The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-25-2012, 11:57 AM
kwc27 kwc27 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
I was offered a job then turned down after I put my two weeks at my current.

Last summer I applied for then interviewed for a new job. I got a call a week later saying 'we'd like to extend you a job offer'. An email was sent to me with a formal job offer saying my start date was two weeks from then. I went to work at my current job and told the boss I'd give him two weeks.

A couple days later the HR lady at the other place called asking for my driver's license number and if they could do a background check and call my current employer. I gave it to her and she said 'you didn't quit your job yet, did you? Because this is conditional and we still have to do a background check.' Well she called a week and a half later and said, 'based on your record (I had a screw up on my driving record 2.5 years ago) we will not be able to extend you an offer.' I said, 'wow, that's an interesting way of doing things'. She said, 'well, it's our policy, maybe try back when your record is clean, can I send you some information?' I said, 'no thanks, goodbye'. I was a little miffed, but I didn't lose any sleep.

They took me back no problem at my current job, I am actually a pretty good employee, but what if they hadn't? Could the other place or the HR lady have been held responsible? She left out sort of a major thing, that the job offer was only conditional, and waited a day or so before telling me that. This is all theoretical, but I'm curious.

This is an at-will employment state, if that matters.

Last edited by kwc27; 02-25-2012 at 11:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 02-25-2012, 02:23 PM
anson2995 anson2995 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 2,719
Did the letter say that the offer was contingent on you passing a background check/drug test/etc. ? That's fairly common langauge.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:04 PM
kwc27 kwc27 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by anson2995 View Post
Did the letter say that the offer was contingent on you passing a background check/drug test/etc. ? That's fairly common langauge.
I don't think so. If I remember correctly, it said we will conduct a background check, but nothing about the offer being contingent on said background check.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:06 PM
enalzi enalzi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwc27 View Post
I don't think so. If I remember correctly, it said we will conduct a background check, but nothing about the offer being contingent on said background check.
Well, isn't that somewhat assumed? Why would they do a background check if they were going to give you the job regardless of what they found?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:19 PM
kwc27 kwc27 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
Well, isn't that somewhat assumed? Why would they do a background check if they were going to give you the job regardless of what they found?
Good point, but when it comes to things like this, can anything be left up to assumption? Especially in this day and age.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:34 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by anson2995 View Post
Did the letter say that the offer was contingent on you passing a background check/drug test/etc. ? That's fairly common langauge.
I think it does hinge on this. If at any point in the application/ interview/ hiring process they advised you of this, even as a note in the literature about their company or application for employment form, you are in effect an unwed mother -- screwed and screwed over. so to speak.

But if it was a bona fide job offer with no conditions stipulated, then the shoe is quite frankly on the other foot. They made you a job offer which you accepted and acted in reliance on. Their "company policy" may be what they'd like you to put up with, but it cannot go against the law, and even in "right to work" states there are some things they cannot do.

While the OP was fortunate in that his current employer was willing to take him back, if someone else were in that same position and was not welcomed back, I would contact HR at the company making the offer with the hidden contingency in writing, with copies to that company's legal department and the State Labor Department, along these terms:

"You made me a job offer with no 'subject to' terms stated in it, which I accepted and acted in reliance on. I feel you should act to hold me harmless from your error, as follows:

1. You will hire me on the terms stated in our previous contact. In view of the circumstances, I will expect two exceptions to company policy: (a) you will waiver the good-driving-record condition, and document this in my file; (b) any dismissal within the first year must be for cause acceptable to the State Labor Department standards. I put this requirement in place to ensure you do not meet the terms of you obligation by hiring me and then lay me off a week later. OR

2. Along with my own efforts, you will contact my current employer and convince him to retain me as an employee.

I believe that I have made myself ineligible for state unemployment by voluntarily leaving a job. I wish a formal letter, on company letterhead, from you, stating the screw-up on your part that led me to resign my current position, in hopes that they will approve unemployment for someone leaving one position in the expectation of having been offered a better one.

