Post by redheadbaker on May 22, 2012 21:47:25 GMT -5
The local Fox affiliate (shut up, it's the news on at 10 p.m. and I try to be in bed before 11) just had an "exclusive story" -- "Attending a baseball game is a family affair, but do you know who is serving your child those peanuts and cracker jack?"
Someone anonymously tipped them off that a concession stand manager (who manages the cashiers at the food services counters) at the local baseball stadium and is an employee of the food services company, not the ballpark itself, was a convicted sex offender (involuntary deviant sexual intercourse with a teenager). He served his sentence and completed a 5-year counseling program, but under PA's "Megan's Law," he remains on the sex offender registry for life.
The news crew showed up at the stadium while he was on-shift and asked to discuss his criminal record, did his employer know about his conviction, etc. He kept repeating no comment and disappeared into an office until they left.
The food services company called the news station and said that the employee has been terminated. They said that they did not know about his criminal record but won't confirm whether he lied about it, or if they never did a background check.
The guy did nothing wrong. Fox just got him fired for a sensational story to draw in more viewers. It's hard enough for ex-convicts to get jobs. The guy probably has little to no contact with children. Even if he came into contact with children by selling them food, they're not being left in his care.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
The guy did nothing wrong recently. Fox just got him fired for a sensational story to draw in more viewers. It's hard enough for ex-convicts to get jobs. The guy probably has little to no contact with children. Even if he came into contact with children by selling them food, they're not being left in his care.
I fixed that for you. I do find the media targeting him as reprehensible. However, I'm having a tough time working up any amount of empathy for a sex offender. Granted, I have no knowledge of how he ended up on the registry - whether it was having sex as a teenager with a teenager, or if he molested kids. But seeing as how he was on the registry, him getting outed may have happened sooner or later. Being a criminal, ex or otherwise, sucks.
The guy did nothing wrong recently. Fox just got him fired for a sensational story to draw in more viewers. It's hard enough for ex-convicts to get jobs. The guy probably has little to no contact with children. Even if he came into contact with children by selling them food, they're not being left in his care.
I fixed that for you. I do find the media targeting him as reprehensible. However, I'm having a tough time working up any amount of empathy for a sex offender. Granted, I have no knowledge of how he ended up on the registry - whether it was having sex as a teenager with a teenager, or if he molested kids. But seeing as how he was on the registry, him getting outed may have happened sooner or later. Being a criminal, ex or otherwise, sucks.
There's no evidence that he has committed any crime since being released. Are convicted sex offenders not allowed to hold a job at all, then?
I fixed that for you. I do find the media targeting him as reprehensible. However, I'm having a tough time working up any amount of empathy for a sex offender. Granted, I have no knowledge of how he ended up on the registry - whether it was having sex as a teenager with a teenager, or if he molested kids. But seeing as how he was on the registry, him getting outed may have happened sooner or later. Being a criminal, ex or otherwise, sucks.
There's no evidence that he has committed any crime since being released. Are convicted sex offenders not allowed to hold a job at all, then?
Of course they are. And it sucks how he lost his job. And I'd love to know if the company in fact failed to do a check on him, or just said they didn't know to avoid a PR fiasco. But you break the law, especially in that manner, and you're going to have the odds more against you as life goes on. Fact. I hope he finds more work, but it likely should be in a job where he can avoid interacting with minors. Probably insanely tough to find something like that, but I hope he does.
And for reference: I personally am friends with a few ex-cons, one of whom is a registered sex offender, and they've all had difficulty finding employment after their incarceration and penalties. I'm not totally devoid of sympathy, but at the same time I'm not acutely ignorant there are consequences to their choices/actions, and neither are they.
And yes, the network sucks ass for how they went after him. But I wonder how much support this dude would get on here if Fox hadn't outed him and/or led to his termination.
There's no evidence that he has committed any crime since being released. Are convicted sex offenders not allowed to hold a job at all, then?
Of course they are. And it sucks how he lost his job. And I'd love to know if the company in fact failed to do a check on him, or just said they didn't know to avoid a PR fiasco. But you break the law, especially in that manner, and you're going to have the odds more against you as life goes on. Fact. I hope he finds more work, but it likely should be in a job where he can avoid interacting with minors. Probably insanely tough to find something like that, but I hope he does.
He shouldn't have to find more work. He did nothing to warrant losing the job he had!
Honestly, how many minors (unaccompanied by an adult) could he possibly come into contact with, supervising cashiers at a concession stand?
There's no evidence that he has committed any crime since being released. Are convicted sex offenders not allowed to hold a job at all, then?
Of course they are. And it sucks how he lost his job. And I'd love to know if the company in fact failed to do a check on him, or just said they didn't know to avoid a PR fiasco. But you break the law, especially in that manner, and you're going to have the odds more against you as life goes on. Fact. I hope he finds more work, but it likely should be in a job where he can avoid interacting with minors. Probably insanely tough to find something like that, but I hope he does.
