|
|
Forum: Polls
Thread (Discussion): Poll 1041 - Should employers be required to conduct criminal background checks before hiring new emp
Message 136048
Introduction
Posted by admin
on Jun 14, 2004 11:25 PM | Also by admin
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: N/A |
Discuss Poll 1041 - Should employers be required to conduct criminal background checks before hiring new employees?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
Message 136093 (In Reply to Message 136048)
No way
Posted by orolan
on Jun 15, 2004 10:40 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I take exception to "require". Where will it end? For that matter, where will it start?
Daycare center operator is "required" to do BG checks on employees. It goes without saying that the operator would have to undergo a BG check before being allowed to have the daycare center (and that doesn't even account for the in-home type with 5 kids or less that typically aren't licensed at all). Then there's the plumber who comes to fix the sink. Better require all plumbers to have BG checks, because you never know when one might have to take a service call at a daycare center. Ditto electricians, HVAC contractors, painters, lawn maintenance, etc. Better include building and remodeling contractors in there. A devious one may plant wireless pinhole cameras in the walls of the new addition.
What next? Children's clothing stores, toy stores, arcades, heck, even the grocery store sells toys and has kids running everywhere.
I guess we might as well require every business owner of any kind to undergo a criminal background check prior to allowing them to have a business. Then we require them to have any prospective employee checked out as well. And since it's a regulatory move to protect children, there will be no problem making it retroactive to about 1932.
The only thing left is....who checks out the people doing the background checks??????
Better to require places like daycare centers to be licensed by the state and to carry liability insurance. Then pass legislation allowing parents to sue the operator for negligence (which the required insurance will have to pay the judgements). You can bet the insurance companies will mandate checks, or revoke coverage. No coverage, no license. No doubt they will also require the operators to use only licensed and bonded tradespeople for repairs.
All of this will cause the operator to raise their rates. But hey, what price for a child's innocence?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136048)
Message 136096 (In Reply to Message 136093)
Posted by steve
on Jun 15, 2004 11:53 PM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
Then there's the plumber who comes to fix the sink. Better require all plumbers to have BG checks, because you never know when one might have to take a service call at a daycare center. Ditto electricians, HVAC contractors, painters, lawn maintenance, etc. Better include building and remodeling contractors in there. A devious one may plant wireless pinhole cameras in the walls of the new addition.
Or they might rape you and kill you. Right in your own home. At least that's the case with a couple of convicted sex offenders mentioned in this article in the News Archive - Groups want criminal checks on repairmen. Note the article title.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136093)
Message 136099 (In Reply to Message 136096)
Posted by orolan
on Jun 16, 2004 01:07 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
the case with a couple of convicted sex offenders
Actually, only one, the Weaver offender. There was no mention of the other being a sex offender.
I have a long commentary on this one. I'll save it and post in response to the thread for that article.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136096)
Message 136100 (In Reply to Message 136099)
Posted by brennus
on Jun 16, 2004 02:18 AM | Also by brennus
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Wisconsin,
Country: United States |
Don't forget, there are also some offenders who have never been caught by the police yet, or when they rape or kill some woman who let them in to fix some plumbing, its turned out to be their first offense. How do background checks protect against dangerous people with clean records?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136099)
Message 136102 (In Reply to Message 136100)
Posted by steve
on Jun 16, 2004 02:29 AM | Also by steve
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Virginia,
Country: United States |
Obviously every offender was a first time offender at some time in his/her life.
How do background checks protect against dangerous people with clean records?
Obviously they don't. But a person with a criminal history is statistically more likely to be convicted of a crime in the future than a person with no criminal history, everything else being equal. I'm sure you make decisions every day based on risk. By doing a criminal background check a business can better manage its risk and the risk to its customers.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136100)
Message 136104 (In Reply to Message 136048)
Posted by dp1
on Jun 16, 2004 03:45 AM | Also by dp1
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I don't see the point in requiring employers to conduct criminal background checks. The faulty assumption is that the employers will actually look at it and take appropriate action.
