Poll
Question:
Is this firing Just?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 12
Option 2: No
votes: 17
Option 3: Jaron's House of Gutless Waffling
votes: 6
Ridiculous
http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/07/11578176-wells-fargo-fires-employee-for-72-shoplifting-conviction?lite
QuoteBy Tom Murray , WTMJ News Team
MILWAUKEE — A Milwaukee woman is now unemployed after Wells Fargo, her employer, discovered she committed a crime more than 40 years ago.
Yolanda Quesada was fired when a background check revealed she shoplifted in 1972.
(This story originally appeared on WTMJ's web site.)
"[I'm] very good at what I do for Wells Fargo," Quesada says.
Quesada says she was a good employee, and has the pins, certificates and photos to prove it. But her supervisor walked her out the door last week after more than five years of service at Wells Fargo.
"I think there's more important things in life than something I did 40 years ago," Quesada says.
"I did do the crime and, you know, I had just come out of high school."
Quesada says she worked in phone customer service and never handled cash.
"We are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust," a spokesman for Wells Fargo told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Quesada wants her job back, but her termination letter says she's no longer eligible to work at Wells Fargo.
"I think I should get it back because it's something I did 40 years ago," Quesada says.
"I paid for it. I've changed my life."
Quote"I think I should get it back because it's something I did 40 years ago," Quesada says.
"I paid for it. I've changed my life."
Convict's a convict. So solly.
It's an American bank. Everyone who works there should be fired for dishonesty.
I don't know which PR is worse for Wells Fargo: the fact they fire someone for a minor crime committed four decsdes ago, or that they let people work there for five years without doing a bsckground check on them.
Quote
"We are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust,"
So, yeah. No choice.
Which crimes don't involve dishonesty or breach of trust?
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 07, 2012, 05:45:11 PM
Which crimes don't involve dishonesty or breach of trust?
Smashing in a stranger's skull with a baseball bat.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 07, 2012, 05:45:11 PM
Which crimes don't involve dishonesty or breach of trust?
Armed robbery, but only if you're not bluffing when making threats.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on May 07, 2012, 05:38:15 PM
Quote
"We are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust,"
So, yeah. No choice.
I didn't ask whether they had a choice, I asked whether it was just.
40 years ago she shoplifted; five years ago, she lied on the application when she said she hadn't been convicted of that crime.
I don't see the problem.
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2012, 06:08:44 PM
40 years ago she shoplifted; five years ago, she lied on the application when she said she hadn't been convicted of that crime.
I don't see the problem.
:yes:
I love how the article conveniently forgets to remind Joe Sixpack of that fact. I guarantee you that she was asked to disclose prior convictions on her application and lied. Every company ALWAYS asks those questions as part of the hiring process, especially one as big as Wells Fargo.
FYI, crimes of a financial nature like this one (other examples are theft by deception, check fraud, etc.) will always disqualify you from working at a financial institution.
Quote from: Caliga on May 07, 2012, 06:19:33 PM
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2012, 06:08:44 PM
40 years ago she shoplifted; five years ago, she lied on the application when she said she hadn't been convicted of that crime.
I don't see the problem.
:yes:
I love how the article conveniently forgets to remind Joe Sixpack of that fact. I guarantee you that she was asked to disclose prior convictions on her application and lied. Every company ALWAYS asks those questions as part of the hiring process, especially one as big as Wells Fargo.
FYI, crimes of a financial nature like this one (other examples are theft by deception, check fraud, etc.) will always disqualify you from working at a financial institution.
I agree with both my collegues Mssrs Grumbler and Caliga.
In addition, I hope she never gets a job ever again that pays over 10/hr. WELCOME TO BARNES AND NOBLES BITCH.
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2012, 06:08:44 PM
40 years ago she shoplifted; five years ago, she lied on the application when she said she hadn't been convicted of that crime.
I don't see the problem.
Yes. That is kind of a biggie.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2012, 08:41:35 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2012, 06:08:44 PM
40 years ago she shoplifted; five years ago, she lied on the application when she said she hadn't been convicted of that crime.
I don't see the problem.
Yes. That is kind of a biggie.
Lying is bad, mmkay?
Christ, the woman only shoplifted 40 years ago. If she can't, without lying, get a job that pays more than $10/hr because of that, I don't blame her for fudging the truth 5 years ago. It is the possibility of getting your life together after a fuck-up or two (i.e. the proverbial second chance) that has always made America great.
If the conviction was from 40 years ago then she had, what - 35 years in which to get a pardon?
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:03:15 AM
If the conviction was from 40 years ago then she had, what - 35 years in which to get a pardon?
Can something like that be removed from one's record?
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:03:15 AM
If the conviction was from 40 years ago then she had, what - 35 years in which to get a pardon?
:wacko: How is that in any way possible for a normal person?
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:02:50 AM
Christ, the woman only shoplifted 40 years ago. If she can't, without lying, get a job that pays more than $10/hr because of that, I don't blame her for fudging the truth 5 years ago. It is the possibility of getting your life together after a fuck-up or two (i.e. the proverbial second chance) that has always made America great.
Yeah this whole scarlett letter for life stuff for felonies is really over the top. But it may just be she cannot work at a financial institution. There are other places to earn more than $10/hour.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:02:50 AM
Christ, the woman only shoplifted 40 years ago. If she can't, without lying, get a job that pays more than $10/hr because of that, I don't blame her for fudging the truth 5 years ago. It is the possibility of getting your life together after a fuck-up or two (i.e. the proverbial second chance) that has always made America great.
