3 ms·
It's not really a "loophole", per se. It would be ludicrous to say that a bank should not be able to exclude someone from hiring if they have been convicted of
by frankc 9y ago
It's not really a "loophole", per se. It would be ludicrous to say that a bank should not be able to exclude someone from hiring if they have been convicted of a serious financial crime, or that a day care should not be able to exclude a convicted child molester.
Now, will other companies take advantage of this so that they defeat the spirit of the law? Perhaps. But the fact that they need to make an assessment means that might be subject to review at some point.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- randyrand 9y agoIt's amazing we need to explicitly say this. This should be obvious, yet by many comments you wouldn't realize it.
- bertil 9y agoIt is obvious: I'm stunned that people on HN still use uninformed “but who will think of the children?!“ So to make it clear: as a day-care owner, you do not need to refuse employment to a previously convicted child-molester after they’ve successfully applied. You don’t because they violated their life-long-parole-like control and are in back in jail.