Many employers hire felons. Some don't care whether their employees have felony convictions or not. So how is requiring them to run a criminal background check going to change anything? They will still hire felons.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136048)
Message 136182 (In Reply to Message 136104)
Posted by fallenone
on Jun 17, 2004 07:23 PM | Also by fallenone
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Ohio,
Country: United States |
And many more use it to justify NOT hiring someone. There is a disclaimer statement on most apps reading like this:
"A conviction will not necessarily bar you from employment."
Of course, you waste two or three hours filling out the app, doing initial parerwork, the interview, or a pre-employment test only to be called into the office later and some siut tells you, "I'm sorry I don't hire felons PERIOD." Criminal history should only bar you for certain jobs but not others not related to the crime.
F1
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136104)
Message 136711 (In Reply to Message 136102)
BGC
Posted by myoung
on Jun 29, 2004 05:50 AM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
Not to mention that you don't only use police data bases to get a feel for an employee. References are useful tools also so long as you ask for the right ones. Someone always knows about strange behavior or incidences that went unreported. They may be wiling to divulge a little so you can't count them out. I never allow anyone to give me references such as friends and close relatives. They are bogus references and don't do the job. I ask for ex employers, landlords, etc.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136102)
Message 136712 (In Reply to Message 136182)
I think there is more to it
Posted by myoung
on Jun 29, 2004 05:58 AM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
(Criminal history should only bar you for certain jobs but not others not related to the crime). I think the employer is looking at behaviors and not just the type of crime. Criminals display certain behaviors, personality traits, or have a certain demeanor. Not all but most. I think that is what is mostly a concern. Being trustworthy, reliable, loyal, etc. A person with a propensity for criminal behavior doesn't necessarily sport all of those qualities an employer is looking for.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136182)
Message 136718 (In Reply to Message 136712)
EEOC
Posted by LostTime
on Jun 29, 2004 01:02 PM | Also by LostTime
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Wisconsin,
Country: United States |
From the EEOC:
The EEOC and the courts consider that to have a disparate impact on minorities – A company can ask about convictions and pleas of guilty or no contest – if an EEOC claim is filed, the employer must be prepared to show how the criminal record was relevant to the job in question
If an employer actually says they did not hire you because of your criminal history they are required to prove it would affect your job.
Most employers just hem and haw and make a different excuse for not hiring you so the law still has very little effect. But if they actually say that's why you weren't hired, they leave themselves wide open.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136712)
Message 136748 (In Reply to Message 136718)
I was just gonna say....
Posted by myoung
on Jun 30, 2004 04:09 AM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
I get ya and I agree that no employer would be stupid enough to actually admit that was why the person didn't get the job. The EEOC is limited in their ability to act. Proving this type of thing would be as difficult as proving age discrimination.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136718)
Message 136763 (In Reply to Message 136748)
Posted by momto2girls
on Jun 30, 2004 07:58 PM | Also by momto2girls
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Wyoming,
Country: United States |
I personally would hope that people in direct contact with my children would have a complete background check done on them.
When I went to hire a nanny for my children, I went to the county sheriffs dept and paid my 15.00 and got a bkg check done on this person. She told me that she had nothing to hide and even gave me her ssn and DL #.
I know the place where my husband works does not do bkg checks, hell at one time they had 8 SO's working for them. (The only reason I know this is because I visited the local abuse refuge foundation). These men had been in my home numerous times for BBQ's and such.