If you are unwilling to do (1) and unable or unwilling to do (2) and I am indeed ineligible for state unemployment, then:

3. You will pay me the sum of fifty percent of the gross wages per forty-hour week on each pay cycle for your business while I am without work, precisely as if I were drawing unemployment but paid directly by you. I will commit myself to diligently look for work and to notify you when I have begun a new job.

If none of the above options are acceptable to you, then I will be contacting both the State Labor Department's Legal Affairs Office and a lawyer willing to work on a contingency basis. I trust it will not need to come to that extreme.

Sincerely, yada yada
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-25-2012, 04:28 PM
lawbuff lawbuff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
The poster above uses the word Reliance. This is a recognized Cause of Action in some states, that is, Detrimental Reliance, sometimes known as or a seperate tort of Promissory Estoppel. The state dep. of labor has no jurisdiction though.

Be advised though, even if it is a recognized tort in a state, the specific case law controls, DR may cover certain facts. For example, I move, at my expense, and put out 2 grand to relocate for my new job. When I arrive, the offer was rescinded. It is possible a COA exisits, possibly not? An Employment/Labor Lawyer would need to be consulted.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-25-2012, 08:22 PM
Rigamarole Rigamarole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
If you don't mind, what kind of job is this? Is it something where you have to drive as a primary part of your duties? Because otherwise, being declined a job due to a moving violation a couple years ago seems incredibly strict and unnecessary.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-25-2012, 08:36 PM
EmanioAmor EmanioAmor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
HR probably forgot and was probably lying. Most of the jobs these days lie cheat and steal to get ahead. Its all one big game
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-25-2012, 10:05 PM
nikonikosuru nikonikosuru is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmanioAmor View Post
HR probably forgot and was probably lying. Most of the jobs these days lie cheat and steal to get ahead. Its all one big game
Jobs lie, cheat, and steal?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-26-2012, 12:11 AM
md2000 md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
One place I worked at, the HR people generally were the type "I'm tired of being a secretary/timekeeper/foreman/purchasing agent. Can I try something different?" Since the only position they valued was formally qualified engineer, they saw nothing wrong with filling such positions with woefully incompetent and untrained people. The head of HR for many years was an engineer moved sideways because his management skills were destroying the engineering department, so badly even the management there could not ignore it. As a result, situations like this were common. The only reason they got away with it (usually) was because if anyone wanted to work for them eventually - the best game in town - they didn't rock the boat.

This may be the case here. You have an department basically ignorant of the technicalities of the law, going through the motions. In most cases, as will likely happen with yours, there are no consqeuences to them.

I too am curious whether there really is a need for a good driving record, or if they have a mindless policy of any blemish is an excuse to deny the job. (OTOH, a DUI for example is typpically a criminal offense not a moving violation...)

Last edited by md2000; 02-26-2012 at 12:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-26-2012, 06:35 AM
kwc27 kwc27 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigamarole View Post
If you don't mind, what kind of job is this? Is it something where you have to drive as a primary part of your duties? Because otherwise, being declined a job due to a moving violation a couple years ago seems incredibly strict and unnecessary.
NO! No driving whatsoever in this job. That's the real head scratcher in this situation.

Interesting answers coming from you guys. I almost wonder what would've happened if I had started screwing with this woman and told her my old job would not take me back. "But you didn't say this was a contingent offer until after I quit my job!" Would've been interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-26-2012, 06:40 AM
kwc27 kwc27 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
One place I worked at, the HR people generally were the type "I'm tired of being a secretary/timekeeper/foreman/purchasing agent. Can I try something different?" Since the only position they valued was formally qualified engineer, they saw nothing wrong with filling such positions with woefully incompetent and untrained people. The head of HR for many years was an engineer moved sideways because his management skills were destroying the engineering department, so badly even the management there could not ignore it. As a result, situations like this were common. The only reason they got away with it (usually) was because if anyone wanted to work for them eventually - the best game in town - they didn't rock the boat.

