Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(JSOnline)   Show up for work? Earn awards? Arrested 40 years ago? That's a firin'   (jsonline.com) divider line 85
    More: Asinine, stand down, Wells Fargo  
•       •       •

4829 clicks; posted to Business » on 06 May 2012 at 9:35 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-06 06:20:25 PM  

Stile4aly: There ought to be a way to allow her to get the record expunged and continue to work without interruption.


No company is going to dig 40 years into an exemplary employee's history and find a misdemeanor charge to justify her being fired unless the company's explicit desire is that this person be fired. They might be using the "it's out of our hands, it's the policy" excuse to dodge blame, but at the end of the day this woman was fired because she's nearing retirement age and they can either shift her work onto the remaining employees or make a temp do it.

The company got what it wanted. All it needed was a reason so they didn't have to say "downsizing".
 
2012-05-06 06:36:08 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Stile4aly: There ought to be a way to allow her to get the record expunged and continue to work without interruption.

No company is going to dig 40 years into an exemplary employee's history and find a misdemeanor charge to justify her being fired unless the company's explicit desire is that this person be fired. They might be using the "it's out of our hands, it's the policy" excuse to dodge blame, but at the end of the day this woman was fired because she's nearing retirement age and they can either shift her work onto the remaining employees or make a temp do it.

The company got what it wanted. All it needed was a reason so they didn't have to say "downsizing".


Or they're in no mood to take a chance on it showing up when they get a compliance audit from either FDIC (or the Treasury or whoever the hell is claiming dominion of the banks and their mortgage portfolios these days) and get raked over the coals for this.

Does it suck and have an air of being underhanded? Oh yes. Does it make sense when a behemoth like WF/BOA/US Bank are involved? Oh yes.

And on any bene's she might be getting; she was making $16.50/hr. I highly doubt the regional people jumped out of their chairs and demanded this go down.
 
2012-05-06 07:09:25 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: And on any bene's she might be getting; she was making $16.50/hr. I highly doubt the regional people jumped out of their chairs and demanded this go down.


Big banks don't think about it in terms of individual people. They aren't laying this woman off personally; she's one of many, many people who are going to end up the same way. The directive is "slim your workforce by X% - use whatever you can to justify them as direct firings and for the love of money DON'T SAY 'DOWNSIZING'". She's been with the company a long time, which means she likely gets paid more for this job than some intern they wheel in next week to do the same thing. And she's near retirement. She's a prime target for this style of downsizing.
 
2012-05-06 07:21:07 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: The directive is "slim your workforce by X% - use whatever you can to justify them as direct firings and for the love of money DON'T SAY 'DOWNSIZING'". She's been with the company a long time, which means she likely gets paid more for this job than some intern they wheel in next week to do the same thing. And she's near retirement. She's a prime target for this style of downsizing.


That shiat goes down on a daily basis. Hell, happened to me twice in the course of a eighteen months in 2009-10 and I was in my 20's. They couldn't afford to keep me on so they said sayonara; hard to justify people when the business isn't there. This branch of their lending they can't really do with interns; maybe they start somebody off at about $13/hr. Which given WF's standard of hiring in this area will be some schmuck who can barely count to potato if the people I had to deal with were any indication.
 
2012-05-06 07:29:50 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: That shiat goes down on a daily basis. Hell, happened to me twice in the course of a eighteen months in 2009-10 and I was in my 20's.


My point is that while the story is about this one person, she's only one of a vast number of people who are being kicked out the door for downsizing-but-we-can't-call-it-downsizing. The only reason this one is even worth writing a news piece about is that they had to dig four decades into her past and pull up a completely non-related misdemeanor in order to satisfy the need to fire her ass and stay behind the "it's not downsizing it's just policy" shield.

What it really means is that if you are an exemplary worker who does their job well and stays out of trouble, all it means is that they'll dig that much further into your past to find that time you farted in front of the vice principal, and fire you for that.
 
2012-05-06 07:36:33 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: What it really means is that if you are an exemplary worker who does their job well and stays out of trouble, all it means is that they'll dig that much further into your past to find that time you farted in front of the vice principal, and fire you for that.


It sucks about her being a solid employee but again, does WF want to take the chance that her conviction (even one back in the Nixon administration) gets them fined or failed on a compliance audit. With the rules lenders face now, EVERYONE who might even think about talking to mortgage holders has to be able to get through squeky clean like they were applying to FINRA for a securities license. And yeah, WF is having issues but considering how they hold something like 34% of mortgages in the nation right now, they don't care if you call it downsizing or redistribution or a fuzzy unicorn.
 