I think the issue is that they are bound by federal law to not hire someone who has prior convictions of theft. She could probably get a job at any number of places, but not a bank.
Quote from: Valmy on May 08, 2012, 09:06:12 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:02:50 AM
Christ, the woman only shoplifted 40 years ago. If she can't, without lying, get a job that pays more than $10/hr because of that, I don't blame her for fudging the truth 5 years ago. It is the possibility of getting your life together after a fuck-up or two (i.e. the proverbial second chance) that has always made America great.
Yeah this whole scarlett letter for life stuff for felonies is really over the top. But it may just be she cannot work at a financial institution. There are other places to earn more than $10/hour.
I find your reasonableness in the face of absurd posturing troubling.
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.
Quote"I think I should get it back because it's something I did 40 years ago," Quesada says.
"I paid for it. I've changed my life."
Lawyers charge a nominal fee to request public records to be expunged. Ironically, probably for about as much of the value you shoplifted.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:02:50 AM
Christ, the woman only shoplifted 40 years ago. If she can't, without lying, get a job that pays more than $10/hr because of that, I don't blame her for fudging the truth 5 years ago. It is the possibility of getting your life together after a fuck-up or two (i.e. the proverbial second chance) that has always made America great.
Havent read other responses. Did she conceal it during the hiring process? *shrugs*
Quote from: grumbler on May 07, 2012, 06:08:44 PM
40 years ago she shoplifted; five years ago, she lied on the application when she said she hadn't been convicted of that crime.
I don't see the problem.
There it is.
I guess this is another cultural gulf with Americans. Fuck up in one really minor incident 40 years ago, expect to pay for it for the rest of your life = reasonable
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 08, 2012, 09:06:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:03:15 AM
If the conviction was from 40 years ago then she had, what - 35 years in which to get a pardon?
:wacko: How is that in any way possible for a normal person?
:huh:
Again I'm not an expert on US criminal law, but up here it's pretty trivial (perhaps too trivial) to obtain a pardon after you have gone several years without a new conviction.
I had a guy in court yesterday. 65 years old. Had a steady criminal record going back to the early 60s. It was funny to look at because the punishments they were handing out in the 60s were dramatically different then what you get now. I also like it when they have convictions for RAPE on their record. I was once doing a conteted bail application - lady goes on the stand to say dirtbag come live with her - I asked her if she knew he was a convicted RAPIST - she did not and was visibly shaken by the mere word. :cool:
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:28:35 AM
I guess this is another cultural gulf with Americans. Fuck up in one really minor incident 40 years ago, except to pay for it for the rest of your life = reasonable
It would be the same here - lying on your application form is grounds for termination.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:30:28 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:28:35 AM
I guess this is another cultural gulf with Americans. Fuck up in one really minor incident 40 years ago, except to pay for it for the rest of your life = reasonable
It would be the same here - lying on your application form is grounds for termination.
Yeah, except would the same need to lie in the first place exist - i.e. no forgiving of past minor sins?
Again, this isn't like she's applying for a job at the supermarket or something. It's a bank. They and their customers don't necessarily want a convicted thief working there. Think of the scandal.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:32:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:30:28 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:28:35 AM
I guess this is another cultural gulf with Americans. Fuck up in one really minor incident 40 years ago, except to pay for it for the rest of your life = reasonable
It would be the same here - lying on your application form is grounds for termination.
Yeah, except would the same need to lie in the first place exist - i.e. no forgiving of past minor sins?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2012, 09:50:09 AM
Again, this isn't like she's applying for a job at the supermarket or something. It's a bank. They and their customers don't necessarily want a convicted thief working there. Think of the scandal.
Think it's tough working for a financial institution with an arrest record dating back to the Nixon Administration?
Try doing it with a credit rating below 750.
Ladies, want a man with ironclad credit? Date an armored car driver.
Maybe she didn't lie about it originally, and that's how the bank knew. Maybe they didn't have a problem with it when they hired her, but then this law comes along...
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 09:52:48 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2012, 09:50:09 AM
Again, this isn't like she's applying for a job at the supermarket or something. It's a bank. They and their customers don't necessarily want a convicted thief working there. Think of the scandal.
Think it's tough working for a financial institution with an arrest record dating back to the Nixon Administration?
Try doing it with a credit rating below 750.
Ladies, want a man with ironclad credit? Date an armored car driver.
Yes. Executives dont want the competition.
My guess is it was discovered during some kind of promotion process. She was after all an excellent employee. Wouldnt that be ironic.
The US has all kinds of odd rules regarding ineligability to work because of prior convictions. You folks are not exactly the forgiving types.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:32:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:30:28 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:28:35 AM
I guess this is another cultural gulf with Americans. Fuck up in one really minor incident 40 years ago, except to pay for it for the rest of your life = reasonable
It would be the same here - lying on your application form is grounds for termination.
Yeah, except would the same need to lie in the first place exist - i.e. no forgiving of past minor sins?
An employer is perfectly entitled to ask whether or not you have been convicted of a crime of dishonesty for which you have not been granted a pardon.
I wonder if I can get a pardon for the traffic ticket back in 2001. I am genuinely sorry. :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 12:17:58 PM
My guess is it was discovered during some kind of promotion process. She was after all an excellent employee. Wouldnt that be ironic.
