[svieira]

> Beyond his main vocation as a chimney business owner, Thomas often drove for Lyft and Uber. After the criminal citation was filed, he automatically lost both driving jobs—banned by both companies due to the legal violation.

For being found guilty (overturned on appeal) of fishing with more than 8 lines due to what is likely a vendetta on the part of the officer. A particularly succinct example of automated cruelty. But what can one do?

[ryandrake]

Unfortunately, you can be denied employment for all sorts of unfair and ridiculous reasons--or for no reason at all. Not too much can be done without changing the law. I remember filling out a job application some time ago where one of the questions was "Have you ever been charged with a crime?" Not "convicted of". It wasn't a mistake, either. There was a footnote that said "You must answer YES to this question even if the charge was dismissed or you were found not guilty in court."

[neilv]

That's shameful to do in the US, given our principles of justice.

Maybe it was negligent rather than intentional. For example, the company might've just been using some form they got from an outsourced service. Or a lawyer might've made the form for them, but using an obnoxius template (as templates tend to be, AFAICT).

So, when people are in this situation, they can try asking the company about it (a recruiter, HR contact, or the hiring manager). The company's response could be strong signal about the actual corporate culture you'd find if you joined.

(Personally, if I was a hiring manager, and didn't know that candidates had started seeing this form, I'd want to know, and I'd make sure the right people were looking at it. To see whether that was intended, is it legal, is it a message we want to send, etc.)

You could also try contacting a labor regulatory authority or state AG's office, to see whether it's even legal. And/or, contact a state lawmaker, and suggest that it seems unconstitutional. It might even be an arguable EEOC violation where you are (e.g., if some protected group there is more likely to have adverse interactions even when innocent).

[falcolas]

Our principles of justice? You are aware that we use incarceration as a source of slave labor for the government and private companies, right? That even after folks have served their time, we severely restrict their rights for the rest of their lives?

I'm not trying to be an ass, but the US' principles of justice are universally fucked.

[danaris]

Note: This is a semantic argument. YMMV.

That sounds like you're talking about our practice of justice. It is, unquestionably, pretty fucked.

I would say that "our principles of justice," on the other hand, a) clearly include "innocent until proven guilty", which would preclude the above question from an employer, and b) pretty well condemn a lot of stuff in our practice of justice, as well, with prison labor high on the list.

[falcolas]

Innocent until proven guilty is a great idea. I'll agree with that. But it's not really implemented anywhere. You're stuck in prison or effectively on parole until you're found not guilty (or the case is dropped), with no reparation. You can also be put in jail indefinitely by a judge with no process of appeal.

Which I guess you could call a problem with the practice, but that begs the question: if it's never practiced, is it really a principle? Or is it just propaganda?

Also, prison labor is built into our constitution, making it more than just a practice.

[neilv]

> if it's never practiced, is it really a principle? Or is it just propaganda?

Whether it's principle or propaganda, it was the deal. So, if it's not a principle, make it one. Including reminding employers who forgot civics class.

[danaris]

Principles are, at least to some extent, inherently aspirational.

You put them in your founding documents and spread them in your rhetoric because you believe that, even if people are not following them now, it is important to make sure the people in the future know "This was our goal. This is what we think is a good ideal to shoot for." That way, they can see it, compare it to the practice, and say, "Y'know, maybe we should do better."

Here we are in the future, and it's not right. We can see the principle, and compare it to the practice. Will we shrug, and say, "Eh, everyone knows that sort of thing is just blue-sky idealist thinking. No one really thinks it can work in the real world."?

Or will we say, "Y'know, maybe we should do better."?

[neilv]

How about "our best ideals"? There's certainly huge, often tragic problems. I'm not disputing that. But there's also some really admirable ideas and activity also going on. I'm appealing to the good parts.

[falcolas]

That's certainly a more defensible position. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that may just be because I repeatedly seen how getting snared by the US Justice system's web destroys lives.

[giancarlostoro]

Here I was wondering why Florida's adding that (Fishing and Hunting as right) as a constitutional amendment for the state, guess that answers that.