Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   Jan 25, 2023 - 8:07 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

Gee, I would like to think my employer wouldn’t ruin my livelihood before I’m found guilty of a crime. Further more I’m pretty sure the rich elite aren’t fired until such a verdict comes down. I’m not aware of any defacto precedent that employers fire staff over issues not related to work.

If someone was arrested for a felony, I would be surprised if the person was not fired/placed on unpaid administrative leave/or otherwise cut loose. The association looks bad on the employer, and depending on the crime, the employer has to deal with being constantly hounded by the press, being contacted endlessly by customers, fellow employees and others appalled by the crime, and even fielding death threats. Most employers don't want to deal with that type of blowback whether deserved or not. The sad reality is that no matter how many times people say innocent before proven guilty, the vast majority of people assume someone who has been arrested is guilty until proven otherwise. And that is nothing new.


Yeah, never seen a cop who's caught on tape seemingly murdering a defenseless citizen get anything worse than "administrated paid leave".

 
 Posted:   Jan 25, 2023 - 8:09 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

I’m pretty sure the rich elite aren’t fired until such a verdict comes down.

Why? People should be held accountable for their actions in equal. We need to stop handling the wealthy/powerful with white gloves and allow the applicable law and societal norms to affect them like they would you or me.


I agree with you. I was just pointing out the double standard.

 
 Posted:   Jan 25, 2023 - 8:34 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)


I'm aware of "Right to Work" states. We're not talking about firing for no reason. We're talking about an employer firing for being accused of a crime.


He was more than accused. He was arrested in 2020 and is undergoing felony charges in court hearings right now. And even more details are coming out daily about possible new accusations of underage grooming. Chances are probably high that his employers' legal teams advised those in charge that severing ties would be the ends to justify the means. If he is acquitted, then he will probably land on his feet. He'll just be another Hollywood dude continuing a career after domestic violence and pedophilia legal issues. They grow these types on trees over there.

 
 Posted:   Jan 25, 2023 - 8:59 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)


I'm aware of "Right to Work" states. We're not talking about firing for no reason. We're talking about an employer firing for being accused of a crime.


He was more than accused. He was arrested in 2020 and is undergoing felony charges in court hearings right now. And even more details are coming out daily about possible new accusations of underage grooming. Chances are probably high that his employers' legal teams advised those in charge that severing ties would be the ends to justify the means. If he is acquitted, then he will probably land on his feet. He'll just be another Hollywood dude continuing a career after domestic violence and pedophilia legal issues. They grow these types on trees over there.


Arrested isn't a conviction. If the bar is so low that you can lose your job and livelihood from accusations from a significant other and/or whims of a prosecutor gawd help us all. And no, I don't believe anyone ever fully bounces back from accusations like that even if acquitted. Did OJ Simpsons career bounce back?

 
 Posted:   Jan 25, 2023 - 9:48 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

It didn't help OJ that most everyone believes he is guilty.

I'm still kinda concerned why you don't think an employer has a right to fire an employee over felony charges. Felony charges present you as a moral concern and present risk to not only your work ethic and availability but also to the company's exposure to liability and public scrutiny. There are plenty of other people who are hirable that don't have felony charges against them.

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 12:08 AM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

It didn't help OJ that most everyone believes he is guilty.
I'm still kinda concerned why you don't think an employer has a right to fire an employee over felony charges. Felony charges present you as a moral concern and present risk to not only your work ethic and availability but also to the company's exposure to liability and public scrutiny. There are plenty of other people who are hirable that don't have felony charges against them.



Do you need to be reminded that sometime charges are made falsely?

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 6:36 AM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

I don't need a reminder, but as is the case often times charges are indeed justice being served.

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 6:39 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

It didn't help OJ that most everyone believes he is guilty.

I'm still kinda concerned why you don't think an employer has a right to fire an employee over felony charges. Felony charges present you as a moral concern and present risk to not only your work ethic and availability but also to the company's exposure to liability and public scrutiny. There are plenty of other people who are hirable that don't have felony charges against them.



It's very simple. I don't think an employer should be judge, jury and executioner and ruin an employee's livelihood over allegations of misconduct, especially if such misconduct hasn't been evident in their work place. Can they do it? Yes. Do they do it? Yes. Should they do it? No.

As far as OJ, its my understanding the majority of the white community thought he was guilty. Is that who decides who can and can't work?

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 6:40 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

It didn't help OJ that most everyone believes he is guilty.
I'm still kinda concerned why you don't think an employer has a right to fire an employee over felony charges. Felony charges present you as a moral concern and present risk to not only your work ethic and availability but also to the company's exposure to liability and public scrutiny. There are plenty of other people who are hirable that don't have felony charges against them.



Do you need to be reminded that sometime charges are made falsely?


Exactly. Prosecutors make up evidence and charges all the time. They routinely trick people into confessions too. US law is set up to give the accused the benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty) for the very reason the founding fathers knew how corrupt the state can be.

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 6:43 AM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

Should they do it? No.

Your opinion has no bearing on the decision of an employer. You have to reconcile with that.

As far as OJ, its my understanding the majority of the white community thought he was guilty. Is that who decides who can and can't work?

Is it my understanding that, after all of these years and knowing what we know about OJ Simpson and this heinous act committed against his ex-wife and her partner, you think he is innocent? What does race have to do with anything?

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 6:47 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

Should they do it? No.

Your opinion has no bearing on the decision of an employer. You have to reconcile with that.

[Startquote]
As far as OJ, its my understanding the majority of the white community thought he was guilty. Is that who decides who can and can't work?


Is it my understanding that, after all of these years and knowing what we know about OJ Simpson and this heinous act committed against his ex-wife and her partner, you think he is innocent? What does race have to do with anything?