The US has all kinds of odd rules regarding ineligability to work because of prior convictions. You folks are not exactly the forgiving types.
I think that in general, we're much too forgiving, actually.
Quote from: dps on May 08, 2012, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 12:17:58 PM
My guess is it was discovered during some kind of promotion process. She was after all an excellent employee. Wouldnt that be ironic.
The US has all kinds of odd rules regarding ineligability to work because of prior convictions. You folks are not exactly the forgiving types.
I think that in general, we're much too forgiving, actually.
Disagree.
Raz - up here records of traffic convictions are only retained for 10 years.
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:13:58 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:32:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:30:28 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:28:35 AM
I guess this is another cultural gulf with Americans. Fuck up in one really minor incident 40 years ago, except to pay for it for the rest of your life = reasonable
It would be the same here - lying on your application form is grounds for termination.
Yeah, except would the same need to lie in the first place exist - i.e. no forgiving of past minor sins?
An employer is perfectly entitled to ask whether or not you have been convicted of a crime of dishonesty for which you have not been granted a pardon.
Not in BC they dont. There may be circumstances in which they can but there is no such blanket rule.
No surprise that there's a lack of compassion from the usual suspect, for someone else difficulties.
Quote from: dps on May 08, 2012, 03:26:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 12:17:58 PM
My guess is it was discovered during some kind of promotion process. She was after all an excellent employee. Wouldnt that be ironic.
The US has all kinds of odd rules regarding ineligability to work because of prior convictions. You folks are not exactly the forgiving types.
I think that in general, we're much too forgiving, actually.
A case in point which may change your view. The case is currently on reserve in the District of Columbia Appeals Court - I think thats how you refer to it.
Anyway people are awaiting the decision for a number of reasons that I wont bore you with but for the purposes of this thread here is the silly rule part.
An in house lawyer who was also a part of the executive of a drug company was, under the regulations, liable by way of payment of a fine for a breach of the regulations of the company. The breach was minor and the lawyer had no knowedge the breach had occured and the evidence was there was not way he could have known. But the regulation created a strict liability offence meaning he was guitly of the offence simply by virture of holding that office. OK fair enough. He pled guilty since there was no defence (it being a strict liability offence) and he paid the fine - a very minor amount.
It was basically a pro forma slap on the wrist.
Now here is the silly part. There was another statute that said that anyone convicted of an offence under the other statute would not be permitted to be employed by a drug company for 10 years. As a result, by operation of the statute this guy who was blameless and convicted on a strict liability offence could no longer work in his field.
The lower court upheld the decision to ban and this is one of the issues being considered by the Appellate Court.
Quote from: mongers on May 08, 2012, 06:14:11 PM
No surprise that there's a lack of compassion from the usual suspect, for someone else difficulties.
What do you mean. I have plenty of compassion in this thread.
:D
Quote from: mongers on May 08, 2012, 06:14:11 PM
No surprise that there's a lack of compassion from the usual suspect, for someone else difficulties.
I didn't think Wells Fargo's situation was all that bad really.
I will be very surprised if a bank doesn't fire such an employee. The HK government will certainly do so. The point isn't the date of the crime. It is the employee lied.
Quote from: HR schmucksPast behavior predicts future behavior.
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 07:37:27 PM
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.
There must've been a hell of a backlog at the background check company.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 07:59:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 07:37:27 PM
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.
There must've been a hell of a backlog at the background check company.
Background checks aren't usually very thorough. But I'd be very surprised if she wasn't asked during an interview or the application if she had any convictions. I was asked when I applied at Wendy's in high school.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2012, 08:02:55 PM
But I'd be very surprised if she wasn't asked during an interview or the application if she had any convictions. I was asked when I applied at Wendy's in high school.
Wags - "Convicted of LOVING Wendy's!!!!"
Manager (in clip on tie) - "This guy is a little too eager to make hamburgers."
Quote from: PDH on May 08, 2012, 08:16:48 PM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on May 08, 2012, 08:02:55 PM
But I'd be very surprised if she wasn't asked during an interview or the application if she had any convictions. I was asked when I applied at Wendy's in high school.
Wags - "Convicted of LOVING Wendy's!!!!"
Manager (in clip on tie) - "This guy is a little too eager to make hamburgers."
It was worse than that. :( I couldn't even get a job at Wendy's. Though seeing how self-destructive it made my friends I guess it was a good thing.
Quote from: DGuller on May 08, 2012, 07:59:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 07:37:27 PM
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.
There must've been a hell of a backlog at the background check company.
Mine took place a couple months after I got hired.
I have to go through a background check at work. They're giving me access to their accounting database. <_<
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 02:13:58 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:32:27 AM
Quote from: Barrister on May 08, 2012, 09:30:28 AM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on May 08, 2012, 09:28:35 AM
I guess this is another cultural gulf with Americans. Fuck up in one really minor incident 40 years ago, except to pay for it for the rest of your life = reasonable
It would be the same here - lying on your application form is grounds for termination.
Yeah, except would the same need to lie in the first place exist - i.e. no forgiving of past minor sins?
An employer is perfectly entitled to ask whether or not you have been convicted of a crime of dishonesty for which you have not been granted a pardon.
Not in BC they dont. There may be circumstances in which they can but there is no such blanket rule.
