|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Do any of the other states have any recompense against Abbott's migrant scheme other than hoping the Feds get off their rear end? If the New York AG or whoever determines Abbott is human trafficking migrants, what are some options? How does jurisdiction work? Is it where the migrants depart from or where they arrive? If Abbot comes to NY and breaks a NY law, NY can arrest and prosecute him for that crime. It doesn't appear that any of those things have occurred.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 03:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
Not a legal question per se, but I thought some legally-inclined individuals here could help. I have been offered a job, and have to answer the following obtuse compound question: quote:Have you ever been convicted of, pled guilty, pled nolo contender, or been named as a defendant in a felony or in a criminal proceeding including driving while under the influence or driving while suspended, but not including traffic offenses not classified as misdemeanors? I have never been charged with or involved in any felonies. I do have a record of two petty offenses and one low grade misdemeanor from over a decade ago. What I am trying to parse out is if the second part of this question is asking if I have been involved in ANY criminal proceeding (meaning including petty offenses and misdemeanors), or only if I have been in other criminal proceedings limited to specifically DUI or driving while suspended? If it is the latter, I have nothing to disclose and answer no. Personally, I interpret it as the latter. If it were otherwise, I think it should include phrasing like "in a criminal proceeding including (but not limited to)". Or it should ask specifically about petty offenses, misdemeanor, and felonies. To me, the "including" acts as a specifier here. Isn't this the reason the phrase "but not limited to" exists in the first place? Anyway, am I just stretching to avoid disclosing my seedy past, or are you goons in agreement? TBH I would just go ahead and disclose but before receiving my job offer I already submitted a "no" answer to this question. I was confident at the time but now I'm worried I misinterpreted the question and I don't want to seem like I misrepresented myself previously hobbez fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 20:20
|
|
|
Hobbez, one quick question: Under the latter interpretation, why would they need to write "not including traffic offenses not classified as misdemeanors?" Wouldn't those be irrelevant, since they wouldn't be DUI or driving while suspended? ulmont fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Jan 3, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 21:23
|
|
|
I would over disclose. Email them and say you were double checking your materials and realized there were however many incidents that you don’t believe needed to be disclosed, but if they read the question differently, you’d rather tell them about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:I would over disclose. Email them and say you were double checking your materials and realized there were however many incidents that you don’t believe needed to be disclosed, but if they read the question differently, you’d rather tell them about. The question is: "Have you ever been convicted of, pled guilty, pled nolo contender, or been named as a defendant in" And then the category of cases you'd need to report on are: "a felony", or "a criminal proceeding including driving while under the influence or driving while suspended," but "not including traffic offenses not classified as misdemeanors." Basically it's asking "have you ever been charged with a crime, not including speeding and similar traffic offenses but including DUI or driving while suspended." You should have reported them on the application but I'd bet if you email apologetically for the mixup (up to you whether to say didn't believe needed disclosed vs. misread/misinterpreted the question) and disclose the infractions they'll probably not care unless the cases were about something that might have an impact on your new job. (E.g., if you're going to be handling cash and were accused of taking money out of the till, going to be driving for the company and have a reckless driving, etc.) Definitely better to disclose now, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 21:39
|
|
|
Does someone have a link to the results of people appealing their lost Top Secret classification status? I can't find the right search terms, and there are some loving gold mines in there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 21:45
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Hobbez, one quick question: Yeah, good point... This sways me towards the prior interpretation. Thanks everyone for the guidance. I'm drafting an apologetic email to HR begging forgiveness. I'm sure it will all work out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2024 23:01
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Basically it's asking "have you ever been charged with a crime, not including speeding and similar traffic offenses but including DUI or driving while suspended." Of course if you live in a state where all non-felony traffic offenses are misdemeanors then lol.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 00:21
|
|
|
Devor posted:Does someone have a link to the results of people appealing their lost Top Secret classification status? I can't find the right search terms, and there are some loving gold mines in there. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-ove...s-and-opinions/ ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 01:13
|
|
|
Probably these. https://doha.ogc.osd.mil/Industrial-Security-Program/Industrial-Security-Clearance-Decisions/ISCR-Hearing-Decisions/
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
Tyro posted:Probably these. The black tar heroin of BWM. You should probably read the Bad With Money thread if you aren't already.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 02:50
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Do any of the other states have any recompense against Abbott's migrant scheme other than hoping the Feds get off their rear end? If the New York AG or whoever determines Abbott is human trafficking migrants, what are some options? How does jurisdiction work? Is it where the migrants depart from or where they arrive? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 03:03
|
|
|
N-N-N-NOT THE NEW YORK NINJAS!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 03:20
|
|
|
It seems like HR should just run a background check if they really want to know your criminal background.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 03:26
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:It seems like HR should just run a background check if they really want to know your criminal background. In theory, it's to make sure they're not hiring someone who has done a crime that would be Relevant to the job (fraud and embezzlement for an accountant, etc). In reality, they just want another way to filter out applicants quietly if they get too many.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 03:28
|
|
|
Tyro posted:Probably these. Thanks, that's the ones I recall. Although I think I recall reading ones that had already been curated for interesting ones. Hard to search through the individual files and most of these are kind of boring. Thesaurus posted:It seems like HR should just run a background check if they really want to know your criminal background. It saves a lot of money on background checks when you ask the applicant to list all their crimes because the criminal masterminds just don't apply when they start listing out their felonies from last year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 03:58
|
|
|
Devor posted:Thanks, that's the ones I recall. Although I think I recall reading ones that had already been curated for interesting ones. Hard to search through the individual files and most of these are kind of boring. It’s also used by businesses as a way to fire somebody who didn’t disclose something and then it comes up later where there’s bad PR about an employee and you want and excuse to fire them anyways. Oh look! You lied on your application, fraud, fired, nobody blame us for their poor performance, we were defrauded and wouldn’t have hired them, we pinky swear.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 04:10
|
|
|
My assumption has always been that question is essentially "have you done any crimes that would make you a liability if we hired you" and a yes in any way is a no to getting hired. Could be wrong, just an assumption.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 04:14
|
|
|
They just wanna know how cool you are
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 04:31
|
|
|
I have known HR managers who preferentially hire applicants they catch lying on irrelevant bullshit on their job applications, since anytime later you "discover" that fact it's cause for immediate termination
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 04:36
|
|
|
When I applied for reciprocity they asked if I had any tickets within the last 10 years. I said "no," but then they hassled me about not disclosing the speeding ticket I got when I was in high school. Listen Joel from Washing State Bar Association, if that is your real name, if you want that information just ask, don't imply I'm an idiot for not giving it to you  .Anyway, over disclose unless you're a crazy bad driver in which case don't be a crazy bad driver any more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 07:01
|
|
|
Really should have just asked if you got a felony or DUI instead of that terribly worded junk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 14:39
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Really should have just asked if you got a felony or DUI instead of that terribly worded junk. Except that’s not the question they wanted the answer to, which was “have you ever faced any charges more serious than a minor traffic offense?”
