Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it is an 'At Will' state, the company doesn't have to hire her; Nor does her old employer have to take her back.
As a person who is a hiring manager, I would not hire a thief, regardless if the offense was only a misdemeanor or occurred 8 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnp292
At will state or not, nobody has to hire anyone (please don't turn this into a debate about protected classes, that's not what I'm talking about) and no employer has to rehire someone who resigned.
It would be nice of the prior employer to rehire her, but why would they? They now know she was seeking other employment.
As a manager who has multiple offices and staff in multiple states and jurisdictions, the locale of employment does make a difference. It is not the same across all 50 states.
As for her rehire with the old company, if she was regarded as a high-performer and left on mutually good terms, it is certainly plausible for them to rehire her. Albeit, in a few instances, I have seen that happen.
No, I specifically said "in general" and made a note that I wasn't necessarily talking about her. Shoplifters generally start small and commit multiple thefts before reaching hundreds of dollars, per store detectives I've spoken to...but there will always be an exception.
But employers do have to make assumptions when they hire, and that goes for all traits. Everyone describes themselves as hardworking and intelligent. No one says, "I'm lazy, dishonest and whiny, hire me!" Employers do the best they can when reviewing applicants, but it's still a guessing game.
This specific care is not about her being "allowed to earn a living", but about one particular employer deciding not to hire her. That employer obviously thought they could find a different applicant without theft convictions, and they chose to go that route. They just weren't comfortable hiring her.
It's not this individual employer's problem that she decided to steal; he's not responsible for her behavior. This individual employer said, "No thanks, I'll hire someone with a clean record." That's his/her/their right as a business owner.
She has obviously found other employers willing to hire her since she had a job she quit 2 weeks ago. She's been earning a living for years. Some individual employers will take the chance on her, and good for them! I hope she finds one soon.
I wish her the best of luck. But I won't condemn any particular employer for saying "no thanks" either.
Look, I'm not disagreeing with you about an employer having the right to pick who they want. I suppose I also have the right to only hire blonde haired, blue eyed people because I think they are the perfect specimens of human creation. Or I could be like Moderator cut: snip and only hire attractive people at my stores because that's what I want associated with my brand.
My argument is that people should not hold this against her for the rest of her life. Clearly she was who they wanted in the first place. Why let something done (stupidly) so long ago hamper that decision? Show a little mercy, give the woman a second chance, and if she keeps on effing up, then it's on her. That's all I'm trying to get across here.
Last edited by 7G9C4J2; 08-01-2013 at 09:53 PM..
Reason: language
Look, I'm not disagreeing with you about an employer having the right to pick who they want. I suppose I also have the right to only hire blonde haired, blue eyed people because I think they are the perfect specimens of human creation.
My argument is that people should not hold this against her for the rest of her life. Clearly she was who they wanted in the first place. Why let something done (stupidly) so long ago hamper that decision? Show a little leniency, give the woman a second chance, and if she keeps on effing up, then it's on her. That's all I'm trying to get across here.
I understand what you're saying.
Unfortunately, when it comes to past offenses related to trust -- forgery, larceny, bribery, etc., they do not want to take that risk. Many companies also have insurance provisions that preclude them from being able to hire such individuals; Most especially if the job is related to finance, accounting, payroll, access to financial/accounting systems, or even has procurement-related responsibilities.
Getting an expungment will cost at least $1000, or at least that's the going rate in TX right now. A lot of that is court fees, so even if you get the forms and do the paperwork yourself, it's still not cheap.
The general attitude of Americans towards crime never ceases to amaze me. Those with a conviction from 15 years ago with nothing since and now living "clean lives" are still considered criminal in those hilarious American eyes. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.
The issue is her non-disclosure when asked.
Furthermore, until you OWN a company you have NO IDEA - or obviously think it's amusing - what tremendous damage one bad employee can do.
I fired at least 6 people from my pet shop ALL FOR MISHANDLING MONEY. Some stupidity, some intentional, and ALL for not following MY RULES. It makes no difference to me.
Like popping open the cash drawer to make change which was strictly FORBIDDEN. THEN after breaking the rule, getting scammed by a gypsy for $50.00 because the idiot couldn't even keep track of what she was doing with MY drawer making the forbidden change.
Nobody owes someone a job.
Moderator cut: snip
Last edited by 7G9C4J2; 08-01-2013 at 09:54 PM..