As far as every job requiring a bkg check, that would be almost impossible to comply with. People with authority definately should, ie..docotors, lawyers, police, teachers and so on. (they usually are done on these professions) Wal-Mart, Kmart employess give the right to do a background check on them but they are rarely done. Kmart employees have to be bonded(I have worked for both companies for numerous years)
But on the other hand if you have nothing to hide from prospective employers and are straight up honest with them, they are usually a lil more sympathetic. (I worked with a man convicted of 4 counts of rape once) and he was alone with women regularly. A lot of employers give people a chance, but I do live in a Right to Work state where they can fire you for absolutely no reason. At will employment, I guess they could hire you and if they did find out anything that negative about you that you can be fired with no explanation. What a wonderful state I live in.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136748)
Message 136777 (In Reply to Message 136763)
very true
Posted by myoung
on Jul 01, 2004 01:17 PM | Also by myoung
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Pennsylvania,
Country: United States |
PA is a state just like yours, a will to work state. You can be fired for any reason at all but if you fight hard enough, you can win the battle. I had a sexual harassment issue at my old job. I worked in a clean room characterizing certain proprietary materials. When you are in a full bunny suit, it is difficult to hear behind you and basically you are wearing full garb so only your eyes are sticking out. There were two co workers who used to come up behind me and grab my breasts etc. (I couldn't see them or hear them so they were on me before I knew it) They did other things as well that I won't even get into here. I took the whole company to court and won....not much but I still won. My supervisor was aware of what was going on and was also aware of my disablitiy yet he did not protect me in any way. He told me they didn't mean anything by it and he would talk to them. WHAT in that supposed to mean??? Boys will be boys?? I was outspoken about each time it happened and I also defended myself but they began making it difficult for me to work there. Yeah, it was my will to work, but it was my will and want to work in an environment where I didn't have to be touched by other men when I am a married woman.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136763)
Message 136982 (In Reply to Message 136777)
What do you do
Posted by FrustratedMi
on Jul 06, 2004 08:38 AM | Also by FrustratedMi
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Michigan,
Country: United States |
When you depend on child support
When your Ex is A convicted - SO
and he makes over 60k a year -
Do you not take the child support?
Even knowing what he is..
I do not make a 1/ 4 of what he does =
He was unemployed for over 3 years - do to the fact - his offence happened during a job - that he aquired prior to the offense. He then became laid off - and his record was then found.
A Firm hired him - after 3 years - no child support - and I feel justice - because I am sucking him dry - he owes me over 35k.
with the 3 years - and other back support
If he was not working - I would be ...on the street
So it is a what it is - If they are working - atleast they can be monitored - Yes???
I believe that they should be able to work - and pay taxes - and child support - better than - them being on the street - homeless and unknown of their whereabouts - dont you think?
How are you going to track them - if they can not Work
Have a residence
A active Social Securtity Number
How can you track them...
If they are sent out - into the Public -to have no responsibiity -
to have nothing
You have to understand -
It is in the publics best interest - to know where they live - know where they work - and know that they are busy - doing something - other than focusing on their personal issues - sickness.
I cant think of a better place for him - but to be active in work - he needs a focus - to be somebody - other than to be the Freak - even though - I do not believe he is repairable - I believe he needs to be working - to find some substance - and patterns - to follow - it keeps him stable - and mindful - that if he screws - UP - his Arse is a gonner.
So it is said.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136777)
Message 137061 (In Reply to Message 136763)
momto2girls
Posted by orolan
on Jul 08, 2004 01:48 AM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
These men had been in my home numerous times for BBQ's and such.
Interesting! Given the SO's uncontrollable urge to diddle a child every chance he gets along with his 44 victims per year average, combined with you having 8 of them in your home at some time or another, surely ONE of them molested or tried to molest one of your children! Did they?
People with authority definately should, ie..docotors, lawyers, police, teachers and so on. (they usually are done on these professions)
Can't say one way or another about doctors and lawyers, but the police and teachers seem to have quite a few child molesters in their ranks in spite of the background checks they undergo. Any thoughts on why that is?
(I worked with a man convicted of 4 counts of rape once) and he was alone with women regularly.
You're kidding, right? 4 counts of rape? And he worked alone with women regularly? I assume he's in prison now? Because surely he committed several more rapes under such enabling conditions. He can't help himself. He's deviant.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136763)
Message 137332 (In Reply to Message 137061)
Orolan
Posted by momto2girls
on Jul 13, 2004 12:25 PM | Also by momto2girls
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Wyoming,
Country: United States |
Given the SO's uncontrollable urge to diddle a child every chance he gets along with his 44 victims per year average, combined with you having 8 of them in your home at some time or another, surely ONE of them molested or tried to molest one of your children! Did they?
Thank goodness I never allowed my children around the men my hubby worked with. I thought them to be to foul-mouthed to be around my kids. Little did I know that being foul-mouthes was the least of my problems. They always stayed with a grandparent.
You're kidding, right? 4 counts of rape? And he worked alone with women regularly? I assume he's in prison now? Because surely he committed several more rapes under such enabling conditions. He can't help himself. He's deviant.
