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 04:01:36 AM  
Well. Looks like the banking industry is fixed. They finally found the bad apple.
 
2012-05-06 04:08:24 AM  
And people laugh at us when we tell them about job killing regulations
 
2012-05-06 05:12:51 AM  

cman: And people laugh at us when we tell them about job killing regulations


notsureifserious.jpg
 
2012-05-06 05:52:39 AM  

Relatively Obscure: cman: And people laugh at us when we tell them about job killing regulations

notsureifserious.jpg


It was 50/50 of seriousness and nonseriousness.
 
2012-05-06 09:38:04 AM  
The settlement from the age discrimination lawsuit should pay for her retirement.
 
2012-05-06 09:38:53 AM  

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.
 
2012-05-06 09:42:55 AM  
Lying on your job application is always a risky bet.
 
2012-05-06 09:47:20 AM  
flucto * * Smartest * * Funniest * [ ] Smartest [ ] Funniest 2012-05-06 09:38:53 AM 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.
=========================================================

You don't have to disclose misdemeanors.

But yes, wildcardjack is correct. It's merely age discrimination. They wanted an excuse to fire her for being too old and they got a convenient excuse that sadly will more than likely be held up if she ever sued.
 
2012-05-06 09:48:13 AM  

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.


Depends though. If it was a misdemeanor and they asked her if she had any felony convictions, then she didn't have to disclose it.
 
2012-05-06 09:56:38 AM  
It was 1972. This is total bullsh*t. No wonder everyone hates banks. FU wells fargo.
 
2012-05-06 10:12:37 AM  
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time
 
2012-05-06 10:13:27 AM  

jake3988: You don't have to disclose misdemeanors.


Times are a changin'.

In many industries you must now disclose misdemeanors.
 
2012-05-06 10:27:56 AM  

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.
 
2012-05-06 10:28:53 AM  
If you don't want your minor misdemeanor following you around for the rest of your life, look into getting it expunged.
 
2012-05-06 10:39:50 AM  
This is government regulations in work! Good job Obama!
 
2012-05-06 10:41:18 AM  
29.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-05-06 10:50:39 AM  

pudding7: If you don't want your minor misdemeanor following you around for the rest of your life, look into getting it expunged.


Depends on the state. However, in her case she was guilty, and that usually throws that option right out.
 
2012-05-06 10:55:01 AM  
Baby Boomers grew up with a couple of incessant worries hanging over them:

1) Cold War ( = Nuclear Armageddon War)

2) "Your Permanent Record" (Assurances from authority figures that your indiscretions would stay with you the rest of your life)


#1 kind of ended with a whimper, but here's evidence of #2 40 years later, Boomers!
 
2012-05-06 11:04:47 AM  
"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?"
 
2012-05-06 11:17:11 AM  
I hope that she gets her job back.
 
2012-05-06 11:20:19 AM  
What did the Bank execs get when they knowingly committed fraud on a global scale?
 
2012-05-06 11:26:11 AM  

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.


Misdemeanor sexual abuse conviction will preclude you from obtaining employment with school districts, day cares, etc. Even a 40 year old conviction.
 
2012-05-06 11:26:32 AM  

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


She's only been working there five years. It's not like she started when she was 22.
 
2012-05-06 11:33:20 AM  

Drakuun: What did the Bank execs get when they knowingly committed fraud on a global scale?


A trillion dollars, as is proper.
 
2012-05-06 11:40:33 AM  
Funny how these things "Pop-up" within two or three years of retirement.

/Some "Exec" is earnin that salary baby...
 
2012-05-06 11:44:02 AM  

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


THEY DIDN'T ASK HER ABOUT MISDEMEANORS
 
2012-05-06 12:13:40 PM  
And yet another reason Wells Fargo can FOAD. Them and BoA.
 
2012-05-06 12:25:15 PM  
I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record.

Oh yeah? Well don't get so distressed. Did I happen to mention that I'm impressed?
 
2012-05-06 12:33:53 PM  

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


Why would it be age discrimination? She would probably have better luck changeling the policy on the ground that it has a disparate impact on minorities. WF would then have to show that going back 40 years for minor offenses is somehow job related.
 
2012-05-06 12:34:15 PM  
Quesada said she was told by supervisors that the company pays particular attention now to the banking industry being accountable. "They said Wells Fargo wants to portray a very high image," she said.

t.imgbox.com
 
2012-05-06 12:39:49 PM  

Drakuun: What did the Bank execs get when they knowingly committed fraud on a global scale?


The bonus that was in their iron-clad contact that can never be changed and is given regardless of performance.
 
2012-05-06 12:42:07 PM  
Whatever. Go back to Mexico. You shouldn't be taking the job of a Real American™!
 
2012-05-06 12:45:10 PM  
Welcome to Welfukuthen Bank, Franz Kafka, President.
 
2012-05-06 12:46:17 PM  

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

She's only been working there five years. It's not like she started when she was 22.


This does improve their health insurance profile.
 
2012-05-06 12:55:46 PM  
I work in the airline industry which now has some insane background checks. I always tell new hires to fully disclose, and to err on the side of giving too much information. The was one girl who I was hiring for an accounting position who had a shoplifting arrest 10 years prior, and she passed the background checks becaused she fully disclosed.
 
