Wells Fargo fires employee for '72 shoplifting conviction

[grumbler]

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.

The punishment for lying is that you now not only don't have a job, but you have to explain to future employers why you were fired from Brainiac, Inc.  If you had told the truth, Brainiac Inc would have mentioned that they couldn't hire you for that position because of the conviction (if applicable) and no harm done.

Lying to Brainiac Inc may get you five years of salary, but also a problem to explain.  Telling the truth gets you five years of salary at some place that doesn't have the problem with the old conviction, plus no albatross around your neck from Brainiac Inc.

That all seems about right to me.

[DGuller]

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

Because you would be barred from doing it?  You can't take the lying out of context, she presumably lied to avoid a blanket disqualification.  That doesn't mean that she would lie under every circumstance.  Obviously if you don't disqualify someone for having a conviction, then my point about telling the truth guaranteeing the worst possible outcome wouldn't apply, but neither would your point.  You can't divorce actions from incentives.

[grumbler]

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.

A system like that makes sense from the common-sense standpoint, as well as the cost standpoint (no paying for keeping the old records, no possibility of having to pay an investigative firm to dig out the old records to find trivial stuff like this).

[The Brain]

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

Because you would be barred from doing it?  You can't take the lying out of context, she presumably lied to avoid a blanket disqualification.  That doesn't mean that she would lie under every circumstance.  Obviously if you don't disqualify someone for having a conviction, then my point about telling the truth guaranteeing the worst possible outcome wouldn't apply, but neither would your point.  You can't divorce actions from incentives.

Why would I be barred from hiring someone with an old conviction? And why wouldn't my point apply? If you lie to me about an old conviction I am unlikely to hire you and likely to fire you.

From the person's perspective you have option A: tell the truth and get job, and option B: lie and don't get job. Works for me.

[DGuller]

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

Because you would be barred from doing it?  You can't take the lying out of context, she presumably lied to avoid a blanket disqualification.  That doesn't mean that she would lie under every circumstance.  Obviously if you don't disqualify someone for having a conviction, then my point about telling the truth guaranteeing the worst possible outcome wouldn't apply, but neither would your point.  You can't divorce actions from incentives.

Why would I be barred from hiring someone with an old conviction? And why wouldn't my point apply? If you lie to me about an old conviction I am unlikely to hire you and likely to fire you.

From the person's perspective you have option A: tell the truth and get job, and option B: lie and don't get job. Works for me.

Because the context of the current situation is that people with her conviction cannot legally hold the job they're applying for.

[The Brain]

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

Because you would be barred from doing it?  You can't take the lying out of context, she presumably lied to avoid a blanket disqualification.  That doesn't mean that she would lie under every circumstance.  Obviously if you don't disqualify someone for having a conviction, then my point about telling the truth guaranteeing the worst possible outcome wouldn't apply, but neither would your point.  You can't divorce actions from incentives.

Why would I be barred from hiring someone with an old conviction? And why wouldn't my point apply? If you lie to me about an old conviction I am unlikely to hire you and likely to fire you.

From the person's perspective you have option A: tell the truth and get job, and option B: lie and don't get job. Works for me.

Because the context of the current situation is that people with her conviction cannot legally hold the job they're applying for.

I don't work at such a place. I was talking about me. "If you lie to me about old convictions I will be pretty damn disinclined to keep you around."

[DontSayBanana]

You're ignoring an important distinction, DG- this is ONLY an albatross where financial institutions are concerned.

As a further note, she lied because she was intent on getting the job.  That's pretty much the description of "unscrupulous," and exactly the reason crimes involving "breach of trust" are a disqualification in the first place.

She disqualified herself from working for the employer.  This is part of the reason workforce development/employee re-training programs exist.

[Malthus]

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.

What happens if someone fills out the application and says they have a conviction, like a 40 year old shoplifting conviction? Does it go to the bottom of the pile?

If so, seems that the system basically forces people to lie about it - if they can't even get crappy jobs with a conviction on record. 

So, if employers typically downgrade applications with convictions, your choice if you have one is to tell the truth and not get even a crappy job, or lie and take your chances of being fired.

Not a good system.

[CountDeMoney]

What happens if someone fills out the application and says they have a conviction, like a 40 year old shoplifting conviction? Does it go to the bottom of the pile?

If so, seems that the system basically forces people to lie about it - if they can't even get crappy jobs with a conviction on record. 

So, if employers typically downgrade applications with convictions, your choice if you have one is to tell the truth and not get even a crappy job, or lie and take your chances of being fired.

Not a good system.

It's called "filtering".

[Malthus]

You're ignoring an important distinction, DG- this is ONLY an albatross where financial institutions are concerned.

As a further note, she lied because she was intent on getting the job.  That's pretty much the description of "unscrupulous," and exactly the reason crimes involving "breach of trust" are a disqualification in the first place.

She disqualified herself from working for the employer.  This is part of the reason workforce development/employee re-training programs exist.

But from what I've heard, employees typically ask the question for *all* jobs.

While only financial type jobs are absolute disqualifications, what's your chances with other types of jobs if they ask and you say "yes"?

[The Brain]

FWIW I cannot see a 40 y/o shoplifting conviction being any problem in itself in my line of business.

[DontSayBanana]

But from what I've heard, employees typically ask the question for *all* jobs.

While only financial type jobs are absolute disqualifications, what's your chances with other types of jobs if they ask and you say "yes"?

Speaking as someone who has a smudge on his own record, it comes up in the interview; you just have to be ready to tackle it head-on: "Yes, I was young and dumb; here's what happened, and here's what I've taken away from the incident, so you can be sure it's over and done with."

Recidivism is so prevalent in the US that employers just want to make sure they're hiring an okay candidate and not just enabling an idiot that hasn't learned their lesson.  Missing days for court appearances or detention can really put the crimp on an employee's productivity, after all.

[jimmy olsen]

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.

You didn't say expunge earlier, you said pardon.

[mongers]

Does the US need something similar to our Rehabilitation of Offenders Act ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974

[Ed Anger]

We don't want your stinky laws.