OT - Explaining periods of unemployment on an application

[Tim Bogart]

Maybe... but I'd be willing to bet that the words "charged with or" are in there 
somewhere too.  Believe me, they want to know everything.

I misquoted Grandpa Jones... he used to say "Fact is stranger than true".

Tim



________________________________
From: Steve Phariss <sphariss at gmail.com>
To: Main PLUG discussion list <plug-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 3:02:33 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Explaining periods of unemployment on an application


That is still a bit strange.  All the applications I have filled out the 
question is have you ever been found guilty....


 
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Tim Bogart <timbogart at yahoo.com> wrote:

No.  Maybe I didn't explain it clearly enough.  No, they did not terminate 
people for having a brush with the law and being found innocent or acquitted or 
for whatever reason, were not convicted.  They terminated those people for 
FAILING TO DISCLOSE their brush with the law, and the accompanying details on 
the application.  Understandable in my mind.
>
>
>Tim...
>
>
>
________________________________
 From: JD Austin <jd at twingeckos.com> 
>
>To: Main PLUG discussion list <plug-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
>Sent: Thu, September 16, 2010 2:48:46 PM 
>
>Subject: Re: OT - Explaining periods of unemployment on an application
> 
>
>Hold on.. they fired people that were ACQUITTED of a crime?  That seems a bit 
>too far :( 
>
>If a court can't find them guilty how can an employer?
> 
>
>
>
>On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 14:38, Tim Bogart <timbogart at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I like your response.  At a company with which I worked for many years, many 
>years ago used to send me email on a daily basis listing folks who had been 
>terminated.  Of those, many were terminated because of falsehoods on their 
>applications.  And of those, not nearly, but ALL were due to information omitted 
>regarding some crime that the individual had committed.  And they ran the gambit 
>from robbery to murder.  Yes, murder, believe it or not. But in fairness, of 
>those, they involved folks who had been tried for murder and had been exonerated 
>by some means (found not guilty, thrown out due to mistrial or other reasons) 
>but the point is that they had concealed the facts regarding criminal activities 
>(I mean seriously, how can you forget to list something like that, or how can 
>you think it somehow doesn't qualify as something a potential employer would not 
>be interested?) that are easily checked.
>>
>>
>>Tim B.
>>
>>
>>I'm sticking with Grandpa Jones here...
>>"True is stranger than fact."
>>Hee-Haw
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20100916/be6486b3/attachment.html>