2012-05-06 07:38:26 PM  

flucto: wildcardjack: The settlement from the age discrimination lawsuit should pay for her retirement.

If she failed to disclose the conviction she has no chance at all. Zero.


Good jorb not reading the article. It was a misdemeanor and they only asked her about felonies when hired.

Looks like there is some beaurcratic BS here-they hired a better background checking firm, and once they found out that somebody had a conviction of a certain type they "had" to fire her.

Of course, it could be a stealth downsiding program as others have suggested...
 
2012-05-06 07:43:36 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: It sucks about her being a solid employee but again, does WF want to take the chance that her conviction (even one back in the Nixon administration) gets them fined or failed on a compliance audit. With the rules lenders face now, EVERYONE who might even think about talking to mortgage holders has to be able to get through squeky clean like they were applying to FINRA for a securities license.


Sorry, I just don't buy the "It's the job-killing regulations that forced us to dig 40 years into your past and fire you over nothing, even though we've never had a problem with you and in-fact have given you awards for your work. Honest!!!" line.

And yeah, WF is having issues but considering how they hold something like 34% of mortgages in the nation right now, they don't care if you call it downsizing or redistribution or a fuzzy unicorn.

The guy in the article went bizarrely out of his way to make sure everybody knows it wasn't downsizing. So yeah, kinda looks like they DO care what you call it.
 
2012-05-06 07:55:49 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: The guy in the article went bizarrely out of his way to make sure everybody knows it wasn't downsizing. So yeah, kinda looks like they DO care what you call it.


"Because Wells Fargo is an insured depository institution, we are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust."

"We cannot comment on Ms. Quesada's situation specifically," Hines said, "other than to say she was not terminated for performance. In addition, the re-screenings are not part of a downsizing initiative."


That's HR 101- you never talk about a specific hire/fire. The writer doesn't do much to keep the story objective; I'm speculating his follow up question had something to do with this being a broader action. They had to start white-golving all new hires in 2010 and exisiting employees this part year. She got caught in an imperfect idea and is paying a steep price for something that even forty years ago was small potatoes to MPD. But there's no gray area with it when the feds might ream you a new one when they review your employees.
 
2012-05-06 08:02:38 PM  
she is 58, only worked there 5 years. not sure what kind of retirement package she could get but might as well do it now so no legacy costs seem too coincidental. these business have no real ethical justification for this kind of chicanery but one law/contract/regulation says they can retroactively.

broad interpretations is evil in the hands of business.
 
2012-05-06 08:03:51 PM  
Disgusting Banks! they all crooks.
 
2012-05-06 08:08:07 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: That's HR 101- you never talk about a specific hire/fire. The writer doesn't do much to keep the story objective; I'm speculating his follow up question had something to do with this being a broader action. They had to start white-golving all new hires in 2010 and exisiting employees this part year. She got caught in an imperfect idea and is paying a steep price for something that even forty years ago was small potatoes to MPD. But there's no gray area with it when the feds might ream you a new one when they review your employees.


Whether it's HR 101 or not, it is still clear they very much do not want this to be called a downsizing, which is the opposite of what you said earlier. All of this is perfectly consistent with a stealth downsizing. They have their "it's just policy" shield and they used it. As if the feds are going to ream them over a staff member with a 40 year old misdemeanor charge. Please.

They went over their staff with a fine-toothed comb, and started tossing people for anything they could even halfway justify. This one was just absurd enough to actually make the papers. Stealth downsizing is stealth downsizing.
 
2012-05-06 08:14:24 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Whether it's HR 101 or not, it is still clear they very much do not want this to be called a downsizing, which is the opposite of what you said earlier. All of this is perfectly consistent with a stealth downsizing. They have their "it's just policy" shield and they used it. As if the feds are going to ream them over a staff member with a 40 year old misdemeanor charge. Please.

They went over their staff with a fine-toothed comb, and started tossing people for anything they could even halfway justify. This one was just absurd enough to actually make the papers. Stealth downsizing is stealth downsizing.


And you don't seem to be understanding that federal guidelines say that anyone who speaks to customers or handles confidential information cannot have a conviction on their record for what the law considers fraud or misappropriation of funds. Shoplifting falls under this guise; be it for one dollar or a million (good lesson to steal big like the banks are). So the next time WF comes up to federal regulators for an audit of their personnel; her conviction would make them wonder why a person with a explicitly forbidden charge against them is working with confidential client information. Either way someone writes a breathless story about a lack of oversight.
 
