as fact.  Fine with me.  I can understand why you would want to do that.

[Ed Anger]

Ugh. Tats. 

[crazy canuck]

I've never seen one. 

Given the jobs you have had I am not particularly surprised.  I am also not surprised that you would makes such a glaring logical error of generalizing your rather limited experience to everyone else.

The WF online application asks the question.  I don't know how you can reach the conclusion that "it is just as likely that the question was not asked" unless you are just pulling that out of your ass.  Do you have any actual knowledge about the Wells Fargo job application that isn't in the public domain?

Do you know when that application began to be used?  Do you know whether the online application is the same one she filled out?  Or are you just pulling stuff out of your ass to justify an assumption?

Do you know anything?