This may be the case here. You have an department basically ignorant of the technicalities of the law, going through the motions. In most cases, as will likely happen with yours, there are no consqeuences to them.

I too am curious whether there really is a need for a good driving record, or if they have a mindless policy of any blemish is an excuse to deny the job. (OTOH, a DUI for example is typpically a criminal offense not a moving violation...)
Ya know, the place I work at currently and another place I worked at during college was the same way. People got bored with doing their jobs so they created a position for them, put them in the most random position they could come up with whether it had anything to do with their original job or not.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-26-2012, 12:30 PM
Snnipe 70E Snnipe 70E is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
One place I worked at, the HR people generally were the type "I'm tired of being a secretary/timekeeper/foreman/purchasing agent. Can I try something different?" Since the only position they valued was formally qualified engineer, they saw nothing wrong with filling such positions with woefully incompetent and untrained people. The head of HR for many years was an engineer moved sideways because his management skills were destroying the engineering department, so badly even the management there could not ignore it. As a result, situations like this were common. The only reason they got away with it (usually) was because if anyone wanted to work for them eventually - the best game in town - they didn't rock the boat.

This may be the case here. You have an department basically ignorant of the technicalities of the law, going through the motions. In most cases, as will likely happen with yours, there are no consqeuences to them.

I too am curious whether there really is a need for a good driving record, or if they have a mindless policy of any blemish is an excuse to deny the job. (OTOH, a DUI for example is typpically a criminal offense not a moving violation...)

Most company's HR people are not professionals in the department. For one reason or the other they have moved into HR from another department with no training, if the department head is professional then they will trane new members of their department.
Look at most newspaper ads. Any employeer who wants qualified people to apply include information about the job. Quallifications & experieince, union or non union. And the ad should also contain salary range, benifits, shifts times.
When I worked for the Emporium Stores an ad for a Maintenance Engineer would only contain job title, requirements and nothing about benifits, wages, or job description. We would get people who only had maintenance cleaning experience and changing lights. About the $10 an hour experieince. The qualified engineers would see the add and think retail store they are only going to be paying lw wages and would not apply.
When I was looking for work I would not go on an interview until I knew the pay range. I had one HR person call me wanting me to come in for an interview. She was all excited about interviewing me after reading my interview. But she did not want to name a pay range. After insisting she told me with my experience it would be in the $2200 per month range. My resume stated my current pay at the time $31.60/hr and I would be giving up a $20,000 severance package if I quit before the stores closed. She expected me to take a day off without pay for an interview that I would not take.

One hospital that I interviewed in HR did not even know that there was going to be an opening in the engineering department, one of the guys was retiring within the month. They did not want to calll the Chief Engineer so I could go to the scheduled interview.

I have more stories but lets not. But I would not be suprised at anything that HR would do.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-26-2012, 12:41 PM
Martin Hyde Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polycarp View Post
I think it does hinge on this. If at any point in the application/ interview/ hiring process they advised you of this, even as a note in the literature about their company or application for employment form, you are in effect an unwed mother -- screwed and screwed over. so to speak.

But if it was a bona fide job offer with no conditions stipulated, then the shoe is quite frankly on the other foot. They made you a job offer which you accepted and acted in reliance on. Their "company policy" may be what they'd like you to put up with, but it cannot go against the law, and even in "right to work" states there are some things they cannot do.

While the OP was fortunate in that his current employer was willing to take him back, if someone else were in that same position and was not welcomed back, I would contact HR at the company making the offer with the hidden contingency in writing, with copies to that company's legal department and the State Labor Department, along these terms:

"You made me a job offer with no 'subject to' terms stated in it, which I accepted and acted in reliance on. I feel you should act to hold me harmless from your error, as follows:

1. You will hire me on the terms stated in our previous contact. In view of the circumstances, I will expect two exceptions to company policy: (a) you will waiver the good-driving-record condition, and document this in my file; (b) any dismissal within the first year must be for cause acceptable to the State Labor Department standards. I put this requirement in place to ensure you do not meet the terms of you obligation by hiring me and then lay me off a week later. OR

2. Along with my own efforts, you will contact my current employer and convince him to retain me as an employee.

I believe that I have made myself ineligible for state unemployment by voluntarily leaving a job. I wish a formal letter, on company letterhead, from you, stating the screw-up on your part that led me to resign my current position, in hopes that they will approve unemployment for someone leaving one position in the expectation of having been offered a better one.