As a blanket rule, no.
But when you're entrusted with handling money? Pretty sure they can.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 09:04:53 PM
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.
If she had said she had done this when she applied, they wouldn't have hired her in the first place.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on May 08, 2012, 10:05:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 09:04:53 PM
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.
If she had said she had done this when she applied, they wouldn't have hired her in the first place.
and?
Actually, she could easily have thought she didn't actually need to report it; a lot of criminal check questions I've seen on applications read something alone the lines of "Have you been convicted of any crimes? Do not include minor traffic offenses or convictions greater than 10 years ago."
E: ^^ The ones I've seen for places like this are usually pretty clear, and they usually seem to omit shit like traffic violations ^^
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 10:16:18 PM
and?
Which part don't you understand? The part where she would have been disqualified in the first place, or the part where she failed to mention the thing that would have disqualified her?
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 09:04:53 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:35:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 09:04:53 PM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 10:36:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:35:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 09:04:53 PM
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. :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 10:36:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:35:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 09:04:53 PM
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx26%2Fblackmaro99%2FMiddle-Finger.gif&hash=b5eea30bb6b83d351530b89276bc7799851d4942)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 09:14:53 AM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 09, 2012, 01:54:42 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 09:14:53 AM
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.
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!
Quote from: 11B4V on May 08, 2012, 10:46:53 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx26%2Fblackmaro99%2FMiddle-Finger.gif&hash=b5eea30bb6b83d351530b89276bc7799851d4942)
You look a lot better in a Bikini then I thought you would.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 09, 2012, 04:23:35 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 08, 2012, 10:46:53 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx26%2Fblackmaro99%2FMiddle-Finger.gif&hash=b5eea30bb6b83d351530b89276bc7799851d4942)
You look a lot better in a Bikini then I thought you would.
AND I PLAY WITH MY BOOBIES TO BE SURE. :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 07:37:27 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:35:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 09:04:53 PM
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"! :lmfao:
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.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 08, 2012, 10:46:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 10:36:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 08, 2012, 10:35:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 08, 2012, 09:04:53 PM
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.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi187.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fx26%2Fblackmaro99%2FMiddle-Finger.gif&hash=b5eea30bb6b83d351530b89276bc7799851d4942)
Ok, you got me. Yanks dont confine their stupidity to rules making.
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2012, 08:33:19 AM
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"! :lmfao:
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.
Ugh. Tats. :yuk:
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2012, 06:27:16 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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?
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:57:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 09, 2012, 09:50:23 AM
Ugh. Tats. :yuk:
:perv:
:yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 09, 2012, 10:00:14 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 09:57:44 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 09, 2012, 09:50:23 AM
Ugh. Tats. :yuk:
:perv:
:yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky: :yucky:
Just for you, I will post some hoties with tats at work tonite. ;) Work safe of course.
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:52:29 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2012, 06:27:16 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:48:24 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:52:29 AM
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.
QuoteDo 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.
QuoteDo you know anything?
I know many things, including how to think logically and how to use assumptions. Unlike, methinks, you.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:08:40 AM
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. :lol:
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2012, 10:51:14 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 09, 2012, 10:08:40 AM
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. :lol:
Well, we do know that they have at least one recent job opening. ;)
If you lie to me about old convictions I will be pretty damn disinclined to keep you around.
From Money's research:
Quote*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.
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2012, 12:36:45 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2012, 12:42:47 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2012, 12:36:45 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2012, 12:42:47 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2012, 12:49:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Zanza on May 09, 2012, 12:56:15 PM
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).
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2012, 01:07:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2012, 12:49:40 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2012, 01:13:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2012, 01:07:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2012, 12:49:40 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2012, 01:22:13 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2012, 01:13:27 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2012, 01:07:58 PM
Quote from: The Brain on May 09, 2012, 12:49:40 PM
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."
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.
Quote from: dps on May 09, 2012, 10:26:01 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 09, 2012, 09:52:29 AM
Quote from: grumbler on May 09, 2012, 06:27:16 AM
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.
QuoteThe 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.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 02:31:28 PM
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".
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2012, 02:23:06 PM
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"?
FWIW I cannot see a 40 y/o shoplifting conviction being any problem in itself in my line of business.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 02:33:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on May 09, 2012, 12:39:38 PM
From Money's research:
Quote*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. :contract:
Does the US need something similar to our Rehabilitation of Offenders Act ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974)
We don't want your stinky laws.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2012, 02:43:10 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 02:33:43 PM
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.
Getting to the interview stage may itself be a problem.
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 02:31:28 PM
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?
We never put such applications to the bottom.
We throw them away :menace:
Jesus pogo dancing Christ, what a nightmare of a system. I guess that background checking has grown into such a multi million industry that it can't be erradicated anymore.
Quote from: DGuller on May 09, 2012, 06:35:21 PM
Getting to the interview stage may itself be a problem.
True, but that's always been my problem anyway, so I didn't personally notice much change- which is funny, because I can count on one hand the number of times I've been interviewed and didn't actually get the job. And I've held my fair share of jobs- the one I'm at right now is the longest I've spent at a single job since 2007.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2012, 02:23:06 PM
You're ignoring an important distinction, DG- this is ONLY an albatross where financial institutions are concerned.
I wouldnt say that.
Quote from: The Larch on May 09, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
Jesus pogo dancing Christ, what a nightmare of a system. I guess that background checking has grown into such a multi million industry that it can't be erradicated anymore.
