RE: [BDSM-LegalIssues] Re: New book -- good but disturbing
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cadenas_sd
> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 2:09 AM
> --- In BDSM-LegalIssues@
> <malc@...> wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Vicki
> > > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 5:52 PM
[ Snip ]
> > > Ummmmm. The assertion they ave been working on is that
> companies are
> > > acquiring and using arrest records to make hire and fire
> decisions.
> >
> > Sorry, Vicki, but if you'd bother to read the thread you'll
> see that
> > it is the FACT of the arrest that Cadenas and Wiseman are so
> > interested in, not the RECORD of it.
>
> That's a meaningless differentiation.
Although the differentiation isn't "meaningless"
(If arrest records were private and automatically shredded on release, i.e.
the record was never accessible, the fact of the arrest still creates all
the same issues).
> Jay's issue was twofold:
>
> - employers use the fact of the arrest to make
> employment-related decisions.
> - employers learn about the fact by accessing (appropriately
> or not) arrest records.
>
> Ultimately, though, the issue would not go away if the
> employer learned about the arrest some other way.
Indeed. On this we are agreed. And, remember, those arrest records are
generally public information, and changing that may have all sorts of
unfortunate consequences elsewhere.
> > > >In either case, "the people" (including employers) have probable
> > > >cause to believe that the crime has been committed!
> >
> > > Not exactly. That would be the DA acting on behalf of
> "the people".
> > > If it were the people we would not need messy things like
> trial by
> > > jury.
> >
> > Again, you misunderstand. The "messy things" are not to
> test whether
> > there's probable cause (that's the job of the prelim), but whether
> case is
> > proven.
>
> The point, though, is that the arrest itself is not even
> probable cause. What you seem to be proposing is the approach
> "the police and DA must know what they are doing" instead of
> insisting on a separate analysis.
No, I'm stating that if there is smoke, then the reality of our litigious
culture means that it behooves an employer to act in some way.
[ And that is one of the reasons that the British Columbia policy doesn't
directly translate to the USA. ]
Personally, I am of the opinion that the approach where those arrested
disclose the fact and circumstances of the arrest to the employer is the
best that you can do, and trust that (as Sassy noted) one's competence as an
employee will result in being granted some leeway (possibly of the "take
some time off to sort this out" variety).
> Of course if the employer learns about underlying facts, then
> those may sometimes warrant personnel decisions.
Umm, if you're going to dismiss the fact of the arrest as being worthy of
consideration, how does an employer distinguish (without leeway) between
allegations -- which is all they are until trial -- and "facts"?
In truth, all the employer has are "underlying allegations"
expecting an employer to contact the victims of an alleged assault to
determine whether their employee was culpable is patently ridiculous!
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.
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
7:17 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home