If you are unwilling to do (1) and unable or unwilling to do (2) and I am indeed ineligible for state unemployment, then:

3. You will pay me the sum of fifty percent of the gross wages per forty-hour week on each pay cycle for your business while I am without work, precisely as if I were drawing unemployment but paid directly by you. I will commit myself to diligently look for work and to notify you when I have begun a new job.

If none of the above options are acceptable to you, then I will be contacting both the State Labor Department's Legal Affairs Office and a lawyer willing to work on a contingency basis. I trust it will not need to come to that extreme.

Sincerely, yada yada
I'm not a lawyer or familiar with employment law in any state aside from my own (and I'm only familiar with it here because I have to be, and would consult a real lawyer in the case of actual legal action), but pretty much nothing in your post would be something the OP would be entitled to in a hypothetical scenario in which his previous job didn't take him back.

Maybe some States are different, but here at least you can rescind a job offer for any reason that isn't discriminatory and that doesn't violate specific statutory law.

Some employers might offer some job search assistance or even compensation as an act of good will, but at least in my State none of this is covered under the purview of the State Department of Labor. Meaning if you actually wanted to force the employer to do any of the things outlined in your post you would be required to file suit against them in civil court.

Not a professional legal type cite but this article does cite an employment lawyer who basically says the same thing: link. What the employment lawyer in that article says is:

Quote:
In certain unusual circumstances, there is a principle called 'detrimental reliance,' where you can sue the employer because you relied on its promise of a job," Moore notes. "But in order to win in most states, you would have to prove somehow that the company deliberately misled you and the job offer was fraudulent or not in good faith. If you can't prove that, you'd just be throwing money away on a lawsuit.
A professional attorney could probably do a search on Lexis-Nexis or (if they were personally experienced in the area) tell you about the likelihood of success in these suits.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-26-2012, 01:16 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwc27 View Post
NO! No driving whatsoever in this job. That's the real head scratcher in this situation.

Interesting answers coming from you guys. I almost wonder what would've happened if I had started screwing with this woman and told her my old job would not take me back. "But you didn't say this was a contingent offer until after I quit my job!" Would've been interesting.
It was likely really something else (unless the traffic violation was DUI?). Some companies are weird, they won't tell you the real reason. It's quite possible you put something on your resume that either you thought was legit or really was legit but they couldn't verify. For example, in my case, I have a masters. On my job app there were lines for various colleges, including a space for "degree or degree program". Now, I then listed my Community college with "Zoology" in that space. Indeed that was my "degree program" but I never bothered getting my AA as I went on to get a higher degree. Still, they almost fired me over "lying" on my job application.


My Bro worked for the Fed for 20 years, then retired. He applied for a job at a bank. Well, they used the toll-free Employment Verification number that the OPM puts out, and by some bureaucratic error, my Bro's SSN wasn't there. This time they told him, and of course he had the paperwork to prove he'd been retired after 20 years. But two jobs before that simply didn;t hire him, even after he passed all the interviews, etc.

In other words, HR depts take a unholy glee in not hiring qualified candidates for silly fucking reasons. In both these cases, certainly a question could have been asked and it all cleared up. But in 3 out of 4 cases, even when it would be common sense to see there's no "lying" going on and simply ask the applicant for some documentation, they didn;t bother.