Actually he got a violation of parole for beating up a guy that worked with us...We used to operate trains at a coal mine. The LE came and took him away and now he is finishing up his sentence in Rawlins. (WYoming State Pen)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (137061)
Message 151229 (In Reply to Message 137332)
rebuttal
Posted by 684867
on May 06, 2005 03:43 AM | Also by 684867
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Texas,
Country: United States |
For awhile I worked in technical support dealing with computers infected with malware (viruses) and other little hacks. Most of this comes from porn sites. Twice I reported sites (and users) who I suspected were involved with child pornography. I did my job and I fulfillfed my moral duty.
I also have been known to help an apartment manager I know provide better security.
Then there is the fact that I have built an expanding network of sex offenders, to help each other get jobs and housing.
Thus far I have not relapsed. Nor have any of the men I have helped (and I do check in on them from time to time).
Since my release from prison I have noticed several sex offenders fall. However, it is not usually the result of another sex crime. Most of the sex offenders I have seen return to prison is due to non-sex crimes, registration offenses or probation/parole violations.
Employment seems to be the biggest obstacle.
As of today (5 May 2005) I am going on 3 months' unemployment because of background checks. I am starting to work for myself as I can and as the capital avails itself.
Paranoia and increasing regulation are counter-productive.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (137332)
Message 158546 (In Reply to Message 136048)
Posted by rwjourneyman
on Aug 13, 2005 01:37 AM | Also by rwjourneyman
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Sure, let's make it even harder for these folks to conform to societies demands for acceptible behavior.
First, we are going to make every sexual offender since 1960, no matter the actual charge, paint their face onto the world-wide web for anyone (including employers, local survivors just looking to cause someone ELSE some grief for a change, or a busy-body naighbor that just loves to spead gossip) to look up, allowing any one of these people to target the offender for any number of 'legal' hate crimes (posting pictures, taking out radio ads, picketting their homes, petitioning the city to have them forcibly removed...). THAT'S all legal, so who the heck CARES about causing the offender any grief?
It is my personal opinion that at least 90 percent of first time sexual offenders will never commit another sexual offense. I believe the govenor of Iowa said the same thing a few days back (it was in an article in the local paper because a town in Volusia County is refusing to enact the more insane SO laws and either Des Moines or Iowa as a whole was mentioned as reference).
What truely needs to be done is to psychologically evaluate each case AS IT LEAVES THE PRISON SYSTEM to determine if the 'first offense' was a fluke (accidents DO happen, mistakes ARE made). Now, I'm not talking about a simple session or two with a fly-by-night shrink here. I'm talking about a minimum of 6 months in a psych ward with daily sessions with a (perhaps) federally certified sexual psychologist.
Should that psych return a good result, then the offender can be released without further consequence. A bad result would mean that the offender would be monitored, either by web listings or the new GPS tracking several states have been proposing. A second offense (of any kind) would then result in LIFE IN PRISON.
Should the released offender, the one with a good psych result, stay clean for a number of years (let'ds say 10, just for this post) then he or she can petition for their civil rights (voting, wepons laws, etc) to be reinstated.
I do not think that ANYTHING that does not require a psych workup will be effective in combating the ever-growing (or should that be ever-mediatized) trend toward sexual offenses. Placing people on websites, forcing them to wear a GPS device (similar to a house arrest anklet), or forcing them to be the subject of mandatory criminal background checks will only make things worse (see a related thread, started by me - should be viewable in a couple of days).
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136048)
Message 162831 (In Reply to Message 136048)
Posted by Scaye
on Sep 27, 2005 04:50 PM | Also by Scaye
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I haven't been to a place yet that doesn't, or at least ask and tell you they can. The only places that should, to protect themselves is any place working with directly with children.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136048)
Message 165812 (In Reply to Message 136048)
yes
Posted by anti
on Oct 30, 2005 03:10 AM | Also by anti
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
of course.
just as on most job applications it asks if you do drugs etc etc....... people have the right to know.
so what if they cant get a job, it is not our fault.
