Re: [BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: New book -- good but disturbing
Jay-
Just to note... first, I'm on vacation and have been since 12/20. I have limited internet access and won't be back home till 1/6.
There are always exceptions to the rule and the company I work for doesn't have an automatically "fire someone if they've been
arressted policy" policy. We do pre-employment screening with the consent of potential employees. If someone gets in trouble after
they've been hired, depending on the person and circumstances, yes- it's possible the person could be fired before they are
officially convicted.
I'm fine with that scenario because it's a policy that the owner of my company sets and it's his business. He's entitled to set the
rules he wants as long as he is following the law. People who come to work there know in advance what the corporate policies are.
I'm incredibly fortunate to work for a queer positive, sex positive business where the owner knows about my work with NCSF and in
fact supports it.
As for any more discussion, I'll be happy to engage in more email once I'm back from vacation.
Leigha
On Wed , 'Jay Wiseman' sent:
> --- In BDSM-LegalIssues@
> wrote:
> >
> > Good grief Jay.
> >
> > You have my permission to forward this thread (unclipped of
> course)
> to Susan Wright (who isn't a board member) and anyone else you
> > like on the NCSF board. Their email addresses can be found on our
> website.
> Noted.
> > I've never indicated once that I was speaking for NCSF.
> True, however your association with them is quite prominent. OTOH,
> you did speak for your employer, if only informally, and you
> explicitly defended your employer's "fire the arrested" policies
> when
> you said in this very thread:
> "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.
>
> 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."
> > I've simply stated that private corporations, such as the one I
> work for, in employment at will states, have the right to hire or
> > fire employees for any number of reasons- which include at my
> >company, criminal substance abuse or violent histories.
> Your problem is that you completely fail to see that merely having
> been arrested does *not* in and of itself even come close to proving
>
> that a person has a history of "criminal substance abuse or violent
> histories."
> Factually innocent people get arrested all the time, and nowadays
> they therefore lose their job, and have numerous good-quality jobs
> for which they're highly qualified for denied to them, because of
> the arrest itself, and *not* because they did anything wrong
> whatsoever. However, you're fine with this because it's a "at will
> employment" situation.
> > I'm sorry you find that so terribly distressing. But, the policies
>
> of my private employer do not dictate what I do in my private
> > life or the volunteer work I preform for NCSF or other
> organizations.
> I understand. You're perfectly fine with living a "I fire innocent
> people by day and defend innocent people by night" kind of life.
> > If you'd like to make this discussion at least relevant to the
> list, what do you feel about BDSM organizations that require their
> > members to sign waivers indicating they're not felons or members
> of
> a sex offeder registry?
> >
> > Leigha
> Right now, that would be a red herring, although I can understand
> that you'd be extremely grateful for a change of subject just now.
> However, I've written about that topic in the past so for now I will
>
> make exactly *one* comment on that: felons and/or members of sex
> offender registries have presumably been *convicted* (or pled guilty
>
> or nolo to) some sort of serious criminal behavior. Setting aside
> the issues of factually innocent people either being pressured into
> taking a plea or being convicted (both of which would be
> miscarriages
> of justice), these latter groups of people are likely *factually
> guilty* of their crimes.
> You completely fail to perceive the huge injustice of firing a
> person
> who has been arrested, even though it later turns out that the fired
>
> person was completely factually innocent of the charge.
> Given that, I presume that you'll be fine when it happens to *you*
> or
> to someone that you deeply care about.
> Scenario: Tomorrow, the person you love most in the whole world, who
>
> absolutely loves their job, is good at it, and has had their job for
>
> years, will be arrested. The next day, their employer will fire
> them
> on the basis of that arrest. The day after that, further police
> investigation will establish that your beloved is completely
> factually innocent and all charges are dropped, complete with an
> informal apology from the police. The day after that, your beloved
> will try to get their old job back, but be refused on the basis that
>
> their arrest record has created a "criminal history" for them, and
> the company doesn't hire people with criminal histories. Your
> sweetie comes literally crying home to you, and as you hold their
> sobbing body you will explain to them that everything's just fine
> because they held an "at will" job.
> Good grief indeed.
> > On Tue , 'Jay Wiseman' sent:
> > > So the essence of your reply is: Given that Maryland is an "at
> will"
> > >
> > > state (as are the employees at your company) this completely
> > > justifies your firing a *completely factually innocent* person
> (and
> > > also your not re-hiring them) on the sole basis of their having
> been
> > >
> > > arrested.