In my case, "HR" actually had started the firing process, but upper management overruled them. Interestingly it wasn't that it doesn;t fucking matter whether or not you have a AA when you have a MS, it was that the box/question was "unclear".
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-26-2012, 01:57 PM
lawbuff lawbuff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
27, I am citing this NE case because I remembered it from a legal Q@A board I used to post on. An employment relationship can be loosely refered to as a contract, even one at will. Therefore an "implied contract" can be assumed to alter the at will status.

Some states I remember recognize an iimplied contract theory as well as what is known as "good faith and fair dealing", as New Hampshire does, that I remember from past study, Monge v Bebee Rubber.

This case deals with, as stated within, a Promissory Estoppel claim and later mentions a Reliance upon an employment implied contract.

Now, this case deals with an implied continuation of employment by a company where the employee turned down another job offer, then the so called implied contract was rescinded. Your facts are slightly different, but the legal import is basically the same.

My state ohio, recognizes a Promissory Estopple exception, as well as a Public Policy exception, but NOT a covenant as NH permits.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ne-court-...s/1356954.html
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-26-2012, 02:37 PM
Gbro Gbro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
I was accepted for employment many years ago in much the same way. I was instructed that I would be on the payroll in 14 days and should give my present employer notice.
I did and 14 days went by and no information from new employer. I called the HR dept. and the dude said, o ya, I was meaning to get back to you but we cannot hire you as you didn't pass your physical. WHAT, i had passed a physical for my current job and was only 2 years out of the Army. Well this was a Class "B" back thing and it was only a precautionary thing for the company. That company was sued a few years latter but I never joined in the class action.
I was very fortunate like you to be able to continue at my current job until I got another (Honest) job offer 3 months later.
A word in support to staying the full 14 day notice!
When my daughter changed jobs 6 months ago she gave the 2 week notice and on the last day she was told how much they appreciated her keeping true to the notice, as there seems to be a trend in not honoring a notice given anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-26-2012, 05:13 PM
jtgain jtgain is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
I'm not a lawyer or familiar with employment law in any state aside from my own (and I'm only familiar with it here because I have to be, and would consult a real lawyer in the case of actual legal action), but pretty much nothing in your post would be something the OP would be entitled to in a hypothetical scenario in which his previous job didn't take him back.

Maybe some States are different, but here at least you can rescind a job offer for any reason that isn't discriminatory and that doesn't violate specific statutory law.

Some employers might offer some job search assistance or even compensation as an act of good will, but at least in my State none of this is covered under the purview of the State Department of Labor. Meaning if you actually wanted to force the employer to do any of the things outlined in your post you would be required to file suit against them in civil court.

Not a professional legal type cite but this article does cite an employment lawyer who basically says the same thing: link. What the employment lawyer in that article says is:



A professional attorney could probably do a search on Lexis-Nexis or (if they were personally experienced in the area) tell you about the likelihood of success in these suits.
I'm torn between you and Polycarp as you both make excellent points. At least in this state, there is no duty of good faith and fair dealing in an employment contract. Therefore, they could extend an offer and decide to fire you in the next ten minutes for any or no reason.

However, by having the documentation that they didn't hire you in the first place after promising to do so because you didn't pass a background check that they didn't tell you that you had to pass seems to be a violation of the promise of the original offer and not a subsequent violation of a fair dealing duty. I would very much like to try to make a case for promissory estoppel, or even straight breach of contract (there was offer, acceptance, and consideration).

I'm sure that it is very state and fact specific. Those words about a background check would imply that you had to pass it, but a 2 1/2 year old infraction when driving isn't part of the job? Interesting fact set, though.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-26-2012, 10:29 PM
Lemur866 Lemur866 is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Middle of Puget Sound
Posts: 16,734
I bet that the paperwork for the job offer actually contained language that mentioned that the offer was contingent on the background check, it's just that kwc27 didn't notice.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-27-2012, 01:38 PM
phreesh phreesh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Not much to add, but if someone told me that I had a job and then later said that the job was actually contingent on some other factor, I'd be pissed.