2012-05-06 09:40:27 PM  
Clearly we're all going to Hell.

intelligentgames.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-05-06 11:30:17 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Whether it's HR 101 or not, it is still clear they very much do not want this to be called a downsizing, which is the opposite of what you said earlier. All of this is perfectly consistent with a stealth downsizing. They have their "it's just policy" shield and they used it. As if the feds are going to ream them over a staff member with a 40 year old misdemeanor charge. Please.

They went over their staff with a fine-toothed comb, and started tossing people for anything they could even halfway justify. This one was just absurd enough to actually make the papers. Stealth downsizing is stealth downsizing.

And you don't seem to be understanding that federal guidelines say that anyone who speaks to customers or handles confidential information cannot have a conviction on their record for what the law considers fraud or misappropriation of funds. Shoplifting falls under this guise; be it for one dollar or a million (good lesson to steal big like the banks are). So the next time WF comes up to federal regulators for an audit of their personnel; her conviction would make them wonder why a person with a explicitly forbidden charge against them is working with confidential client information. Either way someone writes a breathless story about a lack of oversight.


I find it hard to believe that the FDIC is stricter than the DOD or the DOE. A 40 year old shoplifting conviction? You'd probably still get a Top Secret/SCI or Q clearance as long as you disclosed it. Are you saying that the FDIC considers phone monkey work more important than nuclear secrets?
 
2012-05-06 11:47:15 PM  

buzzcut73: Are you saying that the FDIC considers phone monkey work more important than nuclear secrets?


In their line of work they see everything from Social Security numbers to credit ratings and bank accounts. To the boring people who enforce banking and insurance laws these are their answer to nuclear weapons. Think of the threads on here when a company gets hacked and the past 18 months of credit card numbers or SSN's are potentially in the air. Same kind of deal here; it looks bad for the banks and the ham-handed regulatory bodies.

/The shame is the statute is unambiguous to distinguish this case from an out-and-out identity thief.
 
2012-05-06 11:56:45 PM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: buzzcut73: Are you saying that the FDIC considers phone monkey work more important than nuclear secrets?

In their line of work they see everything from Social Security numbers to credit ratings and bank accounts. To the boring people who enforce banking and insurance laws these are their answer to nuclear weapons. Think of the threads on here when a company gets hacked and the past 18 months of credit card numbers or SSN's are potentially in the air. Same kind of deal here; it looks bad for the banks and the ham-handed regulatory bodies.

/The shame is the statute is unambiguous to distinguish this case from an out-and-out identity thief.


Then they need to work on that. Security clearances are no joke, and even they have a bit of sense when it comes to stupid shiat you did when you were 18.
I'll guarantee you that somebody with knowledge of bomb design or access to nuclear materials can make much more money selling what they have access to than somebody with access to financial information that can be sold to identity thieves. If they can see their way clear to let a petty misdemeanor go after 10 years, the FDIC should follow that lead.
 
2012-05-07 12:07:18 AM  

buzzcut73: Then they need to work on that. Security clearances are no joke, and even they have a bit of sense when it comes to stupid shiat you did when you were 18.
I'll guarantee you that somebody with knowledge of bomb design or access to nuclear materials can make much more money selling what they have access to than somebody with access to financial information that can be sold to identity thieves. If they can see their way clear to let a petty misdemeanor go after 10 years, the FDIC should follow that lead.


Totally agree the statute (and its interpretation) go to an extreme here. The banks created their own mess and now they're trying to make sure they don't put another foot wrong.

There actually has been shown to be good money in passing on SSN's; in the various places I've worked in insurance some places want you to think they spend the GDP of industrial nation on securing information. It was to the point where my current employer spends time in training to make sure we know passing the names and SSN's of deceased people (we do mostly large Work Comp compliance and reporting) don't get passed on since they're apparently highly sought after.
 
2012-05-07 12:11:28 AM  
Something similar happened to me recently- on a charge I not only wasn't charged for- but that the State of California cannot find the file on when I tried to get it sorted out. It was for shoplifting, coincidentally. I now am unable to find a job, and have no recourse (don't tell me to get a lawyer, I don't have a job, remember?) I'm suspicious of these ancient minor infractions suddenly "appearing" on people's backgrounds. Total Information Awareness, mark of the beast/666 and all that.
 
2012-05-07 12:57:34 AM  

Ken VeryBigLiar: buzzcut73: Then they need to work on that. Security clearances are no joke, and even they have a bit of sense when it comes to stupid shiat you did when you were 18.
I'll guarantee you that somebody with knowledge of bomb design or access to nuclear materials can make much more money selling what they have access to than somebody with access to financial information that can be sold to identity thieves. If they can see their way clear to let a petty misdemeanor go after 10 years, the FDIC should follow that lead.