> > > Scenario: the police arrest an employee of yours for murder.
> Upon
> > > learning of his arrest, you immediately fire him. Within 48
> hours,
> > > subsequent police investigation conclusively proves that "some
> other
> > >
> > > dude" did the murder. Employee is promply released and all
> charges
> > > against him are dropped. The police even informally apologize
> for
> > > all he was put through. However, said employee is still out of
> a
> > > job, and you are perfectly fine with this because, hey, Maryland
>
> is
> > > an "at will" state.
> > > After all, to have been arrested is, by your explicitly stated
> > > standards, to have a "history" and therefore, again by your
> > > explicitly stated standards, to be a potential liability.
> *Actual
> > > innocence* (a troublesome nuisance, I know) is a complete non-
> issue
> > > for you.
> > > Given the above, the people that your volunteer organization
> (NCSF)
> > > has *defended* would *not* be hired by, or would be fired from,
> your
> > >
> > > company -- and your own words conclusively demonstrate that
> you're
> > > completely at peace with that because hey, it's an at-will
> situation
> > >
> > > so things are all perfectly fine, don'tcha know.
> > > In brief, if an action is legal, then said action is also just
> > > perfectly peachy. No problem here.
> > > Given that you would not hire people that your volunteer
> > > organization
> > > (NCSF) has defended, and that you have *repeatedly* defended and
>
> > > justified your practice, your continued association with both
> your
> > > company and with NCSF is completely untenable.
> > > From which one will you be resigning forthwith?
> > > Best,
> > > Jay
> > > p.s. do I have your permission to forward your posts in this
> thread
> > >
> > > to Susan Wright?
> > > --- In BDSM-LegalIssues@
> Fleming"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jay-
> > > >
> > > > Maryland is an employment at will state. The employees where I
> > > work
> > > are not unionized and are not covered by any type of contract
> > > > or collective bargaining agreement. As such, the only
> protections
> > > they have in either the hiring process or their jobs are the
> laws
> > > > that cover employees (including me by the way) from
> discrimination
> > >
> > > based on gender, age, disability, religion, race, nationality
> > > > and military service in some cases, etc. Maryland does not
> have
> > > laws protecting people based on arrest or conviction records or
> for
> > > > that matter based on sexual orientation.
> > > >
> > > > If the owner of the company I work for decides he doesn't like
>
> > > someone's personality, it's completely legal for him to fire
> that
> > > > employee. If he feels like an employee's (or potential
> employee's)
> > >
> > > arrest/conviction record would be disruptive to his business or
> > > > expose the company to liability, it's completely legal for
> that
> > > person to be fired.
> > > >
> > > > Again, Maryland is an employment at will state and employees
> don't
> > >
> > > have recourse if they're terminated for a reason that falls
> > > > outside of those protected discrimination classes. The
> > > unemployment
> > > system of course covers them but private employers aren't
> > > > obligated to hire or maintain employment for people who don't
> fit
> > > inside their corporate framework (barring for reasons of
> > > > discrimination covered by the law.)
> > > >
> > > > Employees or potential employees with substance abuse or
> violent
> > > histories are an unacceptable risk for most employers, including
>
> > > > mine. And, once again I'll note, the background checks the
> company
> > >
> > > I work for conducts are authorized in writing by the employees
> > > > before they are ever done.
> > > >
> > > > For whatever it's worth- I work for a company owned by people
> of a
> > >
> > > minority religious faith, and 60%+ of our employees are African
> > > > American. I'm out in my office about my sexual orientation and
>
> > > about my work with and for NCSF. I love the place I work.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Leigha
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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?
> > > > > > I'm surprised you feel like my volunteer work with and for
> > > NCSF
> > > is
> > > > >
> > > > > relevant in this matter at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Leigha
> > > > > I'm not surprised, not at all, that you're surprised.
> > > > > Jay
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Links:
> > > ------
> > > [1]
> > > http://sitemail7.
> [3]('BDSM-
> LegalIssues@
> > >yahoogroups.
> > > http://groups.
> LegalIssues/
> >
>
> >92NXVpBF9TAzk3MzU5
> nSWQDN
> >
> >TI3OARzZWMDZnRyBHN
> [3]
> > > http://groups.
> LegalIssues/
> >
>
> >9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdy
> 3OARzZ
> > >WMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx
> act=reply&messageNu
> > > http://groups.