I don't have to reconcile anything. My opinion stands.

I don't know if OJ Simpson committed murder, the state didn't prove its case. Besides, you said if the accused are acquitted they get their life back. Clearly not the case with OJ. Regarding race you said most people believe he was guilty of the crime. Most white people thought he was guilty of the crime not all people, especially African Americans.

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 7:13 AM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)


I don't know if OJ Simpson committed murder, the state didn't prove its case. Besides, you said if the accused are acquitted they get their life back. Clearly not the case with OJ.


I don't want to respond to the race section because it is a bit baiting and doesn't have any bearing on what we are talking about. But my follow-up does indicate an important detail of this. I say that Hollywood is a factory of people like Justin Roiland. There are countless examples of people like him undergoing this accusation and possible prison time and many get off whether through the courts or through "fixing" (a very real thing). Of many of those examples, those people's careers continue in multiple capacities. Some even have lauded comebacks! OJ Simpson did not, perhaps for one particular reason but also mostly due to his own actions and negligence following the court proceedings. Think on that.

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 7:38 AM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

I also wanna play a little thought experiment with you, Sol, if you would oblige. I've always been fascinated by your thoughts.

You are an employee for Company. You perform very well and uphold an exemplary ethic for your peers. One day, another employee, John A, assaults you in a private setting. You notify the authorities and press charges against John A. You resume work as soon as you are physically and mentally able to. While you don't draw attention to the heinous event perpetrated against You, it is still known by your peers and your employers. Days after your return, John A also returns to the workplace. His demeanor is odd. He acts as if nothing happened yet rumor spreads around the workplace about the events. You find out that John A was able to post bail and is awaiting hearings. Months, maybe even years pass and You still feel uncomfortable to be in the same workplace, where You are held in high esteem, while John A also holds his position. Eventually hearings begin and John A is out of the office for extended times. So are You. Your employer has not terminated John A but allowed him to continue receiving income in light of the events. They even promoted him. Before the hearings, a peer reaches out to You to console You and to ask about how You feel that Company has not terminated John A after the events occured.

Your response?

"Can Company fire him? Yes. Should they do it? No."

Is this indicative of how this hypothetical situation would occur if it happened to you?

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 9:08 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

I also wanna play a little thought experiment with you, Sol, if you would oblige. I've always been fascinated by your thoughts.

You are an employee for Company. You perform very well and uphold an exemplary ethic for your peers. One day, another employee, John A, assaults you in a private setting. You notify the authorities and press charges against John A. You resume work as soon as you are physically and mentally able to. While you don't draw attention to the heinous event perpetrated against You, it is still known by your peers and your employers. Days after your return, John A also returns to the workplace. His demeanor is odd. He acts as if nothing happened yet rumor spreads around the workplace about the events. You find out that John A was able to post bail and is awaiting hearings. Months, maybe even years pass and You still feel uncomfortable to be in the same workplace, where You are held in high esteem, while John A also holds his position. Eventually hearings begin and John A is out of the office for extended times. So are You. Your employer has not terminated John A but allowed him to continue receiving income in light of the events. They even promoted him. Before the hearings, a peer reaches out to You to console You and to ask about how You feel that Company has not terminated John A after the events occured.

Your response?

"Can Company fire him? Yes. Should they do it? No."

Is this indicative of how this hypothetical situation would occur if it happened to you?



I appreciate the thought experiment and maybe you'll be surprised to learn I'm more in agreement with you there.

But before I get into that, we are generally talking about someone who's accused of a crime outside of the work place. Lets say a spouse claims they were physically assaulted at home and your employer finds out about this, what should they do? If you as an employee have a great work record, a team player, never got into a fight, never been threatening to other staff members, should you're employer take preventive measures and fire you? I say no. The accusations are not work related and have no baring on how you perform your job.

Now in your thought experiment if the accusation is work related then I agree with you the potential victim must be protected from the potential abuser. I would suggest separating the employees from one another and moving one of the two into another department. Maybe even another facility if the company has more than one office until a verdict comes down.

Often when we talk about domestic/sexual abuse with actors the employer will terminate the relationship (because of bad PR I guess?) when the actor otherwise had no history of being abusive on set. This is where I think its over reaching for an employer to fire an employee.

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 9:20 AM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

It is more likely what happened with Roiland is the events and story started circulating around "the office" in the years since they transpired. It wasn't inherent in my example but I wanted to imply it. There were probably a number of employees who felt uncomfortable working alongside a man accused and facing legal action for abuse charges, and possibly worse, and it was in the best interest of that employer and their legal team to terminate employment on that basis. I work in HR for a large insurance company. If this kind of event happened at my company, yes, we would terminate that employee on grounds of moral turpitude and the feedback from their peers. At that point it has nothing to do with their individual work, and more to do with how it affects the work of others.

I also wanted to make note that "history of abuse" begins with only one act. Anyone, as an individual, should not be allowed a kind of "three strike" policy when it comes to abusing others inside or outside the place of employment.

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 9:49 AM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

I don't need a reminder, but as is the case often times charges are indeed justice being served.


Well it sure sounded like you needed one.
I'm glad you at least acknowledge the existence of falsely-laid charges.

Now I feel really bad for nicking office supplies that time.

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 10:53 AM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

As you should!

 
 Posted:   Jan 26, 2023 - 11:20 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)

I don't need a reminder, but as is the case often times charges are indeed justice being served.


Well it sure sounded like you needed one.
I'm glad you at least acknowledge the existence of falsely-laid charges.


I thought justice was a dish best served cold?

 
 
 Posted:   Jan 27, 2023 - 2:13 AM   
 By:   Prince Damian   (Member)

John Quade( Black widows) ' why Lord do you make men out of clay and mine out of shit?'. big grin

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2023 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.