Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6874
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Feb 2018, 9:22 am

Doesn't the employer have the right to not employ a person who has a criminal record? Shouldn't the employer have the right to employ the "fittest candidate" for that employment ecosystem?

I would think the employer does have some rights...
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3226
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 09 Feb 2018, 9:24 am

bbauska wrote:Doesn't the employer have the right to not employ a person who has a criminal record? Shouldn't the employer have the right to employ the "fittest candidate" for that employment ecosystem?

I would think the employer does have some rights...


Of course an employer has some rights, and they can exercise them, but that's not the right thing to do. Legal does not always mean right.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Feb 2018, 9:56 am

Sorry, no. He is working for the White House. Because of this he could not get a security clearance. Given he was in charge of what president sees that was inexcusable. He should have let go when he could not a security clearance. He was subject to blackmail because of what he had (allegedly) done.His abuse continued up to the present. Given his long history of (alleged) abuse I don't think it was appropriate for him to be employed by the White House.

For private employers that's a different story. Given he was not criminally charged I don't think it would be an issue.

But his record of treatment of women is shameful. Granted the allegations have not been proven in a court of law (though the FBI found them credible enough to refuse to give a security clearance). But the consistent nature of the allegations from several women makes me believe.

He needs anger management classes. Not sympathy.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6874
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Feb 2018, 10:17 am

Wow, I agree with Freeman!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Feb 2018, 12:04 pm

geojanes wrote:People who have made mistakes and paid the price for those mistakes have the right to be employed. He had domestic abuse in his past. If he paid the price for those mistakes, he should be able to keep his job. It's just like ex-cons having the right to vote. They paid their debt. They have rights. If this guy was a public figure, a press secretary or a spokesperson, fine force him out, but he was behind the scenes staffer none of us had heard about until now. It's actually pretty shameful.


I'm not defending him.

However, I'd like to hear his side.

I've had domestic violence "calls" where it seemed like the husband was the bad guy until we investigated. One time, the husband had pulled his drunk wife off their daughter. During that, she got bruises on her face. Should he go to jail? Not based on the totality of evidence.

Domestic situations are not always clear-cut.

As for ex-cons, it's one of our society's failings. It's too hard for the "some" who want to change.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Feb 2018, 12:10 pm

By the way, in general I do agree with George that a person should be able to move on as far as employment goes (as long as the criminal past is not that serious). People make mistakes...and it should not hold them back forever. California law has instituted protections for employees on how how employers use an employee's criminal history and I agree with those protections.

I think working at a high-level of government is a special case, however. But even there had there been only one domestic violence allegation/conviction a long time ago that would not be enough to disqualify him. In my opinion.

But the allegations continued into the present. Part of the issue is that if these allegations are true he never had to face any consequences for his misbehavior. From what the women are saying part of that was due to his social status.

So now he is paying the price. Hopefully he will get help with his anger issues. Apparently, he is very capable. I am sure he can find another job.

I am also sensitive to the idea that people can hijack one's career with allegations from the past that cannot be adjudicated. A witch hunt by people from your past that don't like you can be very unfair. I just think each situation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and here (at least) I don't think he is being treated unfairly.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 09 Feb 2018, 12:21 pm

"Domestic situations are not always clear-cut". True. Women are not saints; men are not ogres. In a lot of domestic situations the fault is not 100% on party. But men typically are bigger and stronger and more capable of violence...so generally they are responsible when an domestic situation gets out of hand. Not always but most of the time. If you are talking just about verbal abuse that might be different, but verbal abuse is not criminal.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Feb 2018, 5:10 pm

A study reveals Americans were getting low-quality news right before the election through Twitter and it was even worse in swing states.

http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/ ... States.pdf

The question arises...how it did happen that there was more junk news in swing states than in other states?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 10 Feb 2018, 7:49 pm

freeman3 wrote:A study reveals Americans were getting low-quality news right before the election through Twitter and it was even worse in swing states.

http://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/ ... States.pdf

The question arises...how it did happen that there was more junk news in swing states than in other states?


Russkies!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Feb 2018, 8:31 pm

If we fought the Cold War like we're dealing with Putin..we would be probably be speaking Russian.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3048
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 10 Feb 2018, 8:48 pm

By the way, Cambridge Analytica--a data mining/voter company focusing on micro-targeting-- was hiredin Jun, 2016 and was paid 9 million dollars by the Trump campaign. One question that comes up is how Russia would have targeted voters in swing states with ads when presumably they would have little understanding on how to micro target US voters.

No problem! Just leave the instructions on how to do it out in the open. The instructions helped someone identify tweeters on hot button issues. Then if you were say, Russian!, you could use these instruction to find voters in particular areas (swing states!) who tweeted on certain hot button issues and target them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busine ... ca-2017-10
https://medium.com/tow-center/cambridge ... c3c428d77f
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Feb 2018, 1:34 pm

freeman3 wrote:If we fought the Cold War like we're dealing with Putin..we would be probably be speaking Russian.


4 more years of Obama and we would have been.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21061
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Feb 2018, 1:35 pm

freeman3 wrote:By the way, Cambridge Analytica--a data mining/voter company focusing on micro-targeting-- was hiredin Jun, 2016 and was paid 9 million dollars by the Trump campaign. One question that comes up is how Russia would have targeted voters in swing states with ads when presumably they would have little understanding on how to micro target US voters.

No problem! Just leave the instructions on how to do it out in the open. The instructions helped someone identify tweeters on hot button issues. Then if you were say, Russian!, you could use these instruction to find voters in particular areas (swing states!) who tweeted on certain hot button issues and target them.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busine ... ca-2017-10
https://medium.com/tow-center/cambridge ... c3c428d77f


Yawn.

“If” is a low evidentiary standard.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3226
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 11 Feb 2018, 9:10 pm

freeman3 wrote:Because of this he could not get a security clearance. Given he was in charge of what president sees that was inexcusable. He should have let go when he could not a security clearance. He was subject to blackmail because of what he had (allegedly) done.


My understanding was that he had a temporary clearance. If he couldn't get a permanent one and it interfered, then he does need a new job. Fair enough.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15952
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 12 Feb 2018, 4:08 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:If we fought the Cold War like we're dealing with Putin..we would be probably be speaking Russian.


4 more years of Obama and we would have been.
let it go.