Subject:
|
Re: Here's a scary one
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Jun 2005 16:32:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2122 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> Agree with the above, and further I don't support name-and-shame as a punishment
> mechanism unless it's imposed at the time of sentencing, but I do support the
> notion of being able to inquire "is this potential employee already convicted of
> child molestation" so that an employer can choose not to hire that person, or so
> that a customer can determine if an employee of the establishment they patronise
> might be a risk factor for their child.
That's legitimate, IMO. Heck, if the sentence included some kind of "you may
not withhold this information from prospective employers," then there's no
problem with due process, either. It's analogous to the financial industry,
many portions of which require full disclosure of finance-related convictions in
order to acquire licenses, for example. Employers are allowed to run credit
checks, for pity's sake, so a "molester check" in relevant circumstances hardly
seems unjustified.
> Again, without giving details of the personal situation that slants my view on
> this, that background checking was something that a particular employer was lax
> about and it was due to someone deciding to do some sleuthing that it came to
> light that there was an issue and action was taken.
That sounds like a tough situation, and I won't ask for details. But it's
awkward, too, because the employer's course might be limited if there's no
clause for termination due to subsequent disclosure of past convictions. Lots
of employee contracts have some kind of language like "omission of information
is grounds for termination" or somesuch, so I guess that would give the employer
some options.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Here's a scary one
|
| (...) Agree with the above, and further I don't support name-and-shame as a punishment mechanism unless it's imposed at the time of sentencing, but I do support the notion of being able to inquire "is this potential employee already convicted of (...) (19 years ago, 17-Jun-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
