5 ms·
re. 3), are you kidding me?
by imafish 6y ago
re. 3), are you kidding me?
- x0x0 6y agoI'm not saying I would or wouldn't, but consider this. I'm the hiring manager. I know someone has committed a felony. I argue that we should hire anyway. Guess who is putting their career at a company on the line for a stranger?
- imafish 6y agoI think you are over dramatizing this. Bad hires happen. I do not see how the manager has their entire career on the line, if they need to fire someone later. Should it not be possible to create trust between two people, just because one of them has a criminal record? I do not follow that logic. Edit: My issue is with his absolute "never".
- x0x0 6y agoBad hires of course happen. I don't think that's relevant. Say I work at a place where (1) no criminal backgrounds is a rule, and (2) I have a candidate we would hire except for rule (1). If I personally push for an exception to rule (1) and the person turns out to be a bad hire -- and particularly if the badness of the hire is related to crimes -- I strongly suspect that will become a me problem.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- core-questions 6y ago"Investigating factory farms and rescuing animals" puts a nice spin on breaking and entering and theft of property, doesn't it?
- kevinh 6y agoYou could use that same line of reasoning in almost any situation that there are circumstances that lessen the repercussions of an action. i.e. "Self defense" puts a nice spin on killing someone, doesn't it?
- jcranmer 6y agoIt's worth pointing out that self-defense is a legal defense that absolves oneself of guilt. There's a similar defense called "necessity," where you can be absolved of guilt in committing a lesser crime to avoid a greater harm in narrow circumstances. But political activism (of the sort the OP admits to committing) is conclusively not in that set of circumstances.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]