|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 454,
Visits: 5.5K
|
+xUp until August last year i worked for the same company for close to ten years, when i got the job i was not asked about any unspent convictions, as i was fresh out of prison PPU and probation were ok with the fact i did not disclose my offence (Sex offence). During those 10 years i was promoted a number of time to make net positions and to other offices that the firm ran. When i was promoted again in July 2019 and and given a new department to manage, a member of staff that did not get the job did some background digging and found out all about me, after they went to the board of directors with the information, and the threat that they would make it public if i did not leave, i was in not choice but to resign and leave a job and profession i loved. Sad state not only have i been unemployed since that person told everyone anyway. PPU advice was to just leave it and move on. That is devastating. I'm sorry to hear that. The fact there are no repercussions for what that person did leaves a huge question mark.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
Simon1983
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 202,
Visits: 6.4K
|
Cheers Mr W
Tell me about it, and sadly one major difference between 10 years ago and now is the use of a basic DBS, you cant get away from having to complete one, yet 10yrs ago it was not even given a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
JASB
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 1.6K
|
+x+xThank you and agree with your words about amazon. I would also include that by letting him finish the week they were more interested in protecting their image and any possible retaliation. I disagree. It was because I was on the rota and it would have been difficult to sub at short notice. All it implied was that a non-spent conviction wasn't a block to the job in hand. There was no corporate image to protect. No-one has a clue who is stuffing parcels in baskets in Amazon distribution warehouses. They are just queasy about employing people with non-spent convictions. My interview included a "surprise" drugs test. I don't think they picked me out. It's just how they are. Hell, EDS refused to employ people with beards in the 1980s - totally legal! Hi Was, Sorry you disagree but ironically your reply confirms my words lol. I am not dismissing your words but just speaking from a broader perspective. Businesses are selfish and there is always a reason for it behaviour and sucess. I was on the rota and it would have been difficult to sub at short notice This only goes to prove that you could work there it was the issue of "corporate policy (image) that insisted you leave!
There was no corporate image to protect. No-one has a clue who is stuffing parcels in baskets in Amazon distribution warehouses. Every business has an image be they big or small. In reality the bigger the company the easier it is to stand up against society. On your second point, you only have to go back a couple of years and the Sun doing a page one of inmates making toys for the open market; and yes they did go heavy on sex offenders.
Cheers
Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope is for tomorrow else what is left if you remove a mans hope.
|
|
|
|
|
J J
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 141,
Visits: 541
|
+xI agree with Ben. I was sacked by Amazon from a distribution centre when my DBS check came back and the local Tesco warehouse rescinded their job offer when I declared at interview as required. On the plus side, the local Job Centre Plus stopped asking me in for the bi-weekly Universal Credit meetings when I declared it to my interviewer! I've cashed in a private pension (I'm over 55) to take me to the end of the SRO/SHPO notification period at which point a basic check will come back as zero, but that option isn't open to all. Hi, I've had similar issues, however last year I was offered a position in a shop, and a position in a coffee shop. However my offender manager said I couldn't take them as I could come into contact with Children... My offence was 17 x indecent images of children.... However.... This year she said that I could apply for positions in shops and cafes on the condition there was CCTV. So in the space of a year the PPU who monitor me has changed
|
|
|
|
|
J J
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 141,
Visits: 541
|
+x+xUp until August last year i worked for the same company for close to ten years, when i got the job i was not asked about any unspent convictions, as i was fresh out of prison PPU and probation were ok with the fact i did not disclose my offence (Sex offence). During those 10 years i was promoted a number of time to make net positions and to other offices that the firm ran. When i was promoted again in July 2019 and and given a new department to manage, a member of staff that did not get the job did some background digging and found out all about me, after they went to the board of directors with the information, and the threat that they would make it public if i did not leave, i was in not choice but to resign and leave a job and profession i loved. Sad state not only have i been unemployed since that person told everyone anyway. PPU advice was to just leave it and move on. That is devastating. I'm sorry to hear that. The fact there are no repercussions for what that person did leaves a huge question mark. I've just read this ..... Shocking, i'd have at least written to my MP (Done it in the past). Have you used the google right to be forgotten https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1
|
|
|
|
|
punter99
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 722,
Visits: 5.3K
|
