Bank fires employee for conviction 40 years ago: Should she have been fired for something like this?

by (▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪) Posted 2012/05/07 20:30:01

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes	5 votes	14%
	No	32 votes	86%

More polls by (▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪)

autumnfae 2012/05/21 21:07:55

No

+1
I don't think a conviction 40 years ago is relevant

reply
rosesvengeance BN-0 2012/05/09 06:00:20

No

+1
Even though the law technically says she has a criminal record I think this is absolutely stupid. It was 40 years ago for heaven's sake. I think that unless she has some more recent convictions that they should make an exception in this case, especially since I'm pretty sure it was just a misdemeanor conviction.

reply
Lady Whitewolf 2012/05/08 10:01:49

No

+2
40 YEARS ago? Are they nuts? I say no.

reply
Brosia 2012/05/08 02:11:48

No

+3
If this is the only thing on her record, and you had to go back that far to find anything, keep this woman. She is a faithful employee that made a mistake so long ago, you where probably an upstanding bank.

reply
La 2012/05/07 23:45:54

Yes

+1
If it's the bank policy not to employ people like that, and they just found out about it, it's fair enough to fire her.

reply
tweet_tweet 2012/05/07 23:18:00 (edited)

Yes

+2
I'm not really sure. Something like this often comes down to whether or no she lied or her job application, which this video does not address.

reply
KarenInKenoshaWisconsin 2012/05/07 23:09:07

Yes

+2
Bound by law not to hire anyone with a criminal record means this is something she probably should have divulged during the hiring process. If she withheld that or if they failed to ask, Wells Fargo is still bound by law.

Outside of that, no, I wouldn't hold something like that against someone so many years later if they obviously changed their ways.

reply
JCD aka "biz" 2012/05/07 23:03:16

No

+2
Wells Fargo doesn't like to pay taxes, they have dozens of offshore tax havens.

Their top executives should be fired.

"Occupy Wells Fargo!"

reply
Tara-ABO-2012 2012/05/07 22:37:18

No

+3
40 Years later... No that's stupid. HOWEVER, if she lied on her application then yes, they have every right to fire her.

reply
♌βļąƈʞƦơșƐ3033♌ 2012/05/07 22:32:20

No

+2
I didn't watch the video or read the article and I still say NO!

reply
La to ♌βļąƈʞƦ... 2012/05/07 23:46:55

Why should your opinion be valid then? >.> You don't have any of the relevant info....

reply
♌βļąƈʞƦ... to La 2012/05/07 23:49:24

It's valid because its a free country and the first admendment says I can say it.

reply
La to ♌βļąƈʞƦ... 2012/05/08 05:40:54

*rolls eyes* I didn't say you couldn't spout off whatever comes through your head. I said why should we think it has any merit?

reply
♌βļąƈʞƦ... to La 2012/05/08 14:36:37

Because I say so. Its what i think. Get over it.

reply
Dweezle 2012/05/07 22:00:07

No

+1
I believe Crime in the federal system is defined as a FELONY, Shoplifting is a misdemeanor or an infraction. after 40 years the violation should have been expunged. Another Wells Fargo FAIL!

reply
rosesve... to Dweezle 2012/05/09 05:55:47

you have to file a request for expungement of a criminal record, even misdemeanors. Most employers however only care about Felonies.

reply
Mrkando 2012/05/07 21:52:46

No

+1
My guess is she has become a victim of the government regulations requiring companies to do back ground checks on their employees. That change came about only a couple of years ago I think. I volunteer for the American Red Cross Good neighbor program and have been since 2002. About one to two years ago we were required to have a background check made if we wished to continue volunteering. I assume from that, that most companies fell under that regulation. This may have simply been a good idea at the time they hired her and not mandatory.

You would think however that any bank should have done that work on any employee without it being mandatory. Clearly that was not the case here until recently. What I am not sure of in this case would be does a bank have any latitude to overlook your background once uncovered. It may not have.

reply
La to Mrkando 2012/05/07 23:47:31

+1
Bit harsh you can be banned from volunteering :P

reply
Mrkando to La 2012/05/08 01:47:19

+1
Well it seemed like it at first but I can understand why. We go out and pick people up and take them to a center for a meal. Then we take meals out to the home bound. So we represent Red Cross up close and personal and of course it is important that they only have people doing this that can be trusted. With Red Cross it is an image and trust thing with no monetary consideration involved. When you talk about a bank or financial institution you would think it would be paramount that every employee could be trusted and I think before 9-11 it was not such a consideration but that changed everything.

