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@gmail.com>
To: Main PLUG discussion list <
plug-discuss@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@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@twingeckos.com>
>
>To: Main PLUG discussion list <plug-discuss@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@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@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
>http://lists.plug.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)