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 15:09
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Except that’s not the question they wanted the answer to, which was “have you ever faced any charges more serious than a minor traffic offense?” More precisely, "if we hire people with felony records or dui records, and then anything bad happens, we might get sued and if we didn't ask you about your history it would make us look bad. Have you ever done a crime that might cause us future liability problems?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 15:20
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Except that’s not the question they wanted the answer to, which was “have you ever faced any charges more serious than a minor traffic offense?” So do we think the intent of mentioning felonies and DUIs specifically is just for emphasis and doesn’t change the meaning of the request?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 15:28
|
|
|
smackfu posted:So do we think the intent of mentioning felonies and DUIs specifically is just for emphasis and doesn’t change the meaning of the request? Either that or the original version was just felonies and was sloppily amended a few times by just glomming stuff onto the end and not by just rewriting it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 15:46
|
|
|
smackfu posted:So do we think the intent of mentioning felonies and DUIs specifically is just for emphasis and doesn’t change the meaning of the request? I think they got tired of questions about speeding tickets from 20 years ago, so they added the traffic offenses bit. But then they didn't get disclosure of poo poo like DUI and vehicular homicide, so they added the felonies / DUI / driving while suspended bit. Now it confuses everybody but it covers what they want to know about.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 16:12
|
|
|
Well the HR rep responded and basically just said "We'll be running a background check and address any major issues then." I still have no clarity on the intended meaning of the question, so this was my response: quote:That all sounds fine [HR Rep]. Thank you for your help with this. I’ll authorize the background check as soon as possible. I am kinda asking without asking what her interpretation of the question is but I don't think I'll get an answer. At this point I'm just trying not to piss her off. e: She recommended to disclose and thanked me for checking. Stupid question. hobbez fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jan 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 17:33
|
|
|
they're going to not hire you because you wrote "air on the side of" instead of "err on the side of". Can't be hiring people who flub their spelling in such a fun way! They need boring corp drones not cool posters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 17:42
|
|
|
hobbez posted:I am kinda asking without asking what her interpretation of the question is but I don't think I'll get an answer. At this point I'm just trying not to piss her off. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/impossibility
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 17:43
|
|
|
I don't see how this pertains to my situation but I'll keep it in mind. She recommended to disclose and thanked me for asking.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 17:45
|
|
|
You didn't actually ask her to clarify, by the way. You passive-aggressively suggested the question was ambiguous and then used some mealy-mouthed language about what you will be doing going forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:08
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:You didn't actually ask her to clarify, by the way. You passive-aggressively suggested the question was ambiguous and then used some mealy-mouthed language about what you will be doing going forward. What? I very clearly indicated what I’ll be doing (disclosing), I don’t really see how that’s ambiguous… Nor do I think it was passive aggressive. In my quote above I also left out my concluding line, “I want to reiterate how thankful I am for your help” I don’t really mind suggesting the question is ambiguous as it kinda is, as many others on this page have also stated. Thanks to all for your help with the HR speak. Her response leads me to believe I’ll have a good outcome. I was a little terrified I’d be met with a withdrawal of my offer but, at least right now, she seems to appreciate the candor and the rest of the onboarding process is moving forward as planned
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
Anytime someone is running a background check they want to know what’s going to pop up ahead of time. If you’re honest and there are no crimes related specifically to your work/turpitude issues, then you’re good to go. If you fail to disclose something and it pops up, you’re hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 18:38
|
|
|
Hypothetically, what kinds of charges might one be facing, if they disagreed emphatically with the judge at sentencing? Unrelated question: any good defense lawyers in Vegas? 11:09am 01/03/2024 at the regional justice center HOLY poo poo! B33rChiller fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Jan 4, 2024 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 19:50
|
|
|
B33rChiller posted:Hypothetically, what kinds of charges might one be facing, if they disagreed emphatically with the judge at sentencing? "The only time I've seen a vertical leap measured in years"
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 20:17
|
|
|
B33rChiller posted:Hypothetically, what kinds of charges might one be facing, if they disagreed emphatically with the judge at sentencing? ... What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:... What am I missing? It's an oblique reference to this story https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYHaMO7l2jw
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 21:21
|
|
|
Gotta admit, it's a heck of a flying tackle, regardless of how ridiculously awful an idea it was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:15 |
|
|
"I'm a person who never stops trying to do the right thing"
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2024 22:51
|
|