There are laws that govern background checks. Depending on what state you are in, and what the job is, you can't always just go digging around looking for every single arrest or charge for the person's entire life, even if they have no relationship to the job at hand. Unless there's some reasonable connection to the job, you need to have a good reason to do invasive background checks, and an even better reason to pull arrest and criminal records dating back more than 10 or so years, depending on the state. It's entirely possible that the company did a background check, but the company abided by the law and didn't use a shady background check service that violates federal and state law by including information the company can't legally use on in hiring.
That said, do most employers seriously pull criminal records on people? Does anyone actually think its neglectful for an employer not to pull criminal records on cashiers? That seems insane to me.
Anyway, the media spectacle sounds cringeworthy. I judge his acts, but he served his time, and if he was dangerous, he shouldn't be out. This kind of crap just makes it that much harder for ex convicts to stay on the straight and narrow.
So, I didn't understand what that charge was....so I found the PA statute. It very well could have been a Romeo and Juliet situation. It also could have been date rape. Obviously, we don't know the details, but if it's either of those things, I doubt he poses a risk in the job that he held.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I don't think it was a Romeo & Juliet situation. Aster was 31 at the time of the conviction. Reading the statute, it looks like it was probably a date rape situation. Not good, obviously, but I find it hard to believe that he's using the cover of selling over priced hotdogs to take advantage of minor teenagers.
The news channel acted in a manner befitting any witch hunt and I think it was inappropriate. What's equally douchey is that Aster was outed by coworkers.
Post by somersault72 on May 22, 2012 22:41:22 GMT -5
I feel very torn about this. On the one hand, I feel like the people behind this news story are a bunch of assholes, especially since there's no mention of what he actually did to get on the registry, and I highly doubt he's running around molesting people while he's working the baseball game. But on the other hand, my close friend's daughter was sexually abused by own her father, and so this sort of thing hits a nerve with me. If he is some assbag that molested some kid (or molested anyone), I have a lot more trouble feeling sorry for him.
Of course they are. And it sucks how he lost his job. And I'd love to know if the company in fact failed to do a check on him, or just said they didn't know to avoid a PR fiasco. But you break the law, especially in that manner, and you're going to have the odds more against you as life goes on. Fact. I hope he finds more work, but it likely should be in a job where he can avoid interacting with minors. Probably insanely tough to find something like that, but I hope he does.
There are laws that govern background checks. Depending on what state you are in, and what the job is, you can't always just go digging around looking for every single arrest or charge for the person's entire life, even if they have no relationship to the job at hand. Unless there's some reasonable connection to the job, you need to have a good reason to do invasive background checks, and an even better reason to pull arrest and criminal records dating back more than 10 or so years, depending on the state. It's entirely possible that the company did a background check, but the company abided by the law and didn't use a shady background check service that violates federal and state law by including information the company can't legally use on in hiring.
That said, do most employers seriously pull criminal records on people? Does anyone actually think its neglectful for an employer not to pull criminal records on cashiers? That seems insane to me.
Anyway, the media spectacle sounds cringeworthy. I judge his acts, but he served his time, and if he was dangerous, he shouldn't be out. This kind of crap just makes it that much harder for ex convicts to stay on the straight and narrow.
Okay, so then what grounds would the ball park have for terminating him?
Of course they are. And it sucks how he lost his job. And I'd love to know if the company in fact failed to do a check on him, or just said they didn't know to avoid a PR fiasco. But you break the law, especially in that manner, and you're going to have the odds more against you as life goes on. Fact. I hope he finds more work, but it likely should be in a job where he can avoid interacting with minors. Probably insanely tough to find something like that, but I hope he does.
That said, do most employers seriously pull criminal records on people? Does anyone actually think its neglectful for an employer not to pull criminal records on cashiers? That seems insane to me.
Well, yes, I do. But only to the extent that they are handling money and should be screened for theft, fraud, embezzlement, etc. I don't think sex crimes disqualifies him for cashier work though.
Okay, so then what grounds would the ball park have for terminating him?[/quote]
Bringing bad publicity on the company probably.
I think he did his time and should no longer be punished for it. Didn't the story say he was convicted of involuntary sex with a teenager? That sounds to me like he raped a teenager, not a child. There is a difference to me. I feel that someone who finds children (before puberty) sexy can not be reformed for it's not a choice any more than homosexuality is a choice. Rape of a physically mature but young female is just rape to me. I've been raped twice and nearly raped twice. The successful attempts were much less violent (I was drugged) than the unsuccessful attempts (physical struggle involved). Rape is bad of course, but men who rape grown women are guilty of having a different kind of dangerous mind than pedophiles. A lot of these guys can learn after the first offense whether they are convicted or not. There are a lot of unknown details about this guy's offense that would show just how much of a threat this person is today. Without knowing the rest of the story, I won't jump to the conclusion that he is a psycho baby fucker that should never work in public again (or be free at all).
The employer could've done the fair thing and made a stand to maintain this employee. I'm ok with them choosing not to for the negative publicity. I just don't like that people and the news would promote continued persecution of people who've paid their dues to society. People can make mistakes, pay, and never ever do them again. My brother stole a car stereo when he was a teenager. He did his time and started a family when he got out. He hasn't broken the law again since, not only because he doesn't want to hurt his family, but because he never ever wants to be in prison again.