> LegalIssues/
> >
>
> >9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdy
> zbGsDb
> > >nRwYwRzdGltZQMxMTk
> > > http://groups.
> LegalIssues/
> >
>
> >5mBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0
> 0cgRzb
> > >GsDbXNncwRzdGltZQM
> > > http://groups.
> LegalIssues/
> >
>
> >F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGd
> RzbGsD
> > >bGlua3MEc3RpbWUDMT
> > > http://groups.
> LegalIssues/
> >
>
> >iBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0B
> cgRzbG
> > >sDbWJycwRzdGltZQMx
> http://www.onelist.
> > > [9]
> > >
>
> http://us.ard.
> [11]
> 771/D
> >
>
> >=groups/S=17050838
> k8pu1n
> > >3/*http://college-
> key=yahoo_colfngrou
> > >A152932587[
> > >
>
> http://groups.
> [13]
> AzM1M
> >
>
> >DgzMARncnBzcElkAzE
> I0OTE-[11]
> > > http://groups.
> LegalIssues/
> >
>
> >9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdy
> zbGsDc
> > >3RuZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE
> > > http://sitemail7.
> [15]('BDSM-
> LegalIssues-
> > >digest@yahoogroups.
> Digest','','
> > > [13]
> > > http://groups.
> LegalIssues;
> >
>
> >3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkA
> aHBmBH
> > >N0aW1lAzExOTkyMTI0
> > > [15]
> > > http://sitemail7.
> [19]('BDSM-
> LegalIssues-
> > >unsubscribe@
> > > http://groups.
> LegalIssues/
> >
>
> >jBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0B
> bARzbG
> > >sDdm1icnMEc3RpbWUD
> > > http://groups.
> LegalIssues;
> >
>
> >3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkA
> dmdocA
> > >RzdGltZQMxMTk5MjEy
> > >
>
> http://us.ard.
> [23]
> 78/D=
> >
>
> >groups/S=170508380
> j6tf/*
> > >http://tech.
> > >
>
> http://us.ard.
> [25]
> 78/D=
> >
>
> >groups/S=170508380
> s6kj/*
> > >http://advision.
> > >
>
> http://us.ard.
> [27]
> 765/D
> >
>
> >=groups/S=17050838
> 3kq3t/
> > >*http://advision.
> > >
> >
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> http://sitemail7.
>yahoogroups.
> http://sitemail7.
>yahoogroups.
> [4] http://groups.
> [5] http://groups.
> [6] http://groups.
> [7] http://groups.
> [8] http://groups.
> [9] http://groups.
> [10] http://www.onelist.
> [11]
> http://us.ard.
> [12] http://college-
> [13]
> http://groups.
> [14] http://groups.
> [15] http://sitemail7.
> [16]
> http://sitemail7.
>s.com\',\'\
> [18] http://docs.
> [19] http://sitemail7.
> [20]
> http://sitemail7.
>groups.com\
> [22] http://groups.
> [23]
> http://us.ard.
> [24] http://tech.
> [25]
> http://us.ard.
> [26] http://advision.
> [27]
> http://us.ard.
> [28] http://advision.
> [29]
> http://groups.
>RvNGY5BF9TAzk3MzU5
>TI5MwRzZWMDZnRyBHN
> http://groups.
>9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdy
>WMDZnRyBHNsawNycGx
> http://groups.
>9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdy
>nRwYwRzdGltZQMxMTk
> http://groups.
>ZsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0
>GsDbXNncwRzdGltZQM
> http://groups.
>F9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGd
>bGlua3MEc3RpbWUDMT
> http://groups.
>lBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0B
>sDbWJycwRzdGltZQMx
> [36]
> http://us.ard.
>=groups/S=17050838
>3/*http://college-
>A152932587[
> http://groups.
>DgzMARncnBzcElkAzE
> http://groups.
>9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdy
>3RuZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE
> http://sitemail7.
>digest@yahoogroups.
> [40]
> http://groups.
>3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkA
>N0aW1lAzExOTkyOTc2
> [42]
> http://sitemail7.
>unsubscribe@
> http://groups.
>nBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0B
>sDdm1icnMEc3RpbWUD
> http://groups.
>3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkA
>RzdGltZQMxMTk5Mjk3
> http://us.ard.
>groups/S=170508380
>http://groups.
> http://us.ard.
>groups/S=170508380
>http://new.groups.
> http://us.ard.
>groups/S=170508380
>http://advision.
>
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
9:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home