Dude, you gave me the job! I made decisions based upon that offer. It's like selling somebody something and then a few days later asking for more money. Dude, you already sold it to me. Take a leap.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-27-2012, 03:53 PM
BlinkingDuck BlinkingDuck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwc27 View Post
I don't think so. If I remember correctly, it said we will conduct a background check, but nothing about the offer being contingent on said background check.
Having been around for awhile I always tell them I will give my current employer 2 weeks notice when I have a firm offer (not conditional).
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-27-2012, 04:07 PM
kwc27 kwc27 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur866 View Post
I bet that the paperwork for the job offer actually contained language that mentioned that the offer was contingent on the background check, it's just that kwc27 didn't notice.
I don't remember, it had no fine print on it, I know that. I pretty much wiped my ass with it after she told me I was turned down.

But in all honesty, I wouldn't have quit my job unless I knew for sure I had a new one. I know the difference between a contingent offer and a firm one.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-29-2012, 07:15 AM
handsomeharry handsomeharry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
It's my guess that the 'screw up on the driving record" was a DUI, and that is why the offer was rescinded.
If I am correct, kwc27 may also have filled out an application which asked for felony convictions. The way he phrased his screw up makes me think it was a DUI, and consequently, makes me think he may have not answered the felony conviction question honestly. Grounds for withdrawal of offer/termination.
And, if that is the case, how the job offer was extended is irrelevent, IMHO.
Just my suspicion.

Last edited by handsomeharry; 02-29-2012 at 07:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-29-2012, 08:00 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,197
That was my guess also, but DUI is not a felony in most areas.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-29-2012, 08:12 AM
elbows elbows is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London, Ontario
Posts: 8,790
Quote:
I almost wonder what would've happened if I had started screwing with this woman and told her my old job would not take me back. "But you didn't say this was a contingent offer until after I quit my job!" Would've been interesting.
I think this is all kind of moot. It doesn't sound, from what you've written, like you even kept the letter they sent you, (you were guessing at the exact wording, up thread!) In which case, no matter how egregious their errors or missteps, even if criminal, you have no recourse anyway, without the letter. Do you know the name of the person who sent it to you? Do you know the name of whom you spoke with?

I realize you're only after hypothetical conjecture, but if you didn't bother to document anything, you're screwed regardless, aren't you?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-29-2012, 09:18 AM
md2000 md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
That was my guess also, but DUI is not a felony in most areas.
Yes, I was reading about the Nexus "expresss pass" for the Canada-USA border. The Americans will deny your request if you had a pot posession or shoplifting charge 30 years ago. The Canadians don't care. The Canadians will deny your application if you have ever had a DUI (since it's considered a criminal conviction in Canada) but the Americans don't care.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-29-2012, 01:43 PM
kwc27 kwc27 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by handsomeharry View Post
It's my guess that the 'screw up on the driving record" was a DUI, and that is why the offer was rescinded.
If I am correct, kwc27 may also have filled out an application which asked for felony convictions. The way he phrased his screw up makes me think it was a DUI, and consequently, makes me think he may have not answered the felony conviction question honestly. Grounds for withdrawal of offer/termination.
And, if that is the case, how the job offer was extended is irrelevent, IMHO.
Just my suspicion.
You are correct, but a DUI is not a felony in this state. A third DUI is, which I do not have. I've got a misdemeanor. I answered every question truthfully.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-29-2012, 01:56 PM
Mr. Excellent Mr. Excellent is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwc27 View Post
You are correct, but a DUI is not a felony in this state. A third DUI is, which I do not have. I've got a misdemeanor. I answered every question truthfully.
Really? Most job applications I've seen ask about convictions, with the explicit exception of traffic violations - offenses a step below misdemeanors. A misdemeanor conviction is a pretty significant deal; employers generally want to know about it.

I suspect you read your disclosure requirement too narrowly. I'm not your lawyer, obviously.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-29-2012, 02:00 PM
zoid zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 7,575
Nothing to add except to say that this is more common than most people realize.

