How to fill in a student loan form: [BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: New book -- good but disturbing

re: Arrests

I find all of this a bit interesting.

Once upon a time at a kink party of about 30, I asked the room - "Of
the men here, how many of you have NOT been arrested?"

There were about 10 to 15 men in the room -- and not a single one
raised their hand. Most of the arrests came for DWI, some were for
civil disobediance. What fascinated me most is that every last one
had spent a night in jail...and they all had tales to tell.

I would say that the younger ones might be suffering from employment
discrimination....

bw

Sassy

....MERRY CHRISTMAS folks - as well as Happy Holidays!

--- In BDSM-LegalIssues@yahoogroups.com, "Malcolm Weir" <malc@...>
wrote:
>
>
> > It's as follows: Apparently, many companies have quietly
> > instituted a policy of either not hiring, or quietly firing,
> > any employee who has ever been *arrested* (note: *not*
> > convicted, but merely arrested) for any reason whatsoever.
>
> Those are two distinct issues: "not hiring", and "quietly firing".
>
> The former is vaguely justifiable (if not laudable).
>
> The latter is neither, and probably much rarer, and unlikely to be
> implemented as Jay implies (i.e. firing, but rather in choosing who
gets
> "let go" when staff gets cut -- and that's ignoring the question of
just how
> the employer found out!). Of course, in many cases, arrests are
tied to
> drug use, and many organizations have (bizarrely) stringent anti-
drug
> policies that could be relevant to a decision to fire someone --
e.g. if the
> arrestee admits possession at work in an attempt to show their
innocense to
> the charge under which they were arrested. In many other cases,
the arrests
> may involve driving offenses (particularly DUI) which have
administrative
> penalties (or insurance consequences) that are sufficient to lose
someone
> their job.
>
> The bigger issue is that employers shouldn't ask the question, and
risk
> being in violation of state and/or federal anti-discrimination laws
if they
> do. Heck, automatic disqualification even based on _convictions_ is
> problematic. (The "automatic" bit; any half-way competent
organization
> should be able to find achieve the same goal by other means...)
>
> > I don't recall the rationale for this policy but I presume
> > it's likely something along the lines of "where there's smoke
> > there must be fire" thinking, along with thinking that people
> > who have been arrested (apparently something like one person
> > in four of the entire
> > population) are more likely to be "problematic" employees
> > than are people who have never been arrested.
>
> Trivially: if someone has been arrested, and the prospective
employer knows
> that, the employer would be most unwise to NOT follow up and
discover the
> circumstances of the arrest, lest they become liable for damages if
the
> arrest turned out to have been justified, and the employee repeats
the
> act(s) that got them arrested in the first place. The follow-up
incurs an
> expense; if the prospect is one of several candidates, why spend
the money?
>
> I also believe the "one in four" number is entirely bogus -- an
> extrapolation of a ratio in an "inner city" to the entire
population, which
> is obviously statistically goofy.
>
> The troublesome part is, of course, people who were arrested but
never
> charged for good reason, as opposed to those who were arrested but
not
> charged for reasons such as a complaining witness opting not to
press
> charges or some kind of procedural mishap that makes a conviction
> improbable. For the rest, there is smoke, and investigating the
presence or
> otherwise of fire is a non-trivial and not inexpensive exercise.
>
> > Apparently, companies can purchase access to the National
> > Criminal Information Center (NCIC) databases and can now
> > "run" somebody as part of routine pre-employment or ongoing
> > screening, and if an employee pops up as ever having been
> > arrested, out they go (or in they never get).
>
> This is untrue. Companies can NOT "purchase access" to the NCIC.
(See the
> link Charmaine provided). Anyone doing so would violate 18 USC
1030, at the
> very least. Certain types of companies (notably banks) can ask the
FBI to
> access the NCIC on their behalf, but that's a rather different
matter....
>
> Then, of course, there are security clearances. Few companies will
submit a
> candidate with an arrest record for a clearance, on the grounds that
> investigating the circumstances of the arrest and the final
disposition
> costs substantially more than, well, not having to investigate that
stuff.
>
> Bottom line: don't get arrested!
>
> > Jay
>
> Malc.
>

__._,_.___

Messages in this topic (7) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

Messages | Links | Members

Community email addresses:
Post message: BDSM-LegalIssues@onelist.com
Subscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-subscribe@onelist.com
Unsubscribe: BDSM-LegalIssues-unsubscribe@onelist.com
List owner: BDSM-LegalIssues-owner@onelist.com

Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.onelist.com/community/BDSM-LegalIssues

MARKETPLACE

Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.

Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

Monday, December 24, 2007

[BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: New book -- good but disturbing

0 Comments: