OT - Explaining periods of unemployment on an application

[Trent Shipley]

I have seen the question framed as have you ever been arrested (NOT
convicted) for a serious misdemeanor or felony.


On 09/16/2010 03:03 PM, JD Austin wrote:
> I'm glad I don't work somewhere like that.  If I was
> acquitted/exonerated of a crime I wouldn't list it on an application
> either!  I can't think of a reason anyone would.  If it was a crime
> I'd been convicted of that was later expunged I would list it though;
> perhaps that is what you're referring to?   
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 14:54, Tim Bogart <timbogart at yahoo.com
> <mailto: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 <mailto:jd at twingeckos.com>>
>
>     *To:* Main PLUG discussion list
>     <plug-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 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/20100916/9897f22b/attachment.html>