It would matter extremely of what they were convicted of because that is ultimately a risk game.
If the guy was convicted of something related to financial(like fraud, theft etc) or hostility(murder, assault etc) I wouldn’t take the chance, otherwise I wouldn’t really care.
Remember, it doesn’t matter whether he did or not. it’s what society as a whole believes he did. If it’s a risk or liability to the company then it’s a no, but if it’s something that’s like a “oh well OK then” such as an old drug issue, IP violation, disorderly conduct etc, it’s whatever. If the public isn’t going to think differently of the company, and the financial stability of the company is not at risk, then go for it.
Although this also is assuming the guy has credentials, that would be worthwhile.
There’s this character in True Detective first season who is a sexual crime exconvict. Of course he is the first suspect of the murder case.
He is a cognitively challenged folk, who got harassed, and sexually abused in prison. They cut his cock off and forced him to eat it. Gets dismissed as a suspect on the same episode.
He went to prison because he masturbated in public, at night in a rural remote area, once. And was unlucky enough to be seen. Not all convicts are made the same.
I also think about the office episode where they get an exconvict to quit because he found the paper sales environment to be too hostile with his personal history. He was convicted of financial fraud with the cushiest and most pampered convicted life.
the public indecency one is rough. I don’t know if I would hire that individual.
The issue in that situation isn’t the fact that he was caught for it, but the fact that he was willing to do it in public in the first place, so the risk factor there would be will this individual potentially try to do the same at my establishment? I think I would hire them if I was in a non-public style buisness such as office work, but if I was in a very public buisness like retail I would pass.
As for the last example with the fraud. In this case, it sounds like the person did do it. But if the person had not done it but was convicted of it, I would need some pretty compelling evidence saying the other direction. Because having someone who’s known to be a fraudster, managing anything with a company is not a good idea.
The second one is funny because it made everyone in the office realize that living conditions in a posh prison were way better than their life in Dunder-Mifflin. The guy was pretty nice, but Michael had to do it all about his race and eventually made everything so uncomfortable that the guy quit because of the hostile work conditions. They only realized he was exconvict because the government gave them a financial incentive for hiring him.
The first one is harsh because the dude was very obviously mentally challenged. He needed a good family environment and mental health care, not two FBI thugs harassing him.
It would matter extremely of what they were convicted of because that is ultimately a risk game.
If the guy was convicted of something related to financial(like fraud, theft etc) or hostility(murder, assault etc) I wouldn’t take the chance, otherwise I wouldn’t really care.
Remember, it doesn’t matter whether he did or not. it’s what society as a whole believes he did. If it’s a risk or liability to the company then it’s a no, but if it’s something that’s like a “oh well OK then” such as an old drug issue, IP violation, disorderly conduct etc, it’s whatever. If the public isn’t going to think differently of the company, and the financial stability of the company is not at risk, then go for it.
Although this also is assuming the guy has credentials, that would be worthwhile.
There’s this character in True Detective first season who is a sexual crime exconvict. Of course he is the first suspect of the murder case.
He is a cognitively challenged folk, who got harassed, and sexually abused in prison. They cut his cock off and forced him to eat it. Gets dismissed as a suspect on the same episode.
He went to prison because he masturbated in public, at night in a rural remote area, once. And was unlucky enough to be seen. Not all convicts are made the same.
I also think about the office episode where they get an exconvict to quit because he found the paper sales environment to be too hostile with his personal history. He was convicted of financial fraud with the cushiest and most pampered convicted life.
the public indecency one is rough. I don’t know if I would hire that individual.
The issue in that situation isn’t the fact that he was caught for it, but the fact that he was willing to do it in public in the first place, so the risk factor there would be will this individual potentially try to do the same at my establishment? I think I would hire them if I was in a non-public style buisness such as office work, but if I was in a very public buisness like retail I would pass.
As for the last example with the fraud. In this case, it sounds like the person did do it. But if the person had not done it but was convicted of it, I would need some pretty compelling evidence saying the other direction. Because having someone who’s known to be a fraudster, managing anything with a company is not a good idea.
The second one is funny because it made everyone in the office realize that living conditions in a posh prison were way better than their life in Dunder-Mifflin. The guy was pretty nice, but Michael had to do it all about his race and eventually made everything so uncomfortable that the guy quit because of the hostile work conditions. They only realized he was exconvict because the government gave them a financial incentive for hiring him.
The first one is harsh because the dude was very obviously mentally challenged. He needed a good family environment and mental health care, not two FBI thugs harassing him.