The Kiss of Death for Steve Bullock?

02 February 2019, 07:50 PM

He failed the "if you know something, say something" test, and as a result there were further victims.

https://www.politico.com/story...assment-2020-1144274

02 February 2019, 09:46 PM

Cindysphinx

Don't worry. He'll bounce back.

He's got the inside track to the Dem nomination, I'm tellin' ya.

It's not like he's claiming to be 1/200th Native American or something.

03 February 2019, 05:31 AM

jon-nyc

I don’t know all the details but they did fire the guy, right?

Is it really ‘the right thing to do’ to call all of his future employers and tell them why he was fired? And yet we ‘ban the box’?

I can see if he called de Blasio and got him the job, then that could be a problem. But for not actively trying to prevent his future employment? I can’t see holding that against him.

03 February 2019, 10:47 AM

Nina

Wouldn't that be a form of blacklisting, which is illegal in the majority of states?

03 February 2019, 11:02 AM

QuirtEvans

quote:
Originally posted by Nina:
Wouldn't that be a form of blacklisting, which is illegal in the majority of states?

Perhaps, and I haven't studied the issue ever, but I wouldn't have thought so. In the brokerage industry, there is an obligation to report certain reasons for dismissal to a centralized source, which all employers check before hiring. That's not illegal blacklisting, even though it could completely prevent someone from being hired in the industry.

If someone poses a risk to others, I think that's something a potential employer would want to know, and should know, regardless of who initiates the communication.

03 February 2019, 11:25 PM

Cindysphinx

I would think firing someone is sufficient.

You open your big mouth about why you fired someone and blacklist them and you had better lawyer up.

Steve Bullock 2020!

03 February 2019, 11:56 PM

Bernard

quote:
Originally posted by jon-nyc:
I don’t know all the details but they did fire the guy, right?

Is it really ‘the right thing to do’ to call all of his future employers and tell them why he was fired? And yet we ‘ban the box’?

I can see if he called de Blasio and got him the job, then that could be a problem. But for not actively trying to prevent his future employment? I can’t see holding that against him.

+1 It's not one's job to blacklist people. And I would think that de Blasio would have questioned O'Brien's work history, particularly why was he fired from his job at DGA? Unless, of course, it wasn't on the resume? Heh.

04 February 2019, 12:09 AM

QuirtEvans

Your collective position is very interesting.

Except that Bullock disagrees.

quote:
“I’ve spent the last few days talking to family, friends and coworkers. Asking myself questions: Should I have called Mayor de Blasio? Should I have let more people know? Was I naïve to think this wouldn’t happen again?,” Bullock wrote.

“The answer is yes. I was wrong and naïve to think I did enough. I should have done more to ensure future employers would learn of his behavior. I also know these realizations come too late for the two women in New York City. For that, I’m deeply sorry.”

So apparently, it’s me on one side, and the rest of you on the other.

Well, me and Bullock on one side. Bullock presumably has looked at the issue, and doesn’t see a blacklisting issue.

Carry on.

04 February 2019, 12:21 AM

Bernard

quote:
Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Your collective position is very interesting.

Except that Bullock disagrees.

quote:
“I’ve spent the last few days talking to family, friends and coworkers. Asking myself questions: Should I have called Mayor de Blasio? Should I have let more people know? Was I naïve to think this wouldn’t happen again?,” Bullock wrote.

“The answer is yes. I was wrong and naïve to think I did enough. I should have done more to ensure future employers would learn of his behavior. I also know these realizations come too late for the two women in New York City. For that, I’m deeply sorry.”

So apparently, it’s me on one side, and the rest of you on the other.

Well, me and Bullock on one side. Bullock presumably has looked at the issue, and doesn’t see a blacklisting issue.

Carry on.

Frankly, I don't understand where Bullock is coming from in making such a statement. I think he is acting out of fear in this time of social media court.

We would have an awful state, indeed, if any time we fired someone for a misdeed we blacklisted them. We don't because we have faith, for one thing, and because we know better than to judge and meddle into people's personal affairs. If they have committed a crime then they will have a criminal record and that will alert future prospective employers, but we don't go around actively seeking to destroy people because we incurred an unsavory incident under our employ.

Are we to start a national database of pilferers? Adulterers? Harrassers? Oh I don't think so.

04 February 2019, 05:28 AM

jon-nyc

That’s the irony, Bernard. We are the party of ‘ban the box’.

04 February 2019, 08:30 AM

Mikhailoh

All this stringency is surely a two edged sword. Hard to complain when the door swings your way.

04 February 2019, 09:01 AM

QuirtEvans

quote:
Originally posted by Bernard:
quote:
Originally posted by QuirtEvans:
Your collective position is very interesting.

Except that Bullock disagrees.

quote:
“I’ve spent the last few days talking to family, friends and coworkers. Asking myself questions: Should I have called Mayor de Blasio? Should I have let more people know? Was I naïve to think this wouldn’t happen again?,” Bullock wrote.

“The answer is yes. I was wrong and naïve to think I did enough. I should have done more to ensure future employers would learn of his behavior. I also know these realizations come too late for the two women in New York City. For that, I’m deeply sorry.”

So apparently, it’s me on one side, and the rest of you on the other.

Well, me and Bullock on one side. Bullock presumably has looked at the issue, and doesn’t see a blacklisting issue.

Carry on.

Frankly, I don't understand where Bullock is coming from in making such a statement. I think he is acting out of fear in this time of social media court.

We would have an awful state, indeed, if any time we fired someone for a misdeed we blacklisted them. We don't because we have faith, for one thing, and because we know better than to judge and meddle into people's personal affairs. If they have committed a crime then they will have a criminal record and that will alert future prospective employers, but we don't go around actively seeking to destroy people because we incurred an unsavory incident under our employ.

Are we to start a national database of pilferers? Adulterers? Harrassers? Oh I don't think so.

The issue is not that he was a bad employee. The issue is that he engaged in illegal (but not criminal, so he wouldn’t have a criminal record) behavior, and harmed other people. It’s not quite the same as adultery or petty larceny. Think about a medical professional’s obligation to report when a patient poses an imminent threat to others. And this is nowhere near as sacrosanct as doctor-patient privilege.

Someone who does that shouldn’t be in a position to do it again, st least not until they have undergone some sort of change that would give an employer reason to believe it wouldn’t happen again. Or, there should be safeguards.