Wells Fargo fires employee for '72 shoplifting conviction

[11B4V]

 

Ugh. Tats. 

[Ed Anger]

Ugh. Tats. 

[11B4V]

Ugh. Tats. 

Just for you, I will post some hoties with tats at work tonite. Work safe of course.

[CountDeMoney]

OK, all you monkey fucks, as per usual, I'm ending this bullshit right now.

Just created an account on WellsFargo.com/careers, and progressed through the online profile creator.

1. Have you ever been employed by Wells Fargo, including any of its acquired, merged, or affiliated institutions, or any of its subsidiaries; or indirectly, through a vendor or as an independent contractor?
No
Yes
   
If yes, please list:
Job Title:
Job Location:
Manager Name:
Begin Date:
End Date:
   
2. Upon employment, can you provide document(s) to establish your identity and eligibility to work in the United States?
No
Yes
   
3. Would your employment eligibility be contingent on Wells Fargo sponsoring or transferring your work visa?
No
Yes

4. Have you ever been involuntarily discharged or asked to resign from a position?
No
Yes

5. Have you ever been disciplined for or the subject of an administrative order relating to conduct or practices involving any aspect of the financial services, insurance, securities or real estate industries or any other licensed industry or profession?
No
Yes
If yes, please explain:

6. Have you ever been convicted* of any crime involving dishonesty; breach of trust; fraud; theft; money laundering; or illegal manufacture, sale, distribution of, or trafficking in controlled substances?
No
Yes
If yes, please explain:

7. Have you ever committed an act of dishonesty or breach of trust (whether or not it resulted in conviction) in connection with any employment or against any Wells Fargo entity?
No
Yes
If yes, please explain:

8. Are you party to any agreement (e.g., non-compete or non-solicitation), that restricts your ability to perform the job you are applying for?
No
Yes
If yes, please explain:

9. Do you have any fiduciary appointments or board of directors positions?
No
Yes
If yes, please explain:
   
10. If you are currently employed, do you plan to continue that employment if you accept a job at Wells Fargo?
No
Yes
If yes, please explain:

11. May we contact your current employer?
No (or not currently employed)
Yes
   
12. Do you own your own business?
No
Yes
If yes, please explain:

13. Are you related to, or do you have a close personal relationship with any employees, temporary workers, contract employees, or board members of Wells Fargo or its subsidiaries?
No
Yes
If yes, please provide:
Name of Relative or Other Individual:
Relationship:
Line of Business Name and Location:
   
14. Are you 18 years of age or older?
No
Yes
   
15. Prior to employment, you will be required to pass a criminal background check. Are you willing to submit to a background check?
No
Yes      
   
   

*For crimes involving dishonesty or breach of trust, "convicted" includes a plea of guilty, nolo contendre, no contest, or similar plea, participation in a pretrial diversion or deferred entry of judgment program even if the program was completed and charges were dismissed, bail forfeiture, or verdict or finding of guilt, with respect to either a felony or misdemeanor. You may omit juvenile court convictions and completely expunged convictions. For all other crimes, the definition of "conviction" is the same, except it does not include participation in a pretrial diversion or deferred entry of judgment program if charges were ultimately dismissed.

[dps]

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?

I have no idea about the details of the Wells Fargo online job application, nor do I have any idea just how limited grumbler's experience with applying for jobs is, personally, over the past 30-some years, I've applied for a wide variety of jobs in the US, from entry-level positions to fairly high-level management jobs, at a wide variety of employers, from fast food joints to manufacturing plants, to governments, and to the best of my recollection, I've also never seen a job application that doens't ask the question.

[grumbler]

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.

Not sure what assumption you are talking about here.  The assumption that her app was like every job app I have seen, and included a section for prior criminal convictions?  I never denied being the first to point out the obvious. 

What I am mocking you for is your strawman argument that I somehow communicated to you (but not, apparently, to anyone else) a "Grumbler theory that she was terminated for dishonesty."  I can understand why you are pretending now that you cannot read the postings in which I mock you for this, and it is fine with me that you do so.

