Best and worst crimes for employment?

[The Brain]

Shakers are weird.

[Barrister]

I'm dealing with a case right now where an employee of a client is having her security clearance (she works at an airline) questioned because her father was a crook. It would be a sad thing altogether if she loses her job because of this - her father's criminality ruined her childhood, she managed to work her way into a responsible job, and now the fact that her father is a crook threatens to ruin that, too.

Wow. That's more outrageous than sad.  I wonder when did we start going wrong as the society, as you see more insanity like this lately.

I dunno.

Now obviously I don't know any details of this case, but back when I did get my own security clearance for the Feds I had to give information about my family.  I can see your parent being a serious criminal raising questions about your own reliability - which you then need to answer.

[Barrister]

Today in Pressing Charges: A mentally retarded 62 y.o woman attempts to steal $4.39 of pork rinds from Food Lion, Inc. The rinds are recovered.  The police are called, a citation is issued, counsel is appointed, and a court date is set.

What do you think the optimal resolution would have been?

Take back the rinds, eject her from the store.  A formal ban would be appropriate for someone with capacity to understand it, otherwise put her on the unofficial "kick out of store" list.

The amount of money the taxpayers of N.C. are going to pay isn't negligible.  State-paid cops cite her, a state-paid bailiff gives her the affidavit of indigency form, a state-paid PD is appointed, spends time talking to her caretakers, then negotiates with the state-paid ADA in the state-funded courtroom in front of the state-paid judge, with the ultimate resolution being a dismissal one way or another.

Here's the $4.39 question - does she have a record of similar offences?

[Monoriu]

I'm dealing with a case right now where an employee of a client is having her security clearance (she works at an airline) questioned because her father was a crook. It would be a sad thing altogether if she loses her job because of this - her father's criminality ruined her childhood, she managed to work her way into a responsible job, and now the fact that her father is a crook threatens to ruin that, too.

HK government asks for information on grandparents and your wife's grandparents, brothers, etc.  The argument is that if your grandfather is a triad head, and you apply to join the police, it will be a problem. 

[Malthus]

I'm dealing with a case right now where an employee of a client is having her security clearance (she works at an airline) questioned because her father was a crook. It would be a sad thing altogether if she loses her job because of this - her father's criminality ruined her childhood, she managed to work her way into a responsible job, and now the fact that her father is a crook threatens to ruin that, too.

Wow. That's more outrageous than sad.  I wonder when did we start going wrong as the society, as you see more insanity like this lately.

I dunno.

Now obviously I don't know any details of this case, but back when I did get my own security clearance for the Feds I had to give information about my family.  I can see your parent being a serious criminal raising questions about your own reliability - which you then need to answer.

It's difficult to answer, though.

The best I could do was to tell her story - one of childhood hardship overcome, because her dad being a hardcore crook meant an abandoned family - and point out that she's been employed at numerous responsible jobs without a hint of criminality.

It's obvious reading her letters and interviewing her that she's had demonstrated to her in no uncertain terms that crime leads to misery and poverty and that she's chosen to lead a crime-free life, even moreso because of that harsh experience. But how can you prove it to the satisfaction of some hard-hearted bureaucrat in Ottawa?

[Martinus]

I think it's one of those things DGuller mentioned earlier - while statistically there may be some justification for this kind of approach, it is simply so offensive to the basic concept of equality under law and personal (as opposed to group) responsibility, use of such information for the purpose of job application should be outlawed.

You could just as well conclude that since black people are statistically more likely to commit a crime, you would not hire blacks for some jobs as a matter of policy. Or you would refuse health insurance to a gay man because he is more likely to get HIV.

There is a reason why the sovereign decides to outlaw such practices - because, while "rational", they violate the fundamentals of the modern, civilized society.

[Barrister]

I think it's one of those things DGuller mentioned earlier - while statistically there may be some justification for this kind of approach, it is simply so offensive to the basic concept of equality under law and personal (as opposed to group) responsibility, use of such information for the purpose of job application should be outlawed.

You could just as well conclude that since black people are statistically more likely to commit a crime, you would not hire blacks for some jobs as a matter of policy. Or you would refuse health insurance to a gay man because he is more likely to get HIV.

There is a reason why the sovereign decides to outlaw such practices - because, while "rational", they violate the fundamentals of the modern, civilized society.