It's not a problem for most people, since most people are not convicted felons. It also seems to me like it's a good way to encourage people to not commit felonies, if the word on the street is that employers do not like to hire criminals and all that.
But just so you whiny Euros feel better: I do know of cases where convicted felons have been (knowingly) hired. I can't say I know of any cases where a convicted thief has been hired, but I know of hirings where the candidate was a convicted DUI or drug offender.
Further, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, most states do have rehabilitation programs where the state partners with workforce development programs in order to actively help felons find jobs. The company I worked for prior to my current employer actually did exactly that (among several other services that it provided).
Here in Alberta I find the opposite - dirtbag shows up in court with a horrendous record as long as your arm and says "but I just started a new job".
I go "really? Somebody hired you?????"
And sure enough they have a job.
Shows what a good labour shortage will do for an economy.
Quote from: mongers on May 09, 2012, 05:48:54 PM
Does the US need something similar to our Rehabilitation of Offenders Act ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974)
Yes please.
Quote from: Ideologue on May 09, 2012, 11:20:20 PM
Quote from: mongers on May 09, 2012, 05:48:54 PM
Does the US need something similar to our Rehabilitation of Offenders Act ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_of_Offenders_Act_1974)
Yes please.
Bah.......:bash:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.millenniumfalcon.com%2Fphpbb%2Fimages%2Fsmiles%2Fmf_emoticon_execution.gif&hash=f5854059666f5700eed17fe244b125f7ae2e3644)
Quote from: Malthus on May 09, 2012, 02:33:43 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 09, 2012, 02:23:06 PM
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"?
Rather low. I'm rather certain it's what cost me the job at Consumer Protection.
Fortunately my current employer never asked, they just got me to sign a release. I expect they've never actually ran a background check, but I dunno. Could wake up with an email telling me I've been fired, I guess. :shrug:
One of these days I'm gonna have to see if I can get that simple assault expunged. I think that's the offensive one.
In my industry we routinely do all kinds of background checks. :)
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 09, 2012, 09:50:23 AM
Ugh. Tats. :yuk:
Just for you Ed. Should be work safe. Enjoy ;)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftattooplacement.org%2Fwp-content%2Fgallery%2Fwaist-tattoos%2Fbeautiful-waist-tattoo-837d9776e750cc31d0bfc18f1caef1508b49e593.jpg&hash=943de74586f2559dffc7402947bc73f1a3fd0826)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-95q_BIGqWtc%2FTvhnO9a_FtI%2FAAAAAAAAEys%2FqVIajY9AP0s%2Fs1600%2F03.jpg&hash=2e7bb4a954f9bbbb2833d0fb3dfd8dfcc2a61ba9)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_EjY286oGjWw%2FTCdsFvNCWeI%2FAAAAAAAAAOY%2FvwnnNwcETxI%2Fs1600%2Fsexy-female-butterfly-tattoos.jpg&hash=71c2dcf9fa9015ccacbfc3211695cce13cf1f3a3)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi26.tinypic.com%2F14nffnq.jpg&hash=3d245beb83ee94710584ebfc3aa21c73bf33122f)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmehendi.co.in%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F01%2Fmehndi-henna-body-back.jpg&hash=c1928b86a20a065175a9c811db341ef0b1fb5e75)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ghatahora.co.uk%2Fv%2Ftp%2F106%2F295%2F5020403850_4_roses-and-butterflies-tattoo-on.jpg&hash=bd7ff4fd7c1d94c9fe8704a694a564fa5807cf58)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmeme.zenfs.com%2Fu%2F88ade2af85ba8cce7c346c5d11617acefab36402.jpeg&hash=12b4ba178848d276360cb906499de215aed9ad1a)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.womenf.info%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2FBack-Tattoo-Pictures.jpg&hash=df8682872a72322f102bc198f8ca42aef7b63230)
Quote from: Caliga on May 09, 2012, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 09, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
Jesus pogo dancing Christ, what a nightmare of a system. I guess that background checking has grown into such a multi million industry that it can't be erradicated anymore.
It's not a problem for most people, since most people are not convicted felons. It also seems to me like it's a good way to encourage people to not commit felonies, if the word on the street is that employers do not like to hire criminals and all that.
But just so you whiny Euros feel better: I do know of cases where convicted felons have been (knowingly) hired. I can't say I know of any cases where a convicted thief has been hired, but I know of hirings where the candidate was a convicted DUI or drug offender.
Further, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, most states do have rehabilitation programs where the state partners with workforce development programs in order to actively help felons find jobs. The company I worked for prior to my current employer actually did exactly that (among several other services that it provided).
You say convicted felons and it seems that we're talking about violent criminals that have been doing years and years in jail, but in this particular case it's a 40 yo shoplifting case, so here we have a middle aged woman getting fired for something she did when she was a teenager. Fucked up.
Quote from: The Larch on May 10, 2012, 03:54:21 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 09, 2012, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 09, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
Jesus pogo dancing Christ, what a nightmare of a system. I guess that background checking has grown into such a multi million industry that it can't be erradicated anymore.
It's not a problem for most people, since most people are not convicted felons. It also seems to me like it's a good way to encourage people to not commit felonies, if the word on the street is that employers do not like to hire criminals and all that.