[grumbler]

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.

We can use my assumption that my experiences apply generally, or we can use your assumption that "it is just as likely that the question was not asked."  My assumption is based on experience, yours on rectal extraction.  I don't see how following my experience is so much more a "glaring logical error" than following shit that you made up on the spot.

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?

None of your questions are relevant, as plain logic would tell you.  If we must assume something about the appearance of the question on her application, we don't need to know the date of the application, we just need to look at whether the application asks the question today, and whether there is any reason to believe the question didn't appear in the past.  That's what assumptions are; they are placeholders for facts when we don't have the facts. 

My assumption follows the rules of logic.  Your assumption follows the rules of desperate rectal extraction.

Do you know anything?

I know many things, including how to think logically and how to use assumptions.  Unlike, methinks, you.

[11B4V]

OK, all you monkey fucks, as per usual, I'm ending this bullshit right now.

Just created an account on WellsFargo.com/careers, and progressed through the online profile creator.

You are to late methinks. That train left the station. Or the missiles their launch tubes.

[dps]

OK, all you monkey fucks, as per usual, I'm ending this bullshit right now.

Just created an account on WellsFargo.com/careers, and progressed through the online profile creator.

You are to late methinks. That train left the station. Or the missiles their launch tubes.

Well, we do know that they have at least one recent job opening.   

[The Brain]

If you lie to me about old convictions I will be pretty damn disinclined to keep you around.

[Barrister]

From Money's research:

*For crimes involving dishonesty or breach of trust, "convicted" includes a plea of guilty, nolo contendre, no contest, or similar plea, participation in a pretrial diversion or deferred entry of judgment program even if the program was completed and charges were dismissed, bail forfeiture, or verdict or finding of guilt, with respect to either a felony or misdemeanor. You may omit juvenile court convictions and completely expunged convictions. For all other crimes, the definition of "conviction" is the same, except it does not include participation in a pretrial diversion or deferred entry of judgment program if charges were ultimately dismissed.

So I think I was right - she could have gotten the conviction expunged some time in the last 40 years, and thus would have been able to get the job.

[DGuller]

If you lie to me about old convictions I will be pretty damn disinclined to keep you around.

Meh, in this case, I can't agree.  If you make the penalty for telling the truth the worst possible punishment, then what incentive is there to be truthful?  If she didn't lie, she would be guaranteed to have no job at all, whereas in this case she got five years of employment out of it. 

If you want people to tell the truth, don't punish them for it, or at least don't punish them as heavily as you would for lying.  Condemning people for lying when you yourself make truth-telling an idiotic course of action is dumb.

[DGuller]

That reminds me of an episode where my friend was busted for smoking pot by undercover NYPD cops.  They got really pissed and become utter assholes because he didn't admit to smoking the joint.  As a result, they hauled him to jail for a couple of hours and set up a court appearance.  If, instead, he admitted to smoking pot, he would be hauled to jail for a couple of hours and would have a court appearance set up.

[The Brain]

If you lie to me about old convictions I will be pretty damn disinclined to keep you around.

Meh, in this case, I can't agree.  If you make the penalty for telling the truth the worst possible punishment, then what incentive is there to be truthful?  If she didn't lie, she would be guaranteed to have no job at all, whereas in this case she got five years of employment out of it. 

If you want people to tell the truth, don't punish them for it, or at least don't punish them as heavily as you would for lying.  Condemning people for lying when you yourself make truth-telling an idiotic course of action is dumb.

What do you mean? Why wouldn't I hire someone with an old conviction who didn't lie to me about it?

[Zanza]

We seem to be more lenient regarding past crimes than the USA. Having shop lifted forty years ago wouldn't even show on your official criminal record here anymore as crimes are expunged after certain periods if you don't reoffend (exception for some very severe felonies) and you are officially considered to not have a criminal record again. A single case of shop-lifting would probably no longer show on your criminal record after five years and certainly not after fifteen years.