Totally agree the statute (and its interpretation) go to an extreme here. The banks created their own mess and now they're trying to make sure they don't put another foot wrong.

There actually has been shown to be good money in passing on SSN's; in the various places I've worked in insurance some places want you to think they spend the GDP of industrial nation on securing information. It was to the point where my current employer spends time in training to make sure we know passing the names and SSN's of deceased people (we do mostly large Work Comp compliance and reporting) don't get passed on since they're apparently highly sought after.


Oh, I'm not saying that there isn't money to be made in SSN's, I'm just saying that there is much more valuable information out there that one can still access even if they did dumb stuff when they were young. Securing the information shouldn't be that hard...it is only accessible from the office on a special terminal, no electronic devices are allowed in, and no pencil and paper allowed at the desk should cover most of it. Of course, even the DOD fails at that basic information security at times.
 
2012-05-07 01:08:08 AM  
What a crock of shiat. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor offence. They were looking for a reason to fire her.
 
2012-05-07 01:18:44 AM  
Hmm,

I got a top secret clearance a few years ago, even with my extensive criminal background. Got busted for elevator surfing (3rd degree trespassing) about 30 years ago. It turns out the security investigators don't care about anything, and I mean anything, more than 10 years old.

Well, that was a relief. I was actually kinda worried about that when the process started.

But back to the issue at hand. I think it's self defeating, as a society, to keep these things on one's "permanent record". It should be S.O.P. for all misdemeanors to disappear after, say, 5 years of clean living, and even felonies within 10 years after finishing one's sentence. I mean, how do we expect people to have any incentive to rehabilitate themselves if they know that, no matter what they do, they'll be dragging that ball & chain around for the rest of their lives.

Dirtbags will always be dirtbags, and they'll re-offend within the time limit for sure, so I'm not concerned about accidentally hiring one. But people who made a mistake, an realized it, and reformed, should have the opportunity to live a life free of punishment at some point. We would all be better off if they were allowed to support themselves and, once again, become good citizens.
 
2012-05-07 05:43:38 AM  
Looking closely at the law, it seems that FDIC would be actively looking for this kind of breach, because they can use the resulting fines to cover their operating costs:

"Except with the written consent of the Corporation no person shall serve as a director, officer, or employee of an insured bank who has been convicted, or who is hereafter convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or breach of trust. For each willful violation of this prohibition, the bank involved shall be subject to a penalty of not more than $100 for each day this prohibition is violated, which the Corporation may recover for its use." Link (Note: the law is from 1950.)

Given that, it seems like WF isn't over-reacting. They broke the law by hiring her in the first place, now they know about the past convictions they have no choice but to fire her immediately. If FDIC is feeling really mean (or short on cash), the fact that WF only asked about felony convictions could be defined as a "willful violation of this prohibition" and cost them $1.825 million in fines for the 5 years she was employed. (That's assuming the lady was telling the truth.)
 
2012-05-07 06:27:21 AM  

buzzcut73: Oh, I'm not saying that there isn't money to be made in SSN's, I'm just saying that there is much more valuable information out there that one can still access even if they did dumb stuff when they were young. Securing the information shouldn't be that hard...it is only accessible from the office on a special terminal, no electronic devices are allowed in, and no pencil and paper allowed at the desk should cover most of it. Of course, even the DOD fails at that basic information security at times.


Banking institutions already limit access to their terminals with their monitoring software on them and the rules say "no electronic devices in this area". There's no "no pencil/paper" rule because that's farking retarded. (Try running an office without access to paper and pencils at a desk. Let me know how it works out.) However, I'd like you to think about the person willing to steal SSNs in the first place. If they are willing to violate Federal law by stealing SSNs, do you think they are going to give two shiats about a rule saying "you aren't allowed to use your cell phone in this area" or even "no pencil/paper at your desk"? The answer is no. Even the people who aren't committing fraud have trouble listening to those rules.

The penalties are stiffer for the banks than DOD, also. Sure, if you steal missile secrets from the DOD, you're going to go to PMITA prison for a long time, but the DOD itself isn't going to get fined $100 a day that you were an employee.

You get caught stealing SSNs and you had a record of ANY theft or fraud and not only do you go away, but your employer gets fined like crazy. In this case, it would be $185,000 dollars. There isn't a company in the world who would risk nearly $200,000 when it could fire the person with the shoplifting conviction and hire another grunt who doesn't have a conviction against them.
 
2012-05-07 06:40:47 AM  
LiquidSky has a great point, as ticky-tack as the lady's conviction may seem to her employment 35 years later.