In this case though, the applicant is seeking to get a security clearance from the federal government, which means she is going to be in a job where she is given access to materials sensitive to public safety.

I agree that a "bad parent" should not be an absolute bar to being granted a security clearance, but I have no problem with it being a point of inquiry.

[Martinus]

Well, I guess it's a matter of proportionality, as there are security clearances and there are security clearances. I can see how if she wanted to be a spy or have access to top security secrets of the state, she would be thoroughly vetted, but as an airline employee I suppose this is more of a standard check that thousands of people have, no? In such cases, they should essentially check if you have no criminal record or history of erratic behavior and that's it. You shouldn't be responsible for generations of your ancestors.

[CountDeMoney]

Now obviously I don't know any details of this case, but back when I did get my own security clearance for the Feds I had to give information about my family.  I can see your parent being a serious criminal raising questions about your own reliability - which you then need to answer.

Years ago, your family's criminal history used to be a serious bar for a lot of police departments;  you had a brother or a father or uncle with a real record, you were nixed by association.

[garbon]

Well, I guess it's a matter of proportionality, as there are security clearances and there are security clearances. I can see how if she wanted to be a spy or have access to top security secrets of the state, she would be thoroughly vetted, but as an airline employee I suppose this is more of a standard check that thousands of people have, no? In such cases, they should essentially check if you have no criminal record or history of erratic behavior and that's it. You shouldn't be responsible for generations of your ancestors.

Well still it would also depend on how susceptible one might be to the machinations/influence of one's criminal relative.  I don't think we're talking about concerns regarding dead relatives?

[Martinus]

Now obviously I don't know any details of this case, but back when I did get my own security clearance for the Feds I had to give information about my family.  I can see your parent being a serious criminal raising questions about your own reliability - which you then need to answer.

Years ago, your family's criminal history used to be a serious bar for a lot of police departments;  you had a brother or a father or uncle with a real record, you were nixed by association.

Years ago, a nigger couldn't marry a white woman and if he had sex with her, he would have been lynched. Not sure how what happened "years ago" is awfully relevant to modern day's human rights, though.

[DGuller]

Now obviously I don't know any details of this case, but back when I did get my own security clearance for the Feds I had to give information about my family.  I can see your parent being a serious criminal raising questions about your own reliability - which you then need to answer.

Years ago, your family's criminal history used to be a serious bar for a lot of police departments;  you had a brother or a father or uncle with a real record, you were nixed by association.

Which is kind of stupid.  One of the most decorated cops in NYPD had multiple close relatives in the mafia.  Well, technically he was eventually convicted of being a mafia hit man, but the point is that you could be a highly successful police officer with unsavory family members.

[CountDeMoney]

Years ago, your family's criminal history used to be a serious bar for a lot of police departments;  you had a brother or a father or uncle with a real record, you were nixed by association.

Which is kind of stupid.  One of the most decorated cops in NYPD had multiple close relatives in the mafia.  Well, technically he was eventually convicted of being a mafia hit man, but the point is that you could be a highly successful police officer with unsavory family members.

Which is also why we had so many cops fired and even charged in the BPD, and every once in a while to this day, due to their proximity to the drug trade via family members.  Tipping off raids, doing deals for them, even kidnapping under the color of authority.  It's been fucking lovely.

Maybe the Dazzling Urbanites in BPD aren't as smart as the Irish or Italian cops in NYPD in keeping their distance from unsavory family members.

[Ideologue]

Today in Pressing Charges: A mentally retarded 62 y.o woman attempts to steal $4.39 of pork rinds from Food Lion, Inc. The rinds are recovered.  The police are called, a citation is issued, counsel is appointed, and a court date is set.

What do you think the optimal resolution would have been?

Take back the rinds, eject her from the store.  A formal ban would be appropriate for someone with capacity to understand it, otherwise put her on the unofficial "kick out of store" list.

The amount of money the taxpayers of N.C. are going to pay isn't negligible.  State-paid cops cite her, a state-paid bailiff gives her the affidavit of indigency form, a state-paid PD is appointed, spends time talking to her caretakers, then negotiates with the state-paid ADA in the state-funded courtroom in front of the state-paid judge, with the ultimate resolution being a dismissal one way or another.

But just remember, the use of the state by corporations and rich people is exactly proportional to that of poor people.

[Admiral Yi]

But just remember, the use of the state by corporations and rich people is exactly proportional to that of poor people.

Proportional to what?  Income or lives?