+x+xI agree with Ben. I was sacked by Amazon from a distribution centre when my DBS check came back and the local Tesco warehouse rescinded their job offer when I declared at interview as required. On the plus side, the local Job Centre Plus stopped asking me in for the bi-weekly Universal Credit meetings when I declared it to my interviewer! I've cashed in a private pension (I'm over 55) to take me to the end of the SRO/SHPO notification period at which point a basic check will come back as zero, but that option isn't open to all. Hi, I've had similar issues, however last year I was offered a position in a shop, and a position in a coffee shop. However my offender manager said I couldn't take them as I could come into contact with Children... My offence was 17 x indecent images of children.... However.... This year she said that I could apply for positions in shops and cafes on the condition there was CCTV. So in the space of a year the PPU who monitor me has changed Just picking up on other employment issues you raised elsewhere. I can't think why an employer would need to know what category of image someone was looking at, or the quantity. They may be trying to work out whether it was just a one-off thing or more of an obsession, for that person. When it comes to how you feel about the offence now, the purpose of the question is to give the candidate an opportunity to say that they have learned their lesson and they have become a reformed character. It's a chance to sell yourself, by saying you will work even harder now, to prove to everyone, that you have changed. You can then use this as your unique selling point, to set yourself apart, from all the other job applicants. Of course, that won't guarantee that you get the job. As for medical or psych evaluations, the employer is presumably interested in things like, is this person going to be taking a lot of time off sick, are they emotionally stable and can I rely on them, basically do they represent a good, long term investment, for my business. That question about offences, that Khafka mentions, is poorly worded and inaccurate, since paedophilia is not an offence. But, what do you expect, when the media keeps talking all time time about people being "convicted paedophiles", rather than convicted sex offenders. It's deliberately misleading. I would write to the employer's HR dept. and tell them that. When it comes to what type of offences they list, it's strange that they only pick out certain offences, but that might depend on the type of job, or more likely on the company being scared about it's reputation. For example, a theft or fraud offence would be something an employer would be concerned about, if the job involved handling money. If the job involved dealing with the public, they might be concerned about violent offences and if the job involved kids, they would be concerned about sexual offences. With all of these offences, companies are also terrified about public perceptions. They think that if they hire certain types of offender, their customers will be so angry about it, that it will cost them business. For what it's worth though, although ex-offenders face the most appalling discrimination, in the job market, they are by no means the only people that employers discriminate against. Disabled people, anyone with a physical or mental health condition, anyone over the age of 45 and anyone with a significant gap in their employment history, will all struggle to get work too.
|
|
|
|
|
J J
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 141,
Visits: 541
|
+x+x+xI agree with Ben. I was sacked by Amazon from a distribution centre when my DBS check came back and the local Tesco warehouse rescinded their job offer when I declared at interview as required. On the plus side, the local Job Centre Plus stopped asking me in for the bi-weekly Universal Credit meetings when I declared it to my interviewer! I've cashed in a private pension (I'm over 55) to take me to the end of the SRO/SHPO notification period at which point a basic check will come back as zero, but that option isn't open to all. Hi, I've had similar issues, however last year I was offered a position in a shop, and a position in a coffee shop. However my offender manager said I couldn't take them as I could come into contact with Children... My offence was 17 x indecent images of children.... However.... This year she said that I could apply for positions in shops and cafes on the condition there was CCTV. So in the space of a year the PPU who monitor me has changed Just picking up on other employment issues you raised elsewhere. I can't think why an employer would need to know what category of image someone was looking at, or the quantity. They may be trying to work out whether it was just a one-off thing or more of an obsession, for that person. When it comes to how you feel about the offence now, the purpose of the question is to give the candidate an opportunity to say that they have learned their lesson and they have become a reformed character. It's a chance to sell yourself, by saying you will work even harder now, to prove to everyone, that you have changed. You can then use this as your unique selling point, to set yourself apart, from all the other job applicants. Of course, that won't guarantee that you get the job. As for medical or psych evaluations, the employer is presumably interested in things like, is this person going to be taking a lot of time off sick, are they emotionally stable and can I rely on them, basically do they represent a good, long term investment, for my business. That question about offences, that Khafka mentions, is poorly worded and inaccurate, since paedophilia is not an offence. But, what do you expect, when the media keeps talking all time time about people being "convicted paedophiles", rather than convicted sex offenders. It's deliberately misleading. I would write to the employer's HR dept. and tell them that. When it comes to what type of offences