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.
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.