RE: [BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: New book -- good but disturbing
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Wiseman
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:49 AM
> > My real world work position includes protecting the corporation I
> work for, and for liability reasons as well as many other reasons
> > we do not hire people who have criminal histories. There is of
> course latitiude-- no one is going to lose out on a position because
> > he's had an arrest 20 years ago when he was in college for some
> minor misdemeanor.
> > employee who doesn't have a criminal history and one who does, I'll
> hire the one without every time. There are simply too many
> > potential problems liability wise to knowingly hire someone with a
> record that puts either the company's employees or assets at
> > risk. And yes, we've fired employees for being arrested (but not
> yet convicted) for violent felonies.
>
> Wow. Freakin' wow. There it is, in black and white for all to see.
>
> Um, let me guess. As a matter of corporate policy, you do, of
> course, routinely re-hire those fired employees, with full back pay
> and benefits, who have been arrested for violent felonies if they
> subsequently have their original charges dropped, or reduced to a non-
> violent felony, or reduced to a misdemeanor, or acquitted, right?
>
> Your company has had such a "rehire and restore" policy for years,
> right?
>
> The alternative suggests that a person who is *completely factually
> innocent* of such a charge nonetheless summarily loses their job with
> your company with no recourse (ah, the joys of "at will" employment),
> and further suggests that you are just fine with that. After
> all, "can't take a chance" right?
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances
How can one distinguish between firing someone because, say, the association
of that person with a company causes the company to get bad publicity and so
lose business (e.g. because the individual was the local NAMBLA
spokesperson)
their arrest for a crime that -- maybe -- will be finally adjudicated in a
few years...)"
Maybe some folk would be happier if corporations couldn't fire anyone at
all... (although I tend to believe those who think that are those who are
incompetent or unemployable.
[ Snip ]
> p.s. The author of the book notes that privacy is, in most of
> Europe, much more strongly protected than it is here. This includes
> things like corporate access to arrest records. Time for a bit of
> legislation, methinks.
More like a repeal of the whole Freedom of Association thing...
Malc.
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
Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net.
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
__,_._,___
posted by Annja Sue at
11:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home