But just so you whiny Euros feel better: I do know of cases where convicted felons have been (knowingly) hired. I can't say I know of any cases where a convicted thief has been hired, but I know of hirings where the candidate was a convicted DUI or drug offender.
Further, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, most states do have rehabilitation programs where the state partners with workforce development programs in order to actively help felons find jobs. The company I worked for prior to my current employer actually did exactly that (among several other services that it provided).
You say convicted felons and it seems that we're talking about violent criminals that have been doing years and years in jail, but in this particular case it's a 40 yo shoplifting case, so here we have a middle aged woman getting fired for something she did when she was a teenager. Fucked up.
Not fucked up
Did she disclose it on her app? Apparently not. Did she forget? Did she purposely deceive WF? Who cares and neither should WF. There is someone else out there to take her place.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 04:15:45 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 10, 2012, 03:54:21 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 09, 2012, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 09, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
Jesus pogo dancing Christ, what a nightmare of a system. I guess that background checking has grown into such a multi million industry that it can't be erradicated anymore.
It's not a problem for most people, since most people are not convicted felons. It also seems to me like it's a good way to encourage people to not commit felonies, if the word on the street is that employers do not like to hire criminals and all that.
But just so you whiny Euros feel better: I do know of cases where convicted felons have been (knowingly) hired. I can't say I know of any cases where a convicted thief has been hired, but I know of hirings where the candidate was a convicted DUI or drug offender.
Further, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, most states do have rehabilitation programs where the state partners with workforce development programs in order to actively help felons find jobs. The company I worked for prior to my current employer actually did exactly that (among several other services that it provided).
You say convicted felons and it seems that we're talking about violent criminals that have been doing years and years in jail, but in this particular case it's a 40 yo shoplifting case, so here we have a middle aged woman getting fired for something she did when she was a teenager. Fucked up.
Not fucked up
Did she disclose it on her app? Apparently not. Did she forget? Did she purposely deceive WF? Who cares and neither should WF. There is someone else out there to take her place.
It's still fucked up. Once you've done your time/punishment then it's nobody's business, just between the justice department and the convicted person. We are talking about a damn shoplifter, not a convicted murderer.
Quote from: Caliga on May 09, 2012, 09:58:51 PMIt's not a problem for most people, since most people are not convicted felons. It also seems to me like it's a good way to encourage people to not commit felonies, if the word on the street is that employers do not like to hire criminals and all that.
We don't even know if it was a felony. It's more likely it was a misdemeanor.
She didn't disclose it. WF can call it deception on her part and say, "Next". Her fault she didnt disclose it.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 04:35:16 AM
She didn't disclose it. WF can call it deception on her part and say, "Next". Her fault she didnt disclose it.
She shouldn't have to, nobody should be asking her that.
In Germany and Austria a central federal register records your convictions. It's not unusual for prospective employees to request a recent copy (you have to request it, but it's sent to employer - though you have a right to know what's recorded).
However, there's rules based on type of conviction and severity of punishment how long something stays on the (publicly available)record; e.g. sexual crimes have a longer expiry period).
Quote from: The Larch on May 10, 2012, 04:36:09 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 04:35:16 AM
She didn't disclose it. WF can call it deception on her part and say, "Next". Her fault she didnt disclose it.
She shouldn't have to, nobody should be asking her that.
Bullshit.
Quote from: Syt on May 10, 2012, 04:39:34 AM
In Germany and Austria a central federal register records your convictions. It's not unusual for prospective employees to request a recent copy (you have to request it, but it's sent to employer - though you have a right to know what's recorded).
However, there's rules based on type of conviction and severity of punishment how long something stays on the (publicly available)record; e.g. sexual crimes have a longer expiry period).
That's nice and seems like a good system. The issue is not whether she shoplifted 30 years ago, it's that she didnt disclose it. Deception by omission.
Quote6. 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 time limit and a legit question.
If she'd disclosed it she may have had a job. Her oversight was someone elses windfall.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 04:49:49 AM
If she'd disclosed it she may have had a job. Her oversight was someone elses windfall.
:frusty: No, she may not have, she would be automatically disqualified.
Quote from: DGuller on May 10, 2012, 05:10:06 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 04:49:49 AM
If she'd disclosed it she may have had a job. Her oversight was someone elses windfall.
:frusty: No, she may not have, she would be automatically disqualified.
Maybe, maybe not. At any rate, she was dishonset and on her way back to the Filipino "Boom, Boom" house.
Quote"I paid for it. I've changed my life."
I sure you did. Apparently not, you're still dishonest.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 05:14:12 AM
Maybe, maybe not. At any rate, she was dishonset and on her way back to the Filipino "Boom, Boom" house.
There is no maybe about it. It was a federal law, not an employment policy. Did you follow this discussion at all?
Quote from: DGuller on May 10, 2012, 05:42:46 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 05:14:12 AM
Maybe, maybe not. At any rate, she was dishonset and on her way back to the Filipino "Boom, Boom" house.
There is no maybe about it. It was a federal law, not an employment policy. Did you follow this discussion at all?
Yea, you didnt see the pics I posted for Ed?
Her loss. She's dishonest.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 05:14:12 AM
Quote"I paid for it. I've changed my life."
I sure you did. Apparently not, you're still dishonest.
:lol:
Re: The tat pics:
GROSS
Oh Larchy, mocking US employment practices from a Spanish viewpoint :D
Some nice looking backs in that tatoo array. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2012, 08:40:45 AM
Some nice looking backs in that tatoo array. :)
Yes, pity they all look like they did time in Pelican Bay.
I'm sure tattoos are fine, if you like disgusting whores who hate themselves.
Actually, come to think of it, should those things work like catnip for CdMs?
Quote from: The Larch on May 10, 2012, 03:54:21 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 09, 2012, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 09, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
Jesus pogo dancing Christ, what a nightmare of a system. I guess that background checking has grown into such a multi million industry that it can't be erradicated anymore.
It's not a problem for most people, since most people are not convicted felons. It also seems to me like it's a good way to encourage people to not commit felonies, if the word on the street is that employers do not like to hire criminals and all that.
But just so you whiny Euros feel better: I do know of cases where convicted felons have been (knowingly) hired. I can't say I know of any cases where a convicted thief has been hired, but I know of hirings where the candidate was a convicted DUI or drug offender.
Further, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, most states do have rehabilitation programs where the state partners with workforce development programs in order to actively help felons find jobs. The company I worked for prior to my current employer actually did exactly that (among several other services that it provided).
You say convicted felons and it seems that we're talking about violent criminals that have been doing years and years in jail, but in this particular case it's a 40 yo shoplifting case, so here we have a middle aged woman getting fired for something she did when she was a teenager. Fucked up.
Being 40 years ago she had every opportunity to have it pardoned/expunged from her record. She didn't.
Then when facing an employment application she chose not to disclose it. Her choice.
She's not being fired for something she did as a teenager. She's being fired for choices she made much later in life: not getting the convcition expunged, and not disclosing it.
More US criminal-background-checking fun:
http://www.globaltvedmonton.com/calgary+senior+denied+entry+to+us+because+of+old+shoplifting+charge/6442638030/story.html
Quote
A Calgary senior has been refused permission to cross the U.S. border because of a shoplifting charge dating back decades.
80-year-old Rose Gordon is now looking at spending $600 for a federal pardon, all over a bag of peanuts.
Gordon and her daughter Lolly have been taking trips to the U.S. for years.
But before a recent bus tour to Idaho, Gordon was called by U.S. Customs who informed her that since she had a criminal record, she would not be allowed to cross the border.
Gordon says she vaguely remembers a shoplifting incident when she was young involving a bag of peanuts, but she can't believe she poses a threat to U.S. security.
Zero tolerance strikes again. :lol:
Good.
Were you guys aware that a DUI conviction in the last 5 years prohibits a US citizen from visiting Canada?
Quote from: Caliga on May 09, 2012, 09:58:51 PM
It's not a problem for most people, since most people are not convicted felons. It also seems to me like it's a good way to encourage people to not commit felonies, if the word on the street is that employers do not like to hire criminals and all that.
Pretty sure people have known this in this country for centuries. The crime rate has not really been impacted much. What evidence exactly makes you think this? Do you really think people carefully think through most crimes and weigh benefits and downsides and carefully consider the impact it may have on their resume? If people did do this we would just make death by firing squad the penalty for every crime and eliminate criminal activity forever.
Most people commit crimes when they are young and stupid, it seems pretty absurd to have that damn them for life. I think it is mostly about covering your ass from lawsuits than heroicly trying to show how crime doesn't pay.
In fact the policy seems more likely to create career criminals since you put people in a position where that is what they may have to do, or force society to support ex-cons on welfare rather than allowing them to be productive and contribute.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2012, 09:00:00 AM
Were you guys aware that a DUI conviction in the last 5 years prohibits a US citizen from visiting Canada?
They are known to be a heartless people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2012, 09:00:00 AM
Were you guys aware that a DUI conviction in the last 5 years prohibits a US citizen from visiting Canada?
Well that changes my plan of taking hard drugs and driving around town now that this brutal deterrent has been brough to my attention.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 10, 2012, 09:23:40 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 09:14:58 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 10, 2012, 08:42:13 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2012, 08:34:40 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 10, 2012, 08:34:13 AM
Re: The tat pics:
GROSS
Motion seconded.
The motion has carried.
You guys are on crack.
No, they are just uninterested in women who aspire to be the "Painted lady" in the carnival freak show.
Ah, they just aint into freaky ladies. Gotya :huh:
Well said Razzy.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 10, 2012, 09:23:40 AM
No, they are just uninterested in women who aspire to be the "Painted lady" in the carnival freak show.
CORRECT!
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 09:26:35 AM
Ah, they just aint into freaky ladies. Gotya :huh:
Not when they look like sailors, bikers or convicts, no.
They are just old conservative in denial.
Some of those chicks might be hot if not for the tats. A chick getting a tat - now there's a sin that doesn't go away. :P
Quote from: The Larch on May 10, 2012, 04:24:43 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 04:15:45 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 10, 2012, 03:54:21 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 09, 2012, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 09, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
Jesus pogo dancing Christ, what a nightmare of a system. I guess that background checking has grown into such a multi million industry that it can't be erradicated anymore.
It's not a problem for most people, since most people are not convicted felons. It also seems to me like it's a good way to encourage people to not commit felonies, if the word on the street is that employers do not like to hire criminals and all that.
But just so you whiny Euros feel better: I do know of cases where convicted felons have been (knowingly) hired. I can't say I know of any cases where a convicted thief has been hired, but I know of hirings where the candidate was a convicted DUI or drug offender.