2012-05-06 01:01:33 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.


Most applications ask if you've ever been convicted of a felony, not a misdemeanor. In most cases shoplifting is considered a misdemeanor, not a felony. And going by the sentences she got ($50 fine on one, a year of probation on the other), I'm guessing they weren't felonies.
 
2012-05-06 01:06:10 PM  

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

Times are a changin'.

In many industries you must now disclose misdemeanors.


True, that is a possibility, but per the article, when she initially applied for the job many years ago, she was only asked if she had been convicted of any felonies.
 
2012-05-06 01:13:08 PM  

jake3988: You don't have to disclose misdemeanors.

But yes, wildcardjack is correct. It's merely age discrimination. They wanted an excuse to fire her for being too old and they got a convenient excuse that sadly will more than likely be held up if she ever sued.


Wisconsin is an at-will employment state. As long as they can justify the reason (in this case, any conviction for dishonesty or mistrust); she's got nothing. The issue will be if they can show it's being applied to the whole institution.

The system for screening people sucks though. I used to work for a large national personal lines insurer who's screening process would drop anyone with a collections notice in the past 36 months but missed the sociopath with four fraud charges pending and collections out the wazoo.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-05-06 01:16:18 PM  
When Massachusetts cut down how much employers could consider criminal history they left holes like this. In some cases spitting on a sidewalk when you were 14 in the 1970s can cost you your job. In other cases you could have been convicted on 9/12/2001 of killing 3,000 people the day before and be allowed to claim no criminal history today.
 
2012-05-06 01:20:10 PM  

HempHead: Lying on your job application is always a risky bet.


FTA: "Quesada is not accused, at least in the termination letter, of lying to Wells Fargo about the offense when she first applied. She recalls being asked only if she had any felonies in her past."
 
2012-05-06 01:27:33 PM  

gsiofa: HempHead: Lying on your job application is always a risky bet.

FTA: "Quesada is not accused, at least in the termination letter, of lying to Wells Fargo about the offense when she first applied. She recalls being asked only if she had any felonies in her past."


THIS. The arrest from four decades ago is just pretense, it's not the actual reason she's being fired. She's being fired because the company is downsizing, but it doesn't want to hurt its image by advertising a downsizing, so it's putting staff who are near retirement under a microscope so they can suddenly find something to justify a not-downsizing-we-totally-swear firing.
 
2012-05-06 02:56:49 PM  
FTFA: Wells Fargo wants to portray a very high image

This incident portrays them as intolerant, unforgiving, and soulless.
 
2012-05-06 03:03:29 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.


You've been out too long then, gramps. Financial firms that have any government contracts are being forced to screen all of their employees for anything considered dishonest. I have seen my company remove employees off the premise for things they doid before I was born.
 
2012-05-06 03:17:28 PM  
My $00.02:

Someone commits a crime, serves the punishment (jail, pays a fine, community service, etc...), that should be the end of it and only be relevant in the case of repeat offences. An employer should not legally be able to look into your past and say "Well, you've been good for four decades, but before that you did commit a misdemeanor, so you can not work here, even though you've been one of our best employees."

Now it does make sense for an employer to deny employement because a crime was committed X number of years go (like less than 10), but to fire someone for a crime commited decades before employement and long after years of being a model employee should be grounds of a lawsuit. But to have 15 years of not committing a crime and being denied employment is assinine. Even for felones.
 
2012-05-06 03:35:26 PM  

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

Times are a changin'.

In many industries you must now disclose misdemeanors.


When I was last interviewed, they asked for:
ANY charges, regardless of conviction.
Any traffic accidents.
Any lawsuits that I was part of (either being sued or suing).
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-05-06 03:40:09 PM  
When I was last interviewed, they asked for:
ANY charges, regardless of conviction.


The new Massachusetts law says they can ask you in person but not on the application form. Backers thought, probably correctly, that people would be more reluctant to ask face to face than on a form they could throw away with no personal interaction.

Except if you're a police officer or school teacher or any other category that gets the deep probe background check then anything you've ever been suspected of in your life can and will be used against you.
 
2012-05-06 04:14:45 PM  

Lsherm: pudding7: If you don't want your minor misdemeanor following you around for the rest of your life, look into getting it expunged.

Depends on the state. However, in her case she was guilty, and that usually throws that option right out.


Anyone who gets a conviction expunged was, by definition, guilty.
 
2012-05-06 05:15:15 PM  

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time


Do the crime if you know you will never do the time.

/big bank credo
 
2012-05-06 05:27:09 PM  
While it makes perfect sense that you want to prevent criminals from working in banking, this is pretty ridiculous. There ought to be a way to allow her to get the record expunged and continue to work without interruption.
 
2012-05-06 06:04:24 PM  
I love how age discrimination against younger generations is entirely, 100% acceptable.

In this nation, you're allowed to work as long as you want. On top of that, in some places, you can retire, collect a pension, AND CONTINUE TO DO YOUR PREVIOUS JOB. Fired for what may be a legitimate reason? It's age discrimination!
 
Displayed 50 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 »
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