we need not suffer for crimes others commit
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136048)
Message 166968 (In Reply to Message 165812)
NO
Posted by june5
on Nov 09, 2005 02:05 AM | Also by june5
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Anti, how exactly would you be "suffering" by an SO having a job?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (165812)
Message 167231 (In Reply to Message 136048)
Posted by momhelpingbyherself
on Nov 12, 2005 09:12 PM | Also by momhelpingbyherself
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Kentucky,
Country: United States |
Yes i believe they shoud do criminal background checks. when i worked for the headstart in the local school system i had to do one, so it seems to be a mandatory thing in most states.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136048)
Message 168008 (In Reply to Message 136982)
Posted by Valerie
on Nov 25, 2005 10:56 AM | Also by Valerie
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
So let me understand as long as he's a freak someplace else and paying you, thats ok?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136982)
Message 168009 (In Reply to Message 166968)
Posted by Valerie
on Nov 25, 2005 11:33 AM | Also by Valerie
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
ts called Liability, look it up....common sense tells you that to put an RSO in contact with children all day long is as dangerous as putting a bank robber in management at Wachovia....some things just stare you in the face...others arent so clear...but the bottom line is a person doesnt want to be held responsible and lose his business over a criminal act or (the possibility of ) a criminal act by someone else..
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (166968)
Message 168033 (In Reply to Message 136104)
Posted by rodsmith
on Nov 25, 2005 04:41 PM | Also by rodsmith
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
my thing is....that unless the state is planning on supplying all those felons a home, food, clothes, medicine,,, for the rest of their lives...they they gotta work someplace...
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136104)
Message 168036 (In Reply to Message 168009)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 25, 2005 04:56 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
ts called Liability
Are you saying that somebody can sue Anti if I get a job working at a daycare? Why is that?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168009)
Message 168108 (In Reply to Message 168036)
Posted by Valerie
on Nov 27, 2005 03:04 PM | Also by Valerie
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Anti wouldnt hire you and neither would I, maybe cut our lawns, isnt that what you do? but no wouldnt put you in a daycare business, but let me elaborate, me personally I dont think you would be a danger ..but the parents who pay the bills on that daycare wouldnt be so open...so therefore the liability, and just why would you want to be there in the first place? If I was an innocent SO I would distance myself so far from what would even be a compromising situation. But you will notice alot of men dont, wonder why that is Orolan?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168036)
Message 168208 (In Reply to Message 168108)
Posted by orolan
on Nov 29, 2005 04:01 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Get it straight here.
Anti said " we need not suffer for crimes others commit"
To which June responded "Anti, how exactly would you be "suffering" by an SO having a job?"
Now that's a pretty straightforward question. What suffering would Anti personally endure by any RSO anywhere who gets a job?
You responded that it had to do with liability, ie being sued. In other words, Anti can be sued if some RSO somewhere, anywhere, gets a job and commits a crime. You said it.
Anti wouldnt hire you and neither would I
Of course you wouldn't. You can't afford me;-))
maybe cut our lawns, isnt that what you do?
Far from it dear. But I will say I have a better job than gator-hunting. Now there's a fine upstanding intelligent respectable job. What do you do when business is slow? Hunt possums? Shine coons? Beat people up?
You brought up daycare but the post wasn't about daycare. It was about employment in general. There are already countless laws in place governing licensed daycares. Of course the people who choose to circumvent the law and operate unlicensed daycares may not be so diligent. But given they operate outside the law anyway, you think they'll care if the law says they have to do background screening?
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168108)
Message 168751 (In Reply to Message 168208)
Posted by Valerie
on Dec 07, 2005 03:32 PM | Also by Valerie
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Perhaps landscaping was more appropriate ....anyway thats what I thought you mentioned a couple of years ago...daycare was only an example...could be any one of a hundred jobs. No alligator hunting is a side business, used to be a sport, but now is a business...I work for a Doctor in his medical practice and in his Real Estate development company. Wear lots of hats and do a great job in all, but thanks for asking..
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168208)
Message 168797 (In Reply to Message 168751)
Val
Posted by Renunciation
on Dec 07, 2005 07:38 PM | Also by Renunciation
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: Bahrain |
Isnt it interesting how the landscape of jobs vs careers has changed in the US?
Look at the "hats" you wear!
I work for the County part time, broker equipment, make custom spreadsheets, do research, yardwork, consult on energy issues and develop power point training. I also do all the things assigned to house hubbies too.