Further, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, most states do have rehabilitation programs where the state partners with workforce development programs in order to actively help felons find jobs. The company I worked for prior to my current employer actually did exactly that (among several other services that it provided).
You say convicted felons and it seems that we're talking about violent criminals that have been doing years and years in jail, but in this particular case it's a 40 yo shoplifting case, so here we have a middle aged woman getting fired for something she did when she was a teenager. Fucked up.
Not fucked up
Did she disclose it on her app? Apparently not. Did she forget? Did she purposely deceive WF? Who cares and neither should WF. There is someone else out there to take her place.
It's still fucked up. Once you've done your time/punishment then it's nobody's business, just between the justice department and the convicted person. We are talking about a damn shoplifter, not a convicted murderer.
:wacko:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2012, 08:40:45 AM
Some nice looking backs in that tatoo array. :)
Concur.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 10, 2012, 09:27:55 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 09:26:35 AM
Ah, they just aint into freaky ladies. Gotya :huh:
Not when they look like sailors, bikers or convicts, no.
;) :yes:
Quote from: DGuller on May 10, 2012, 05:42:46 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 10, 2012, 05:14:12 AM
Maybe, maybe not. At any rate, she was dishonset and on her way back to the Filipino "Boom, Boom" house.
There is no maybe about it. It was a federal law, not an employment policy. Did you follow this discussion at all?
Hmm. There's a word in that that makes me question whether or not thay had any discretion in the matter.
Quote"We are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust
:D Yea.
Too bad for her she didn't just do some gay bashing back in '72 instead.
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2012, 08:49:59 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 10, 2012, 03:54:21 AM
Quote from: Caliga on May 09, 2012, 09:58:51 PM
Quote from: The Larch on May 09, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
Jesus pogo dancing Christ, what a nightmare of a system. I guess that background checking has grown into such a multi million industry that it can't be erradicated anymore.
It's not a problem for most people, since most people are not convicted felons. It also seems to me like it's a good way to encourage people to not commit felonies, if the word on the street is that employers do not like to hire criminals and all that.
But just so you whiny Euros feel better: I do know of cases where convicted felons have been (knowingly) hired. I can't say I know of any cases where a convicted thief has been hired, but I know of hirings where the candidate was a convicted DUI or drug offender.
Further, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, most states do have rehabilitation programs where the state partners with workforce development programs in order to actively help felons find jobs. The company I worked for prior to my current employer actually did exactly that (among several other services that it provided).
You say convicted felons and it seems that we're talking about violent criminals that have been doing years and years in jail, but in this particular case it's a 40 yo shoplifting case, so here we have a middle aged woman getting fired for something she did when she was a teenager. Fucked up.
Being 40 years ago she had every opportunity to have it pardoned/expunged from her record. She didn't.
Then when facing an employment application she chose not to disclose it. Her choice.
She's not being fired for something she did as a teenager. She's being fired for choices she made much later in life: not getting the convcition expunged, and not disclosing it.
Did she know that? Is it really logical to make people jump through so many bullshit hoops for that? Do you even get a record for something as petty as shoplifting? Still broken.
Given what's happening with the EU economy right now I guess I am not surprised that y'all think stealing is "petty". :)
Quote from: 11B4V on May 11, 2012, 05:52:59 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 09, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
Did she know that?
It asked her on the app :huh:
I mean the opportunity to get it removed from record.
Quote from: The Larch on May 11, 2012, 06:46:54 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 11, 2012, 05:52:59 AM
Quote from: The Larch on May 09, 2012, 08:17:40 PM
Did she know that?
It asked her on the app :huh:
I mean the opportunity to get it removed from record.
I'm sure all she had to do was put forth a little effort.
If she didnt know how...google it.
Dishonest AND lazy
Quote from: 11B4V on May 11, 2012, 06:57:59 AM
I'm sure all she had to do was put forth a little effort.
Yup; in Maryland, it's one of the few things you can do yourself that lawyers haven't managed to engineer in the system to the point that you need them at $300/hour to do for you.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 11, 2012, 06:57:59 AM
I'm sure all she had to do was put forth a little effort.
If she didnt know how...google it.
Dishonest AND lazy
:lmfao:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 07:01:34 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 11, 2012, 06:57:59 AM
I'm sure all she had to do was put forth a little effort.
Yup; in Maryland, it's one of the few things you can do yourself that lawyers haven't managed to engineer in the system to the point that you need them at $300/hour to do for you.
Yea, and like I said, if she didnt know how to go about it....google it.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 10, 2012, 09:28:42 AM
They are just old conservative in denial.
Who would deny something as honourable as conservatism?
I don't take chick advice from Gay Fox.
Quote from: Neil on May 11, 2012, 07:47:29 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 10, 2012, 09:28:42 AM
They are just old conservative in denial.
Who would deny something as honourable as conservatism?
Ed & Seedy, obviously. Mostly Seedy.
@Ed I offer none, you'll learn to love it all by yourself when all the 20 year olds you are interested in have tats.
I doubt it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on May 11, 2012, 07:01:34 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 11, 2012, 06:57:59 AM
I'm sure all she had to do was put forth a little effort.
Yup; in Maryland, it's one of the few things you can do yourself that lawyers haven't managed to engineer in the system to the point that you need them at $300/hour to do for you.
:mad:
Someone alert the Maryland Bar Association!