Reason: Orphaned
Unfortunately, when it comes to past offenses related to trust -- forgery, larceny, bribery, etc., they do not want to take that risk. Many companies also have insurance provisions that preclude them from being able to hire such individuals; Most especially if the job is related to finance, accounting, payroll, access to financial/accounting systems, or even has procurement-related responsibilities.
I understand, too. I just hope someone gives this woman a chance so she can make a living for herself. What worse way to discourage theft than by completely alienating an individual so they can't earn money to pay for the things they need.
As a manager who has multiple offices and staff in multiple states and jurisdictions, the locale of employment does make a difference. It is not the same across all 50 states.
As for her rehire with the old company, if she was regarded as a high-performer and left on mutually good terms, it is certainly plausible for them to rehire her. Albeit, in a few instances, I have seen that happen.
I also have staffers in multiple states. Please tell me what state requires you to hire someone, or doesn't permit you to rescind an offer?
I didn't say they wouldn't rehire her. I even said it would be a nice thing to do. Being nice is not usually a factor in such decisions though.
At will state or not, nobody has to hire anyone (please don't turn this into a debate about protected classes, that's not what I'm talking about) and no employer has to rehire someone who resigned.
It would be nice of the prior employer to rehire her, but why would they? They now know she was seeking other employment.
Many companies would like to rehire or retain a departing employee to save money on recruitment costs, training costs, and taking a chance on an unknown new employee. On the other hand the company will remember that that person left and consider them a high flight risk.
Agreed. This woman should never be allowed to have a job or the ability to feed herself ever again for the petty crime she committed almost a decade ago. Now where are the pitch forks, nooses, and torches?!?! Let's light this b**** up!
She had a job. It just looks like her choices in this economy are going to be limited. Seriously, with 3 good candidates and one with a record, I'd be picking from the other two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by groar
to be fair, the OP didn't say she stole $300 worth of merchandise - they said she was convicted of petty theft, which is defined as stealing less than $300 worth of merchandise. so it could have been $15.
i don't think a misdemeanor theft conviction is nothing, but one incident followed by 8 years of clean record is not such a big deal.
I got the idea that she might have taken money per the last quote here in my post. We don't know that she was "clean". We really don't know what they may have found out either in the background check. Sometimes people really aren't honest with friends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekkie
I think stealing is despicable. Honestly, if it were one of my friends who stole something from me, I'd likely never talk to them again.
This specific case is regarding someone's ability to earn a living. You are making a big assumption about this woman based on what she stole. First off, I believe the OP mentioned that the item she stole was under $300. We don't even know what it was she stole. That does not excuse the behavior, however, it is an important detail that should be noted. This woman has one (official) strike against her from this theft that occurred almost a decade ago. I think she should be judged on what we do know rather than what we don't know. If this is continual occurrence with her, then she needs to go to jail and be rehabilitated if possible. But that again is based on an assumption that we don't know for sure.
I believe in 2nd chances. I'll give this woman the benefit of the doubt since she only has one offense and it happened nearly a decade ago. She should at least be allowed to earn a living and put food on the table. If she continues to steal, then she will make her living behind bars like the rest of our repeat offenders.
Everyone forgets she had a job. Quit that job. Was going to take a week off before starting the new job. Maybe if she wasn't treating herself to a week off, hopefully not funded by the former employer or co-workers, then the background check could have came through before her last day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattOTAlex
If it is an 'At Will' state, the company doesn't have to hire her; Nor does her old employer have to take her back.
As a person who is a hiring manager, I would not hire a thief, regardless if the offense was only a misdemeanor or occurred 8 years ago.
With the job market being so tight, I can't imagine anyone would realistically consider hiring someone with a criminal background. It isn't like she was guilty of stealing candy as a child and anyone who can't see the difference, well, I wouldn't hire them either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_contrary
Do you know if this is difficult to do if she lives in a different state than where the misdemeanor took place?
What's frustrating is that this is for a data entry office job (not accounting or any position where she can steal money). It's not retail where I can see employers being concerned about stolen products. Are they worried she's going to pocket a bunch of staplers and paper clips?
This is why I thought it sounded like she took money, probably from an ex-employer. Now, she is living in another state hoping to escape her past. You could do that 50 years ago.
Show a little mercy, give the woman a second chance, and if she keeps on effing up, then it's on her. That's all I'm trying to get across here.
That can happen when she shows a little honesty and discloses her TRUE past to a potential employer. Or brushes up on her reading comprehension filling out applications for background checks.
And showing a little initiative to have her record cleaned up the past decade would have resolved this, and IMO people are VERY lucky it's an option. Of course unless she has OTHER OFFENSES that make her disqualified.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