Laundry is my least favorite of all the tasks.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168751)
Message 168924 (In Reply to Message 168797)
Posted by Valerie
on Dec 08, 2005 03:46 PM | Also by Valerie
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
I dont think anyone asked you, but thanks for sharing...
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168797)
Message 169025 (In Reply to Message 168751)
Posted by orolan
on Dec 09, 2005 03:16 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Perhaps landscaping was more appropriate ....anyway thats what I thought you mentioned a couple of years ago
Time dulls the memories;-))
My job has nothing to do with landscaping. I do recall mentioning that my job involves making sure buildings being built are being built in a manner that assures they will remain in an upright state once completed. Structural engineering in other words.
But I wear a lot of other hats as well. Purchasing, architect, estimating, boat repair, IT.......
Variety is the spice of life:-))
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168751)
Message 169061 (In Reply to Message 168924)
Posted by Renunciation
on Dec 09, 2005 06:48 PM | Also by Renunciation
| Gender: N/A,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: Bahrain |
You are quite welcome darling.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168924)
Message 171862 (In Reply to Message 169025)
Posted by indisaray
on Jan 22, 2006 06:30 PM | Also by indisaray
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Michigan,
Country: United States |
In todays DETROIT FREE PRESS the headline is 2,500 EX-CONS IN SCHOOL JOBS
100 are listed as Sex Offenders so that would come out to be about the same 4% that the DOJ says would be accurate to the number of sex offender recidivism..The other 2,400 would just be the regular ordinary felons i.e. murders, dope dealers, muggers, etc.
If one is on the RSO list they will be fired immediately. All school employes in the state of Michigan will have to be fingerprinted and checked out by Jan 2008. They estimate it will run into the milllllllllions of $$$ for school systems to fund as the legislatures just happened to pass it off to the schools to do the checking.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (169025)
Message 171979 (In Reply to Message 168009)
Val
Posted by june5
on Jan 24, 2006 03:58 AM | Also by june5
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
The forum title was "should employers be required to conduct criminal background checks..." It didn't say anything at all about employers hiring SO's to work around children. Your post makes sense:
A convicted child molester shouldn't be working at a day care.
A convicted bank robber shouldn't be working at Wachovia Bank.
There is no good reason that the convicted SO shouldn't be allowed to work at Wachovia Bank.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (168009)
Message 171997 (In Reply to Message 171862)
Posted by Valerie
on Jan 24, 2006 05:15 AM | Also by Valerie
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Florida,
Country: United States |
Long time no see, surprised you can still excess a computer...
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (171862)
Message 172127 (In Reply to Message 136048)
This must be made LAW in all states
Posted by justsayno
on Jan 25, 2006 05:50 PM | Also by justsayno
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Montana,
Country: United States |
All employers should take responsibility in checking their potential employees for past criminal history to protect other empoyees. Especially minor employees. My 3 children, ages 14 and 15 (twins) were working at McDonald's along side with a level 2 registered sex offender. McDondald's is the largest employer of children, and they hire sex offenders! I find this appauling! Safe environment????? My children no longer work at McDonald's. My job as a mother is to protect my children (to the best of my ability). Knowledge is important! Please check your local registry for sex/violent offenders and keep your children safe.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (136048)
Message 172152 (In Reply to Message 172127)
Posted by orolan
on Jan 25, 2006 09:06 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
My 3 children, ages 14 and 15 (twins) were working at McDonald's along side with a level 2 registered sex offender.
Poor guy. Should be against the law to have to work alongside a bunch of brats who should be at home doing school work instead of out taking jobs adults need.
My children no longer work at McDonald's
Good for them. Good for McDonalds. Good for the sex offender who no longer has to worry about one of them claiming he touched their butt so he gets arrested and they get promoted into his job.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (172127)
Message 172179 (In Reply to Message 171997)
Posted by indisaray
on Jan 26, 2006 04:31 AM | Also by indisaray
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: Michigan,
Country: United States |
Thanks Val. No problem here in Michigan as we all, yes all, get manditory consulling. and keep the statistics down to the 4.3% recividism rate as touted by DOJ. Could you update us on the Brucia mother being arrested last weekend..she sure must have been a good mother and example for her daughter. I feel sorry for the little girl along with the others that met their horrible fate last year.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (171997)
Message 172180 (In Reply to Message 172152)
Posted by june5
on Jan 26, 2006 04:35 AM | Also by june5
| Gender: Female,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
Orolan, you are in rare form lately! When I saw the woman's post about her teens working at McDonald's, I immediately remembered when I worked at a fast food joint while an undergrad, I was stuck on a shift will all teens. Oh, the horror. Let's just say I didn't stay long. Now, maybe the poster's kids are decent sorts, but that's beside the point.