Also, this is besides the point but...., In addition to serious sexual assaults, you also go on the sex offender registry for indecent exposure offenses which include public urination, flashing and streaking. The registers I've seen don't say what kind of sex offense it was, just lists names and addresses. We're probably all friends with a "sex offender" though they aren't on the registry. (this was in reference to that incredulous response to the person that's friends with a sex offender)
There are laws that govern background checks. Depending on what state you are in, and what the job is, you can't always just go digging around looking for every single arrest or charge for the person's entire life, even if they have no relationship to the job at hand. Unless there's some reasonable connection to the job, you need to have a good reason to do invasive background checks, and an even better reason to pull arrest and criminal records dating back more than 10 or so years, depending on the state. It's entirely possible that the company did a background check, but the company abided by the law and didn't use a shady background check service that violates federal and state law by including information the company can't legally use on in hiring.
That said, do most employers seriously pull criminal records on people? Does anyone actually think its neglectful for an employer not to pull criminal records on cashiers? That seems insane to me.
Anyway, the media spectacle sounds cringeworthy. I judge his acts, but he served his time, and if he was dangerous, he shouldn't be out. This kind of crap just makes it that much harder for ex convicts to stay on the straight and narrow.
Okay, so then what grounds would the ball park have for terminating him?
First, to be clear, the laws regulating background checks typically don't prohibit employers from firing people with criminal records that they learned about in a legal manner (ie reading the newspaper or learning about it from someone volunteering the information). The laws simply regulate the practice of background checks. Because there was no reliance on an illegal background check in making the decision to fire him, laws prohibiting reliance on an illegal background check in employment decisions have no relevance or applicability here.
Second -- and this is HUGE for me -- after seven years on the Nest, and literally hundreds of sightings of the misuse of this phrase, and never ever once seeing it used properly....drumroll please....I have for the first time ever, able to say, "at will employment." !!!!!!!!! At will employment means you can fire someone for any reason except for an illegal reason. If there's no illegal reason (no evidence that the employer is using information obtained during an illegal background check, or that they are firing him for race, disability, whistleblowing, or asking for time off to observe Passover), then they can fire him for whatever reason they damn well want.
And for reference: I personally am friends with a few ex-cons, one of whom is a registered sex offender...
You didn't really just say this did you?
Yes. The dude was the DJ at our wedding, and DH has been friends with him for 15 years. About 5 years ago he was busted for soliciting minors for sex. As soon as this was known, DH remained in loose contact with him but the guy was not allowed at our home (he was also not allowed near any children, including his own two sons). He has spent the years since then in counseling, on probation, and only this last year was he allowed to move back into his home and be around his sons again.
Yes, he is still friendly with our family. No, I will never ever ever ever allow him unsupervised interaction with my kids and I will always keep an eye on him in that manner.
Judge away. I'm sure you're only besties with total saints. (insert eye roll here)
Second -- and this is HUGE for me -- after seven years on the Nest, and literally hundreds of sightings of the misuse of this phrase, and never ever once seeing it used properly....drumroll please....I have for the first time ever, able to say, "at will employment." !!!!!!!!! At will employment means you can fire someone for any reason except for an illegal reason. If there's no illegal reason (no evidence that the employer is using information obtained during an illegal background check, or that they are firing him for race, disability, whistleblowing, or asking for time off to observe Passover), then they can fire him for whatever reason they damn well want.
Don't states determine which occupations are sensitive enough to require background checks and which specific crimes disqualify someone for a specific job?
The justice system gave him what it believed was a fair sentence. He served that. The state decided that working at a stadium concession stand shouldn't require a clean background check. His employer agreed and either didn't seek a background check or decided that his record didn't disqualify him. It's pretty hard to get away with lying about a conviction that can be easily researched on the internet. The employers would eat shit if the guy committed a crime at work, what motive would they have to employ someone they thought posed a danger? The concerned parties agreed that this person could be safely employed in this position - why isn't that good enough?
Maybe a sex offender doesn't deserve sympathy, but he also doesn't deserve to have his job taken away just because Fox News needed someone to vilify on a slow news day.
So now what happens? Maybe the guy can't find another job, loses his ability to pay for a place to live, and makes it that much harder for the state to locate him for the sex offender registry. Good plan.
I was a 2nd place All Time long jumper at Polk High.
LOL, OK so this morning I was revisiting my posts in my head, and I started laughing - because my initial statement reminded me of someone saying something akin to, "Yeah, well I'm personally friends with the Dalai Lama." So... I apologize for making an Olympian pole vault out of your small hop. I must have been too tired to maintain my open perspective.
That is messed up. If he never lied about his background and was only fired because of this media brouhaha, I hope he can bring up a wrongful termination suit.
i think the company that hired him should be the one that the news is questioning... why would they ever hire someone with that background to sell things to children?
And yes- kids are ALWAYS at those places alone... at least in my town. I woudln't be comfortable knowing that someone with that on his record was working in my ballpark... but I would fault the person/company that hired him for doing a shitty job with background checks, and common sense.