Upon talking about TFA with a friend who has tons of HR experience, we both came up with the same questions without that being brought up: Who did she piss off? Was she a saint or an office cancer? Was this a "reason" to get rid of her, or is the FDIC rule something that Wells Fargo has serious concerns about?

Some of this shiat is a double-edged sword... Someone wants to get off of welfare who isn't a shiathead who made a mistake or did some time and gets bootstrappy. Sorry, you farked up years ago. We won't hire you. Go sell some blow or suck some cock. If you're lucky you can wait tables or bar tend or work in a kitchen for cash. Hell... you were late on a parking ticket or your car's registration. To the pillory with you! You are a worthless piece of shiat.

God forbid someone works their ass off to try to make things better for themselves. This whole deal of someone getting crucified if they fart in an elevator has gotten stupid.
 
2012-05-07 06:54:08 AM  

fleef: Something similar happened to me recently- on a charge I not only wasn't charged for- but that the State of California cannot find the file on when I tried to get it sorted out. It was for shoplifting, coincidentally. I now am unable to find a job, and have no recourse (don't tell me to get a lawyer, I don't have a job, remember?) I'm suspicious of these ancient minor infractions suddenly "appearing" on people's backgrounds. Total Information Awareness, mark of the beast/666 and all that.


Seen a number of articles on this in the past few months, think one got posted here. Now days, the cost on running background checks is pretty low and the results are quick. Just about EVERY business runs a background check now, even for minor piss ant positions. And the companies doing them are barely regulated and often barely competent. If you have a common name you can get screwed very easily.
 
2012-05-07 09:48:26 AM  
Have you EVER been convicted of a crime (traffic violations do not count)?

This is appearing on virtually all forms of job applications. And more companies, not just the low end ones, are insisting you file their hiring paperwork alongside your resume. We're now reaching a time where any criminal act can be used against you and in the State of Maine all criminal records are kept for life. Effectively regardless of the crime, all acts are considered felony for the purposes of employment.

How is this NOT in violation of the 8th Amendment? Lifetime persecution for crimes committed and paid for decades ago should never be allowed.
 
2012-05-07 11:23:23 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: "We cannot comment on Ms. Quesada's situation specifically," Hines said, "other than to say she was not terminated for performance. In addition, the re-screenings are not part of a downsizing initiative."

Hines went on to say, "Downsizing? Who said anything about downsizing? We're definitely not downsizing, if that's what you're thinking. This is an issue completely separate from downsizing. Why do you keep bringing up downsizing, when we're so obviously not doing that?"


when I read that, I heard it in this voice:

hockeyindependent.com
 
2012-05-07 02:04:07 PM  
This wasn't anything against her individually, it was just downsizing. When I worked for Chase they did the same thing. They went and ran full background checks on everybody and if you had anything involving theft, fraud, or violence you were fired. Doing this saves money over traditionally laying people off, because if the company has a policy of paying severance when they lay somebody off they don';t have to pay them if they are fired.
 
2012-05-07 05:59:09 PM  
As long as it is more profitable to find reasons to shed employees, instead of adding employees to drive additional revenue, this will not stop. Welcome to the economy of the 2010's, where companies can prosper with fewer/cheaper employees, so any reason to fire someone is fair game.
 
2012-05-07 06:25:25 PM  
Why would she have been fired for showing up for work or earning awards?
 
2012-05-07 10:52:06 PM  

gingerjet: HempHead: jake3988: You don't have to disclose misdemeanors.

Times are a changin'.

In many industries you must now disclose misdemeanors.

As someone who has spent a lot of time in the financial industry and being background checked I'm calling bullshiat. No one cares what happened 40 years ago and most specifically tell you to exclude misdemeanors and "driving related offenses" from the forms. And I have yet to come across a background check that went back more than 10 years and that includes the FBI check.


Had one come back positive for a stray dog violation in 1976. We had a good laugh and hired her anyway.

Another one came back positive for shoplifting in 1989. Hired with special approval.

Health care. We have positives back to the 70s all the time.
 
2012-05-08 02:22:50 AM  
Call me crazy, but I dont want a thief having access to my info or my money.
 
2012-05-08 09:09:54 AM  
When they say in the song that "this will go down on your permanent record," they're not kidding.

Did I mention I'm impressed?

/can't believe I'm the first
 
2012-05-08 02:07:01 PM  
The company failed to disclose that they are a pack of heartles twats who railroad good employees because of petty crap that they did not have to find, 40 years back.

Farking econobot ghouls.
 
Displayed 35 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report