Call me naive, but I didn't realize that we had reached the point where we would deny SO's the sterling opportunity to flip burgers. I guess it would be a better idea to ban them from all employment. Then all these "predators" would have lots of free time, which they could spend looking for victims (since we KNOW they are all recidivists, right?)
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (172152)
Message 172247 (In Reply to Message 172180)
Posted by orolan
on Jan 27, 2006 03:16 PM | Also by orolan
| Gender: Male,
Age Bracket: N/A,
State: N/A,
Country: United States |
I guess it would be a better idea to ban them from all employment.
Well, when they start passing laws saying an employer can be sued if their employee commits a sex offense even if they aren't on the job at the time, that's the same thing. No sex offender will ever get another job anywhere.
Forum Home
| Top of Thread | Jump To Parent (172180)
Thread
136048, admin, Jun 14, 2004 11:25 PM [Introduction]
136093, orolan, Jun 15, 2004 10:40 PM [No way]
136096, steve, Jun 15, 2004 11:53 PM
136099, orolan, Jun 16, 2004 01:07 AM
136100, brennus, Jun 16, 2004 02:18 AM
136102, steve, Jun 16, 2004 02:29 AM
136711, myoung, Jun 29, 2004 05:50 AM [BGC]
136104, dp1, Jun 16, 2004 03:45 AM
136182, fallenone, Jun 17, 2004 07:23 PM
136712, myoung, Jun 29, 2004 05:58 AM [I think there is more to it]
136718, LostTime, Jun 29, 2004 01:02 PM [EEOC]
136748, myoung, Jun 30, 2004 04:09 AM [I was just gonna say....]
136763, momto2girls, Jun 30, 2004 07:58 PM
136777, myoung, Jul 01, 2004 01:17 PM [very true]
136982, FrustratedMi, Jul 06, 2004 08:38 AM [What do you do]
168008, Valerie, Nov 25, 2005 10:56 AM
137061, orolan, Jul 08, 2004 01:48 AM [momto2girls]
137332, momto2girls, Jul 13, 2004 12:25 PM [Orolan]
151229, 684867, May 06, 2005 03:43 AM [rebuttal]
168033, rodsmith, Nov 25, 2005 04:41 PM
158546, rwjourneyman, Aug 13, 2005 01:37 AM
162831, Scaye, Sep 27, 2005 04:50 PM
165812, anti, Oct 30, 2005 03:10 AM [yes]
166968, june5, Nov 09, 2005 02:05 AM [NO]
168009, Valerie, Nov 25, 2005 11:33 AM
168036, orolan, Nov 25, 2005 04:56 PM
168108, Valerie, Nov 27, 2005 03:04 PM
168208, orolan, Nov 29, 2005 04:01 PM
168751, Valerie, Dec 07, 2005 03:32 PM
168797, Renunciation, Dec 07, 2005 07:38 PM [Val]
168924, Valerie, Dec 08, 2005 03:46 PM
169061, Renunciation, Dec 09, 2005 06:48 PM
169025, orolan, Dec 09, 2005 03:16 PM
171862, indisaray, Jan 22, 2006 06:30 PM
171997, Valerie, Jan 24, 2006 05:15 AM
172179, indisaray, Jan 26, 2006 04:31 AM
171979, june5, Jan 24, 2006 03:58 AM [Val]
167231, momhelpingbyherself, Nov 12, 2005 09:12 PM
172127, justsayno, Jan 25, 2006 05:50 PM [This must be made LAW in all states]
172152, orolan, Jan 25, 2006 09:06 PM
172180, june5, Jan 26, 2006 04:35 AM
172247, orolan, Jan 27, 2006 03:16 PM
Forum Home
| Top of Thread
|
|
|