reply
La to Mrkando 2012/05/08 05:41:24

Ah yeah, okay, I suppose it depends what the volunteering involves.

reply
The Elitist Libtard SodaJerk 2012/05/07 21:47:26

Yes

+3
That's their policy, and she probably always knew that her past could come back to bite her in the ass.

reply
Q 2012/05/07 21:47:21 (edited)

No

+3
Sounds to me like Wells Fargo wanted her gone for whatever reason so they used a 40 year old shoplifting conviction as an excuse. I guess that's one way to get around paying an older employees salary along with the benefits package, they probably replaced her with an inexpensive new hire at half the cost.

reply
La to Q 2012/05/07 23:48:04

+2
More likely they are just downsizing. Many places are downsizing because the economy has not improved fast enough.

reply
Q to La 2012/05/07 23:52:05

+2
You're probably right, and they usually want to cut the older higher paid workers first.

reply
Jo 2012/05/07 21:33:44

No

+2
no, but one of the most despicable laws on the books of most states is that convicted felons (was it a felony or a midemeanor?) cant be employed in a great deal of the job market--especially a bank. These types of places typically have insurance laws in place that wont allow them to have a convicted person in their employ---they werent doing background checks 40 years ago, but still, this is awful.

reply
gregaj7 2012/05/07 21:26:06

No

+1
Only if she lied on her job-application. It looks as if Wells-Fargo is now on my boycott list.

reply
pdarkow 2012/05/07 21:14:26

No

+2
it was 40 years ago for crying out loud there excuse should have kept her from being hired in the first place. Since they hired her and she worked there for years the past is the past they should leave it in the past. Everyone has a past and have done bad things at some point in their lives. Using the excuse of a background check revealed the crime is only an excuse because if it shows up now it will show up when they run a background check to hire her in the first place.

reply
FromJesus'sPerspective 2012/05/07 20:55:41 (edited)

Yes

+2
Yes if she lied on her application where it says have you ever been convicted of a crime.

reply
Q to FromJes... 2012/05/07 21:51:56

+2
If I'm not mistaken isn't the application question usually: Have you aver been convicted of a felony? I don't think shoplifting clothes constitutes a felony? But I could be wrong?

reply
FromJes... to Q 2012/05/07 22:39:29

+2
depends I have seen them both ways.

reply
Q to FromJes... 2012/05/08 03:05:00

+1
Just checking, we used standard form applications and I thought they just asked about a felonies but I wasn't positive.

reply
FromJes... to Q 2012/05/08 03:59:13

I hear you isn't shoplifting a felony depending on the dollar amount? If someone steals a watch valued at $1000.00 I believe that would be a felony.

reply
Q to FromJes... 2012/05/08 13:10:57

That's a valid point, I thought it was just some clothes that were shoplifted but it didn't really give us very many details so who knows?

reply
FromJes... to Q 2012/05/08 15:33:46 (edited)

+1
So true some clothes yet they leave out the value. She was let go for falsifying an application would be my guess. The unfortunate part is once convicted it follows you for life. My feelings for this poor woman is that once the time has been done for the crime they should regain all rights as a US citizen. The system uses punishment as a means to eliminate a sec of people.

reply
Ian 2012/05/07 20:53:37

No

+1
Blasphemy!

reply
Sport_Geoff 2012/05/07 20:53:22 (edited)

No

+1
I checked "no" but my answer would actually be perhaps. The one piece of information missing from the story is did she disclose the arrest on her employment application? Most applications ask "Have you ever been arrested or convicted or a crime? Most company policies allows employers to do random drug test and update background checks as needed......ours does.

So, if she had checked no to being arrested or convicted it doesn't matter how long ago it was or how long she has been there....she falsified information on her application and an employer can terminate an employee for that....no matter when the lie is discovered.

reply
Drue-AFCL 2012/05/07 20:50:03

No

+1
ALOT OF PEOPLE HAVE HAD A CONVICTION OR TWO. . . .

reply
Sport_G... to Drue-AFCL 2012/05/07 20:56:53 (edited)

+1
not me .......never...none............. knock on my wooden head). I get the attitude of "everybody has been arrested before" constantly from applicants. It's a shame that being a criminal or having a criminal history seems to be considered just an everyday normal part of life in our society.

reply
Philo-Publius 2012/05/07 20:49:45

No

+2
I can't believe Wells Fargo would fail to uphold the outlaw code...

Is there no honor anymore among thieves?

reply
Gunner 2012/05/07 20:40:29 (edited)

No

+1
Really confusing me.. If they're trying to say that she should be punished for the crime then they r right, but shouldn't fire her... 40 Decades is so past

reply