At an old job a hiring mamager I know was told his budget was cut and he would not be able to take on the three people he was hiring. He was told this on the first day they were to start, about 30 minutes before they were scheduled to show up for orientation. He had no choice but to meet each one of them at the front door, thell them there was no job and that they were not permitted to enter the building.

He (the hiring mamager) was devestated at being put in this position. He really was a good guy and felt betrayed by the company and terrible at the damage this would do to these three people. I don't think he managed to get over it - he left shortly after.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-29-2012, 02:10 PM
kwc27 kwc27 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Excellent View Post
Really? Most job applications I've seen ask about convictions, with the explicit exception of traffic violations - offenses a step below misdemeanors. A misdemeanor conviction is a pretty significant deal; employers generally want to know about it.

I suspect you read your disclosure requirement too narrowly. I'm not your lawyer, obviously.
Here is an excerpt from the application, which is available online:

Within the last 10 years, have you been convicted of a felony? (Conviction of a crime does
not necessarily disqualify you from employment.)
Yes No
If yes, (if the answer is yes, it does not necessarily disqualify you), explain the nature of the offense and the
date:
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-29-2012, 02:43 PM
Mr. Excellent Mr. Excellent is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwc27 View Post
Here is an excerpt from the application, which is available online:

Within the last 10 years, have you been convicted of a felony? (Conviction of a crime does
not necessarily disqualify you from employment.)
Yes No
If yes, (if the answer is yes, it does not necessarily disqualify you), explain the nature of the offense and the
date:
I stand corrected.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-01-2012, 08:17 PM
handsomeharry handsomeharry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwc27 View Post
You are correct, but a DUI is not a felony in this state. A third DUI is, which I do not have. I've got a misdemeanor. I answered every question truthfully.
Hmmm...I'm even more curious now. did you mention the DUI on your application? Because, felony or misdemeanor, I'd rather suspect that a DUI isn't considered 'just a driving record" issue. I would guess it's more like an assault, isn't it? Were you arrested, or just given a ticket?
Could be wrong, tho.

Last edited by handsomeharry; 03-01-2012 at 08:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-02-2012, 06:51 AM
jtgain jtgain is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwc27 View Post
Here is an excerpt from the application, which is available online:

Within the last 10 years, have you been convicted of a felony? (Conviction of a crime does
not necessarily disqualify you from employment.)
Yes No
If yes, (if the answer is yes, it does not necessarily disqualify you), explain the nature of the offense and the
date:
I had something similar once. I got a job that had the same question as above. I had been charged with DUI, 4 years prior, but the charge was dismissed. I got the job, but a couple of weeks later the boss called me in his office and said he was upset that I wasn't candid with them, but they would let me keep the job.

I told them that I answered the question honestly, and that if they wanted to know about an arrest without a conviction, they needed to ask. I'm not going to volunteer every time that I didn't listen to my 2nd grade teacher.

He said that was fine, but "in the future" to "err on the side of caution" and "disclose everything."

Disclose where? Say no, I've not been convicted of a felony, but I was arrested for a misdemeanor that was later dismissed? Who answers a question that way?

The point is that these hiring managers aren't lawyers and when they pull shitty questions off of an internet form template, they blame you for not giving the answer to the question they wanted to ask.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-02-2012, 06:11 PM
Martin Hyde Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Yeah, I've seen enough online application forms, paper applications and etc that I don't think there is a true standard. Common ones I've seen:

"Have you ever been convicted or charged with a crime?" - Pretty much a catch all that covers any criminal conviction or any arrest including misdemeanors. Sometimes seen with the qualifier "other than minor traffic violations."

"Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"

"Have you been convicted of a felony in the past X years?"

"Have you been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor in the past X years?"

I've also seen a formal job application that only asked "Have you ever been convicted or charged with a felony?" But in the second round of the hiring process, you had to fill out a background check consent form and a DMV record release consent form (so they could view your DMV record.) The DMV record form also asked that you disclose upfront any issues on your driving record so for that job in the second round of hiring you would need to disclose a DUI upfront or most likely not receive the job offer.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.