Best and worst crimes for employment?

[dps]

Do the jurors really disregard it?

I guess if it went something like this:

Defendant:  "I stabbed her because that cheating bitch deserved it."
Prosecutor:  "Objection!  That's speculation!"
Judge:  "Sustained.  Please disregard that comment."

Then it's probably hard to disregard it.  However, if it was a minor comment that doesn't seem to be apparently revealing, then the jury would probably forget about it as they go on deliberating.

Fair enough. 

And that's not really that different from how it works in interviews, either.  If an applicant tells me that he's diabetic, that's not something that I care about, so I may well not even remember it later unless he makes it a major point of discussion during the interview.  OTOH, if he mentions in passing that while he's never been convicted of a felony, he did get away with raping a few women, I'm definately going to remember that and not hire him.

[Ed Anger]

Bah, you can find out easily enough what type of discharge a vet received;  it's on their DD-214, which employers require from veterans as proof of their service.  It's not a state secret or anything.  Says exactly what kid of discharge it was, along with the discharge code.

Too easy. Plus that would actually require me to actually work and delve into the HR Sarlacc pit. Which, thank god, I outsourced to a firm in Columbus.

I'd rather just guess and annoy DG with using my gut in hiring. 

[Admiral Yi]

Outside of government, who requires proof of service?

[dps]

Bah, you can find out easily enough what type of discharge a vet received;  it's on their DD-214, which employers require from veterans as proof of their service.  It's not a state secret or anything.  Says exactly what kid of discharge it was, along with the discharge code.

IIRC, you're only supposed to ask for the DD-214 after you've hired them, so you can document hiring a veteran in order to claim a tax break.

[CountDeMoney]

Bah, you can find out easily enough what type of discharge a vet received;  it's on their DD-214, which employers require from veterans as proof of their service.  It's not a state secret or anything.  Says exactly what kid of discharge it was, along with the discharge code.

IIRC, you're only supposed to ask for the DD-214 after you've hired them, so you can document hiring a veteran in order to claim a tax break.

You IIRC wrong.  It's proof of employment.

[CountDeMoney]

Outside of government, who requires proof of service?

Plenty of employers.  It's no different than verifying any other type of previous employment.

[Caliga]

What we were taught was that while there are things that we can't ask about, we can always listen to what the applicant volunteers.

That is correct.

I know I've mentioned this before on Languish but it's surprisingly easy to trick people into freely disclosing protected info in an interview if you really want to be an asshole about it.

Here's a good way to trick a female applicant into disclosing whether or not she has kids: display a pic of your kids (or if you don't have kids, download a random pic of some kid that looks like you off of Google Image Search, put it in a frame) prominently on your desk where the candidate can see it.  Many if not most that have kids of their own will, if you give them an opening to chit-chat, try to make small talk about it relating your kid to theirs... "Oh, my little Tyler is in Little League too!  How old is your son?"  What they think they're doing is giving you a hook by which you can relate to them.  What I'd be really hearing in that case is "Great, she'll be out once a week because 'Tyler is sick again'. DO NOT WANT."

I promise I've never done this , but I used to work with a guy who actually did it, and he didn't have kids so he was using the Google pic trick.

[Eddie Teach]

You should blacklist her not for having a kid but for naming him "Tyler".

[Caliga]

You should blacklist her not for having a kid but for naming him "Tyler".

I picked that soccer-mommish name for a reason.

[dps]

Bah, you can find out easily enough what type of discharge a vet received;  it's on their DD-214, which employers require from veterans as proof of their service.  It's not a state secret or anything.  Says exactly what kid of discharge it was, along with the discharge code.

IIRC, you're only supposed to ask for the DD-214 after you've hired them, so you can document hiring a veteran in order to claim a tax break.

You IIRC wrong.  It's proof of employment.

I must be confusing it with some other program that gave the company a tax break for hiring certain applicants. 

[Tonitrus]

Bah, you can find out easily enough what type of discharge a vet received;  it's on their DD-214, which employers require from veterans as proof of their service.  It's not a state secret or anything.  Says exactly what kid of discharge it was, along with the discharge code.

IIRC, you're only supposed to ask for the DD-214 after you've hired them, so you can document hiring a veteran in order to claim a tax break.

As I understand it, to get a DD these days, you pretty much need to have gone through a court martial action.  Might be hard to hide that completely.

[CountDeMoney]

I must be confusing it with some other program that gave the company a tax break for hiring certain applicants.

No, there's all sorts of bona fide goodies for companies that hire vets;  the part about only getting the DD-214 after they've been hired was what I was disagreeing with.

[garbon]

Anyway, in Poland, the law sets out the type of information the employer can ask the employee to provide - and asking for, storing or processing other types of information is illegal (and can result in fines). This includes for example criminal record except for jobs that expressly call for no criminal record (such as police officers, state prosecutors, people handling guns or cash etc.).

I guess there is something Poland is better at than US. 

We also have regulations on what employers can ask. Also when I was reviewing Euro CVs - it seemed like applicants were much more likely to list things we never would - like marital status.

I was referring to the criminal record part in this particular case.  I thought the context was obvious enough to not have to point it out, given how I just discussed at length the American laws about protected classes.

From your posts, I have no reason to assume you are intelligent or even rational/consistent.

[CountDeMoney]

As I understand it, to get a DD these days, you pretty much need to have gone through a court martial action.  Might be hard to hide that completely.

Can't hide the OTH, either.

Knew a guy that had an OTH;  was in the Pentagon on 9/11, lost his boss, went a little cuckoo in the head for a bit and AWOL for about 3 weeks.  It's been cockblocking his career ever since.

[Martinus]

What we were taught was that while there are things that we can't ask about, we can always listen to what the applicant volunteers.

That is correct.

I know I've mentioned this before on Languish but it's surprisingly easy to trick people into freely disclosing protected info in an interview if you really want to be an asshole about it.

Here's a good way to trick a female applicant into disclosing whether or not she has kids: display a pic of your kids (or if you don't have kids, download a random pic of some kid that looks like you off of Google Image Search, put it in a frame) prominently on your desk where the candidate can see it.  Many if not most that have kids of their own will, if you give them an opening to chit-chat, try to make small talk about it relating your kid to theirs... "Oh, my little Tyler is in Little League too!  How old is your son?"  What they think they're doing is giving you a hook by which you can relate to them.  What I'd be really hearing in that case is "Great, she'll be out once a week because 'Tyler is sick again'. DO NOT WANT."

I promise I've never done this , but I used to work with a guy who actually did it, and he didn't have kids so he was using the Google pic trick.

You are an evil man. I'm impressed. Especially when it comes to the goddamn breeders.