|
Grex > Agora47 > #10: Bummer for the season after Summer | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 413 responses total. |
jaklumen
|
|
response 348 of 413:
| 
Nov 25 22:43 UTC 2003 |
Well, I *did* get a job for the holidays, but it's stalled thanks to a
farking background check. Grrr...
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 349 of 413:
|
Nov 25 22:45 UTC 2003 |
To be more specific, I started, because my boss really needed someone,
but the mall management wouldn't let me continue without the
background check.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 350 of 413:
|
Nov 25 22:49 UTC 2003 |
hey, are you gonna be one of those hillshire farms
sausage and cheese hostesses?!
|
other
|
|
response 351 of 413:
|
Nov 25 23:03 UTC 2003 |
A shopping mall is requiring background checks? For what kind of
position? If it's retail, then what is it in your background that
caused you to fail it?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 352 of 413:
|
Nov 26 02:43 UTC 2003 |
was it that time you wagged yer sausage at the mall?
|
jep
|
|
response 353 of 413:
|
Nov 26 14:09 UTC 2003 |
I'm bummed because I have a cold. I don't feel too bad from it, but
have a heavy cough.
Also, I slept about 3 hours last night, for no particular reason. I do
fine on 5 hours, but 3 makes for a hard day.
|
gull
|
|
response 354 of 413:
|
Nov 26 14:38 UTC 2003 |
Re #351: I didn't get the impression he'd failed it, just that he was
sort of stalled while waiting for it to be completed.
|
flem
|
|
response 355 of 413:
|
Nov 26 16:01 UTC 2003 |
The only mall-type thing I can think of that might require a background
check would be some sort of Santa/Elf thing. They will cheerfully check
the background of anyone who might come into contact with children these
days.
|
other
|
|
response 356 of 413:
|
Nov 26 18:17 UTC 2003 |
Or a security position, is what I was thinking.
|
other
|
|
response 357 of 413:
|
Nov 26 19:11 UTC 2003 |
IBB
http://www.aclumich.org/modules.phpname=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=12
puts focus on me individually where it should be focusing on Grex.
|
gregb
|
|
response 358 of 413:
|
Nov 26 19:17 UTC 2003 |
I kept getting a 404 (not found) error.
|
other
|
|
response 359 of 413:
|
Nov 26 21:46 UTC 2003 |
Oops, left out a ?
http://www.aclumich.org/modules.php?name=Downloads&d_op=getit&lid=12
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 360 of 413:
|
Nov 27 02:21 UTC 2003 |
resp:354 resp:355 exactomundo, Santa. I've done the gig before, and I
was doing an excellent job. The background check just needs to go
through. The boss is coming to our apartment with the paperwork-- she
really wants me to be back to work.
|
other
|
|
response 361 of 413:
|
Nov 27 05:27 UTC 2003 |
Someone I knew through a gig I do, but who has moved on and was just
in town briefly, and whose name I cannot remember, introduced me to
a friend of hers when we randomly met this evening while I was out
shooting pool with other friends. The friend was absolutely
stunning and I think I have no way of actually arranging to meet her
again. :(
|
willcome
|
|
response 362 of 413:
|
Nov 27 07:28 UTC 2003 |
whore
|
i
|
|
response 363 of 413:
|
Nov 27 14:03 UTC 2003 |
Re: Background Checks
My impression is that retail losses to sticky-fingered employees are
*much* higher than what you'd need to cost-justify background checks.
|
gull
|
|
response 364 of 413:
|
Nov 28 15:06 UTC 2003 |
The question is whether a background check would actually predict how
likely someone is to steal merchandise. I knew a guy who had a
succession of low-paying retail jobs, all of which he stole from, but he
was never prosecuted, just fired.
|
i
|
|
response 365 of 413:
|
Nov 29 01:17 UTC 2003 |
I wouldn't call it a "background check", but there is the technique of
calling a few former employers listed on his resume to verify basics &
ask a few "would you hire him again?" sort of questions...
|
bru
|
|
response 366 of 413:
|
Nov 29 02:27 UTC 2003 |
Most places won't answer such questions anymore.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 367 of 413:
|
Nov 29 03:45 UTC 2003 |
I was under the impression that most employers would still answer
questions where the answer was factual, rather than one that called
for an opinion -- e.g. reporting that the employee was dismissed is
safe but giving a personal opinion of the employee's performance
is discouraged lest it expose the previous employer to a suit from
a litigious and vindictive former employer.
|
jep
|
|
response 368 of 413:
|
Nov 29 04:09 UTC 2003 |
I have been told by employers that they (and other employers) will
only answer questions about dates of employment.
|
bru
|
|
response 369 of 413:
|
Nov 29 04:22 UTC 2003 |
In some instances, telling someone that an employee was fired can result in
a lawsuit, even if they were fired.
|
aruba
|
|
response 370 of 413:
|
Nov 29 04:24 UTC 2003 |
On what grounds, I wonder?
|
anderyn
|
|
response 371 of 413:
|
Nov 30 04:16 UTC 2003 |
I know my office will only say that we were employed there, or are employed
there, not any other information.
|
jep
|
|
response 372 of 413:
|
Dec 7 05:34 UTC 2003 |
The Brunswick company has this year stopped making Flexible Flyer
sleds with runners on them. Naturally, this is the year my child has
asked for a runner sled.
Hopefully the sleds are still available in stores such as Dunham's. I
saw them a few weeks ago. I guess I'll be out looking tomorrow.
|