Lose a Job Offer Over a Traffic Ticket?

[ChumpDumper]

So every right winger supports this big government expansion that, in their best example, merely duplicates what local and state governments already do.

Ok.

[boutons_]

Velcro Man dubya would of course be disqualified for the years of alcohol and supposed hard drug abuse.

[xrayzebra]

So every right winger supports this big government expansion that, in their best example, merely duplicates what local and state governments already do.

Ok.

What is expanding government got to do with
checking someone's driver record?

Get a life, Chump. The record exist to begin with,
has for years. It is computerized. Insurance
companies check them on a regular basis. In
many cases it is public information. You know what you liberals always wanted. Freedom of
information. No expansion here, move along.

[xrayzebra]

Velcro Man dubya would of course be disqualified for the years of alcohol and supposed hard drug abuse.

He wasn't so disqualified that it kept him from
whooping your folks ass twice.

One damn off year election, where you gained
what is a norm, and you think you now own the
world. But your "Velcro man" still holds the
"veto" pen and you haven't got the votes to
override.....oh, my, mama, he is picking on me
again.......

[ChumpDumper]

Go Big Government! Get bigger! Do things local governments already do better!

Upon closer inspection, x is a liberal -- along with the rest of you so-called right wingers. Did you switch because you were beat so bad in the midterms or what?

[Clandestino]

People who are overweight or obese, both not illegal, will have more fat-related diseases, and suffer more from fat-complicated symptoms and diseases. There also, "they HAVE THE EVIDENCE."

A lot companies who offer group health refuse, secretly of course, to hire older candidates because older candidates tend to have higher medical claims and run up the company's health coverage premiums.

So Clanny, should employers refuse to hire candidates who are, say, more than X% body-fat or have an elevated BMI?

Or do you want to deny employment only to candidates who have committed non-violent "morality/mores" crimes?

Typical simplistic radical right, always elevating yourself to holier-than-thou perfection while wanting to hammer and punish anybody who dares be imperfect, by your legalistic, moralistic, self-righteous definition.

yes, they should. just like some employers make smokers quit.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

you could ask him about it and find out what happened.

Yes, you could ask the person about it, but by far the greater likelihood is that the person would not get an interview and would thus effectively be written off for something stupid they once did. We're living in the real world, not some happy friendly super-place...

Some traffic violations can be felonies. Like a second DWI.And how about a bus company/cab company/trucking company, they
don't need to know about a person's driving record.

Or a company that furnishes a person a company car?

You see RNR there may be many reasons to look at persons driving record.

Thanks for picking on me Ray, but I never mentioned someone's driving record, and I reiterated twice that we are only taking about misdemeanors, because I think an employer should have a right to know about your felonies.

you don't think that persons driving record is important??

For a job that involved driving as part of the job, I think a company could already check your driving record, and fair enough. That was not the general case presented in the OP.

[Clandestino]

Yes, you could ask the person about it, but by far the greater likelihood is that the person would not get an interview and would thus effectively be written off for something stupid they once did. We're living in the real world, not some happy friendly super-place...

GREAT! saving the company TIME & MONEY, but not having to interview someone they would not hire..

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

GREAT! saving the company TIME & MONEY, but not having to interview someone they would not hire..

Um, you were the one who suggested they'd ask the person about it.

Clan, by your rationale, anyone who has done anything "wrong" in their lives (which we all have) and been caught (most of us haven't for our misdemeanors), no matter how trivial or isolated the incident, that person should be blackbanned from employment for the rest of their lives. That makes sense...

How you can have such a blinkered, black and white perspective on life, I will never understand.

I'm curious - ever had a traffic ticket?

[RandomGuy]

it is an employers right to know who they are hiring.

Find that right in the cons ution, you judicial activist.

[Clandestino]

Um, you were the one who suggested they'd ask the person about it.

Clan, by your rationale, anyone who has done anything "wrong" in their lives (which we all have) and been caught (most of us haven't for our misdemeanors), no matter how trivial or isolated the incident, that person should be blackbanned from employment for the rest of their lives. That makes sense...

How you can have such a blinkered, black and white perspective on life, I will never understand.

I'm curious - ever had a traffic ticket?

it would depend on what the offense was. some offenses they just wouldn't waste their time with the person.

and it would be the employers choice to decide. they wouldn't blackball everyone, but it would give them more stuff to determine who they want to hire.

and of course i've had a ticket. and in the industries i've worked in they have had access to all my info.

[Clandestino]

Find that right in the cons ution, you judicial activist.

haha..stfu dumbass.. not every single ing thing is in the cons ution. tell me where it says dumbasses like you are in the 10% marginal tax bracket in the cons ution.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

it would depend on what the offense was. some offenses they just wouldn't waste their time with the person.

and it would be the employers choice to decide. they wouldn't blackball everyone, but it would give them more stuff to determine who they want to hire.

and of course i've had a ticket. and in the industries i've worked in they have had access to all my info.

My point was that I think those with any sort of record would be tossed in the discard pile in the first cull, and that is a bad situation.

If you are making hiring and firing decisions on the basis of whether or not someone got done for public urination when they were 19, your HR department is crap.

I seriously don't see how the "rights of the employer" override the right to privacy in this case. Committing a misdemeanor or two in your past does not make you a bad employee, but that's the outcome from a law like this.

Oh, and if this law comes in, how many companies are going to go through their current employee's records and start firing people on the basis of misdemeanors??? Very few, if any I bet (unless there are specific low-performing staff they want a reason to get rid of). So, why should misdemeanors only count against new employees?

[johngateswhiteley]

i want to be able to up as much as possible and still be able to get a good job. also, if one has messed up a bunch in the past or currently messes up a lot it does not mean that person is incapable of performing well in their job.

...i hate all this crap. there should be a difference between your work life and personal life.