they list, it's strange that they only pick out certain offences, but that might depend on the type of job, or more likely on the company being scared about it's reputation. For example, a theft or fraud offence would be something an employer would be concerned about, if the job involved handling money. If the job involved dealing with the public, they might be concerned about violent offences and if the job involved kids, they would be concerned about sexual offences. With all of these offences, companies are also terrified about public perceptions. They think that if they hire certain types of offender, their customers will be so angry about it, that it will cost them business. For what it's worth though, although ex-offenders face the most appalling discrimination, in the job market, they are by no means the only people that employers discriminate against. Disabled people, anyone with a physical or mental health condition, anyone over the age of 45 and anyone with a significant gap in their employment history, will all struggle to get work too. An excellent response - and very true The worrying thing is its not just the media that misuse phrases but politicians too. One company had on their contract and i quote verbatim
"15.7.4 are convicted of any criminal offence (other than an offence under any road traffic legislation in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for which a fine or non-custodial penalty is imposed) or any offence under any regulation or legislation relating to insider dealing; or
15.7.5 through your own fault cease to be eligible to work in the United Kingdom or any other territory in which you work or may work in the course of employment; or
15.7.6 are guilty of any fraud or dishonesty or acts in any manner which in the opinion of the Company brings or is likely to bring the Company or any Group Company into disrepute or is materially adverse to the interests of the Company or any Group Company." Contract of employment
I did actually look up non custodial driving sentences and they cover death by careless driving, drink driving and drug driving. Therefore its possible to take someones life and still be employed!
|
|
|
|
|
J J
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 141,
Visits: 541
|
+x+x+xI agree with Ben. I was sacked by Amazon from a distribution centre when my DBS check came back and the local Tesco warehouse rescinded their job offer when I declared at interview as required. On the plus side, the local Job Centre Plus stopped asking me in for the bi-weekly Universal Credit meetings when I declared it to my interviewer! I've cashed in a private pension (I'm over 55) to take me to the end of the SRO/SHPO notification period at which point a basic check will come back as zero, but that option isn't open to all. Hi, I've had similar issues, however last year I was offered a position in a shop, and a position in a coffee shop. However my offender manager said I couldn't take them as I could come into contact with Children... My offence was 17 x indecent images of children.... However.... This year she said that I could apply for positions in shops and cafes on the condition there was CCTV. So in the space of a year the PPU who monitor me has changed Just picking up on other employment issues you raised elsewhere. I can't think why an employer would need to know what category of image someone was looking at, or the quantity. They may be trying to work out whether it was just a one-off thing or more of an obsession, for that person. When it comes to how you feel about the offence now, the purpose of the question is to give the candidate an opportunity to say that they have learned their lesson and they have become a reformed character. It's a chance to sell yourself, by saying you will work even harder now, to prove to everyone, that you have changed. You can then use this as your unique selling point, to set yourself apart, from all the other job applicants. Of course, that won't guarantee that you get the job. As for medical or psych evaluations, the employer is presumably interested in things like, is this person going to be taking a lot of time off sick, are they emotionally stable and can I rely on them, basically do they represent a good, long term investment, for my business. That question about offences, that Khafka mentions, is poorly worded and inaccurate, since paedophilia is not an offence. But, what do you expect, when the media keeps talking all time time about people being "convicted paedophiles", rather than convicted sex offenders. It's deliberately misleading. I would write to the employer's HR dept. and tell them that. When it comes to what type of offences they list, it's strange that they only pick out certain offences, but that might depend on the type of job, or more likely on the company being scared about it's reputation. For example, a theft or fraud offence would be something an employer would be concerned about, if the job involved handling money. If the job involved dealing with the public, they might be concerned about violent offences and if the job involved kids, they would be concerned about sexual offences. With all of these offences, companies are also terrified about public perceptions. They think that if they hire certain types of offender, their customers will be so angry about it, that it will cost them business. For what it's worth though, although ex-offenders face the most appalling discrimination, in the job market, they are by no means the only people that employers discriminate against. Disabled people, anyone with a physical or mental health condition, anyone over the age of 45 and anyone with a significant gap in their employment history, will all struggle to get work too. I should also add I think you're right in the first paragraph - i'm going to dust off my disclosure letter and see what happens....
