[BDSM-LegalIssues] Arrest records, et al.
Hello, all,
I've been following this whole arrest record/employment discussion
and, to tell the truth, I see both sides of it. Let me first say
that I own my own business, but without employees at this time. I
have hired people in the past, though. I've never used background
checks, as those people were known entities. However, if I were to
hire someone I didn't know, I would certainly run a criminal check.
I work in people's homes, so I would want to know if a new employee
had a conviction, or even an arrest, for burglary or theft. The fact
is, I'm not going to risk my reputation among my clients by bringing
a person into their homes who might possibly steal from them. Nor
will I put myself into that kind of a liability situation. I also
wouldn't vouch for someone into a BDSM event who I had been given to
understand, by word of mouth, had been under supisicion for rape or
violence. Again, it is my reputation that is also at risk in that
case. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't take the time to get to know
that person, but I wouldn't vouch for them until I found out more
information.
Now, let me posit a couple of alternative situations, just to be
somewhat contrary.
An employer discovers, by whatever means, that an applicant has been
arrested 7 or 8 times for domestic violence, but the charges were
always dropped, because the husband refused to testify. If this
person has, as it appears, repeatedly attacked her spouse and then
intimidated him away from pursuing conviction of those charges, then
there is a strong possibility that every employee in that company
would be at risk of being subjected to similar behavior. If it is
just the opposite, and the husband has repeatedly filed complaints
and then recanted, then I, personally, would question that
applicant's ability to exercise good judgement, since she has stayed
in this personal situation by choice. Either way, I likely wouldn't
hire her.
Scenario 2: An employee is discovered to have been arrested multiple
times in the vicinity of gay bars after someone had been assaulted,
but no one could, or was willing, to positively identify him as the
attacker, and he was, therefore, released. Now, this company has
numerous gay employees who are out about their orientation. Does
this suspected employee pose an increased risk to the other employees
in this company? Would I, as the owner of that company, be willing
to take that risk? Nope. I would be even less likely to do so if
there were charges being pursued, even if no adjudication had been
reached.
Here's the deal: an arrest record is just that, an arrest record.
There have been just as many who have been released after being
arrested that were factually guilty, but the evidence just wasn't
there to hold or convict, as there are those who are factually
innocent. I'm not trying to say that the numbers are equal, but that
both situations occur. However, an arrest does create an area of
concern for an employer. It is up to that employer/company to
determine just how much of a concern it is. But, multiple arrests
for similar offenses does tend to create a pattern.
What has been completely overlooked in this dicussion is that
employers/companies also have a responsibility to all their employees
and to their clients. Should an employer be required to place all
their other employees at risk to accomodate a single applicant who
might have a violent history? Or do the "rights" of that lone
individual outweigh the "rights" of the 200 other employees in that
company? Truth be told, no one has a *right* to work at any
particular company. Every company, however, has an absolute
responsibility to ensure that their employees enjoy a safe working
environment.
Most companies are going to err on the side of caution, and they
probably should. After all, if that company knowingly retains an
individual who might possibly have a violent nature, the company
instantly becomes liable should that person attack another employee
or a client. Or, should we pursue legislation to protect
corporations from liability in such "required to retain" situations?
What if the employee that was attacked was attacked simply because
they were gay, or a woman, or black? Or a black lesbian? Whose
rights prevail in that situation?
Just something to think about,
Draco
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.
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
10:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home