Next up, Burns Strider, Hillary Clinton's faith and values adviser.

[Darwin333]

He wasn't disciplined in any meaningful manner. He lost a couple of weeks wages and refused to do the counseling program that he was asked to take.

I wasn't aware that he refused to attend the counseling program but who exactly decides what proper "meaningful" discipline is other than the employer?

 

[Victorian Gray]

I wasn't aware that he refused to attend the counseling program but who exactly decides what proper "meaningful" discipline is other than the employer?

Yeah, I can see how you might have missed a fact that's in every article I've seen on the issue.

He was reported for repeated harassment and the recommendation of senior staff was to get rid of the guy. A couple of weeks loss of wages and refusing to do the counseling program that he was ordered to take seems meaningful to you?

 

[Puffnstuff]

Are they required to track every employee to disclose XYZ and for how long? Or is there an article out there that at least says they called the Hillary campaign to verify the reference?

Brother we don't know that yet. I was simply pointing out the potential negligence since his behavior continued at the new employer.

 

[Darwin333]

Yeah, I can see how you might have missed a fact that's in every article I've seen on the issue.

He was reported for repeated harassment and the recommendation of senior staff was to get rid of the guy. A couple of weeks loss of wages and refusing to do the counseling program that he was ordered to take seems meaningful to you?

I don't nor have I ever employed him, so what seems meaningful to me is irrelevant. Since this is purely a civil matter it is up to individual employers to set guidelines and discipline their employees as they see fit or face the civil consequences. While I am not exactly thrilled by how they handled this situation I am also not appalled since it appears that they got the harassment to stop. For the record the Hillary campaign and whoever else they can sue could be buried under a pile of tort rubble for all I care about them, just stating my opinion and I am pretty sure that the law agrees with me.

Are there currently any pending civil suits?

 

[Darwin333]

Brother we don't know that yet. I was simply pointing out the potential negligence since his behavior continued at the new employer.

Seems like a reach to me. We are hesitant to bad mouth people on reference phone calls unless they have done something absolutely, without a doubt, 100% "provably" wrong which usually means at least some sort of criminal charges filed like DUI. It is much more common for the ex-employee to sue you for libel or whatever the hell they call it than an employer suing you because you didn't disclose that Jane said John was hitting on her excessively. Generally for shitty workers we just say "we aren't going to comment on John's work here" and the other side always gets the point because they do the same thing. Now if an employee was charged with sexual assault at my workplace I would definitely pass that information along to anyone who called about employing him.

 

[SNC]

I'd have thought the point was 'let the legal system deal with it as appropriate'. It doesn't appear to be a political issue becuase Hillary is no longer a significant political figure (I personally hope the Clintons fade away rapidly). If it appears the legal system is falling down on the job in some major way then maybe others can take an interest. Otherwise, what is there to say?

I was not implying it had anything to do with politics, but now that you bring it up, what she did was done while she was a candidate soooo. Sort of like Watergate is and was a political issue...I often wonder if the same people that enter a thread to say that they are not interested or couldn't care less, do the same with cooking or heavy equipment forums.

Thread title: Roma or cherry tomatoes for a red sauce over tagliatelle? Random guy: I don't eat tomatoes, so it doesn't matter to me.