|
|
|
|
|
Mr W
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 454,
Visits: 5.5K
|
+x+x+xUp until August last year i worked for the same company for close to ten years, when i got the job i was not asked about any unspent convictions, as i was fresh out of prison PPU and probation were ok with the fact i did not disclose my offence (Sex offence). During those 10 years i was promoted a number of time to make net positions and to other offices that the firm ran. When i was promoted again in July 2019 and and given a new department to manage, a member of staff that did not get the job did some background digging and found out all about me, after they went to the board of directors with the information, and the threat that they would make it public if i did not leave, i was in not choice but to resign and leave a job and profession i loved. Sad state not only have i been unemployed since that person told everyone anyway. PPU advice was to just leave it and move on. That is devastating. I'm sorry to hear that. The fact there are no repercussions for what that person did leaves a huge question mark. I've just read this ..... Shocking, i'd have at least written to my MP (Done it in the past). Have you used the google right to be forgotten https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/legal-removal-request?complaint_type=rtbf&hl=en&rd=1 Was that response for me or Simon? If it was for me, yes, I've submitted that Google form and short answer is, as long as you're unspent, they're not taking anything down because the information "is still relevant in relation to the purposes of data processing" (quote from email response) which is slightly 'holier-than-thou' considering it's a private company that runs a website at the end of the day and its sheer existence is hindering mine (and countless others') chance to move on. If anyone has more luck (while still unspent) I'd love to hear about it.
===== Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.
|
|
|
|
|
khafka
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 320,
Visits: 16K
|
+x+x+xI agree with Ben. I was sacked by Amazon from a distribution centre when my DBS check came back and the local Tesco warehouse rescinded their job offer when I declared at interview as required. On the plus side, the local Job Centre Plus stopped asking me in for the bi-weekly Universal Credit meetings when I declared it to my interviewer! I've cashed in a private pension (I'm over 55) to take me to the end of the SRO/SHPO notification period at which point a basic check will come back as zero, but that option isn't open to all. Hi, I've had similar issues, however last year I was offered a position in a shop, and a position in a coffee shop. However my offender manager said I couldn't take them as I could come into contact with Children... My offence was 17 x indecent images of children.... However.... This year she said that I could apply for positions in shops and cafes on the condition there was CCTV. So in the space of a year the PPU who monitor me has changed Just picking up on other employment issues you raised elsewhere. I can't think why an employer would need to know what category of image someone was looking at, or the quantity. They may be trying to work out whether it was just a one-off thing or more of an obsession, for that person. When it comes to how you feel about the offence now, the purpose of the question is to give the candidate an opportunity to say that they have learned their lesson and they have become a reformed character. It's a chance to sell yourself, by saying you will work even harder now, to prove to everyone, that you have changed. You can then use this as your unique selling point, to set yourself apart, from all the other job applicants. Of course, that won't guarantee that you get the job. As for medical or psych evaluations, the employer is presumably interested in things like, is this person going to be taking a lot of time off sick, are they emotionally stable and can I rely on them, basically do they represent a good, long term investment, for my business. That question about offences, that Khafka mentions, is poorly worded and inaccurate, since paedophilia is not an offence. But, what do you expect, when the media keeps talking all time time about people being "convicted paedophiles", rather than convicted sex offenders. It's deliberately misleading. I would write to the employer's HR dept. and tell them that. When it comes to what type of offences they list, it's strange that they only pick out certain offences, but that might depend on the type of job, or more likely on the company being scared about it's reputation. For example, a theft or fraud offence would be something an employer would be concerned about, if the job involved handling money. If the job involved dealing with the public, they might be concerned about violent offences and if the job involved kids, they would be concerned about sexual offences. With all of these offences, companies are also terrified about public perceptions. They think that if they hire certain types of offender, their customers will be so angry about it, that it will cost them business. For what it's worth though, although ex-offenders face the most appalling discrimination, in the job market, they are by no means the only people that employers discriminate against. Disabled people, anyone with a physical or mental health condition, anyone over the age of 45 and anyone with a significant gap in their employment history, will all struggle to get work too. It was a basic retail-based company chain. They have various outlets ranging from food to DIY. They all have the same application process. I'm obviously not getting hired by them any time soon so I might actually send an email to them, not sure to what end as they won't change anything so mainly for the banter, I guess? Thoughts? Anyone want to chip in with comments and suggestions to add?
|
|
|
|