Aegis
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 3,970
Thank you, Narz. You said exactly what I was thinking.
Mayor of Portland + Male Intern = Sex Scandal
- Thread starter choxorn
- Start date
Thank you, Narz. You said exactly what I was thinking.
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
Oh. Was it Mobby that mentioned "grooming"? That didn't happen here. Children can be groomed. Not 17-year-olds.
Godwynn
March to the Sea
- Joined
- May 17, 2003
- Messages
- 20,523
Wouldn't know that from the article. Hmmmm, I wonder why? [/sarc]
I noticed that too, I didn't see his "D" anywhere.
Great Librarian
Warlord
You can have a relationship with someone where you're not they're boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other/whatever.
No, it isn't, but the kid was 18.
Just a note that that map is dead wrong in some cases. The age of consent in Canada is 14.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Oh I am sure it happens...but what I think preposterous is the employer being ok with it. I dont know too many business people that really want liars to work for them....but hey, when in europe...
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Yes, a 17 year old can be groomed. Its precisely what Foley did with the kids that worked as pages/interns and I think it very likely that this is what occurred in Portland as well.
If you dont think a teen (even a 17 year old) is able to be influenced by an adult in a perceived position of trust and power then you much more naive than I realized.
I am uncomfortable about an employer/mentor starting a sexual relationship with an underling. I'm also pissed when politicians lie to the electorate. I would be unhappy if I were a citizen of this city.
Well, no, an employer would probably be upset. But what he's talking about is lying when the employer asks an illegal or inappropriate question. We're encouraged to lie in those scenarios (if the answer might cost you your job), because the alternatives are too likely to cause illegal discrimination.
Well, no, an employer would probably be upset. But what he's talking about is lying when the employer asks an illegal or inappropriate question. We're encouraged to lie in those scenarios (if the answer might cost you your job), because the alternatives are too likely to cause illegal discrimination.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
If you are illegally discriminated against, you do have recourse via the law dont you?
What would you consider an illegal question?
The law is not a sufficient recourse, mainly because it's too easy to hide why someone was not hired. As well, the process is onerous. The employer will be upset, but it's the employer's fault for asking an illegitimate question.
It's not me who decides what's an illegal question, it's an issue for the provincial parliaments. But they're usually along the lines regarding race, religion, gender & sex, some types of physical disabilities or medical issues, political affiliations, etc. Mostly stuff that gets discriminated against unfairly.
It's not me who decides what's an illegal question, it's an issue for the provincial parliaments. But they're usually along the lines regarding race, religion, gender & sex, some types of physical disabilities or medical issues, political affiliations, etc. Mostly stuff that gets discriminated against unfairly.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Asking someone about their race is illegal? Aside from it probably being self-evident. Gender? I do think thats on most job app forms to be honest.
And if the applicant has a physical disability or medical issue that the employer should know about the person is obligated to mention it. Its a really bad idea to lie about such a thing because if you get injured because of something you failed to disclose you could lose your insurance, or even face a lawsuit yourself.
And I will simply add that not all discrimination is unfair discrimination, nor is all discrimination illegal.
As a potential employee, what do you think will happen if the lie is found out? Why on earth would you want to work for an employer that you felt you had to lie to?
LucyDuke
staring at the clock
It's absurd to call that "grooming". Coercion, maybe, pressuring, maybe, manipulative, probably not but the word makes more sense there, but that's the exact same thing you'll do to an eighteen year old. Or a twenty year old. If you don't see the difference between trying to entice a seven year old and a seventeen year old into your bed... I got nothin'.
First I'll tackle the medical/physical issues. Usually it's divided into two categories: issues which will prevent job performace vs. issues which won't seriously hurt job performance. The first category needs to be discriminable. The second category, the employer is obligated to work around 'minor' disabilities.
Regarding wanting to work for a potential bigot: well, some people need jobs, and are forced to take the ones they can. Additionally, people who're discriminated against have a decently hard time getting work.
Regarding wanting to work for a potential bigot: well, some people need jobs, and are forced to take the ones they can. Additionally, people who're discriminated against have a decently hard time getting work.
jeps
Arcadefire
18 year old = adult. other than lying, I fail to see the problem here. let him fall under the judgement of voters come next election. he shouldn't have to resign now for this.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Again...no, its not...and the term has been used previously in very similar circumstances...i.e. Mark Foley, who was also dealing with 16 and 17 year olds.
Its wrong whether you do it to a 17 year old or a 7 year old.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
This doesnt say the employer should be held in ignorance of such 'minor' disabilities. Or even lied to.
Now thats a big copout El_Mac....why is there this perception that people are 'forced' to take such a job working for such a person? They are not. Not if they are actually qualified for the job. Again, not all discrimination is bad, nor illegal.
But as an employer, if I found out you lied to me, I would fire you as soon as the issue surfaced. Such stories come up every once in awhile on the news as well, so its a fairly common occurrance.
A 17 year old knows what he/she is getting into (or at least should... thanks to sex ed). A 7 year old does not.
This doesnt say the employer should be held in ignorance of such 'minor' disabilities. Or even lied to.
Not if they are actually qualified for the job. Again, not all discrimination is bad, nor illegal.
But as an employer, if I found out you lied to me, I would fire you as soon as the issue surfaced. Such stories come up every once in awhile on the news as well, so its a fairly common occurrance.
Why the heck are you being rude about it? I'm just telling you the way things actually work. Lots of people pretty well have to take the jobs that they can (lots of people expect people to take the jobs that they can). And if an employer asks an improper question, it's better to just lie. That way, they don't have to discriminate.
And if you were the employer who then fired the person, the employee could take action and sue. I mean, you're firing someone for lying about an improper question? Yeah, you're not going to win. You'd have been better off not asking the improper question.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
A 17 year old is still very impressionable by a person perceived to be in a position of authority. They still have a lot of maturing to do.
??? Telling you that your statement is a copout in my opinion is being rude?
Wow.
My policy is that honesty is best. Instead of lying in the face of such a question, I would simply confront it, and say, 'thats personal and I dont see how it matters' or something along those lines. I plan on being an employee......not an indentured slave. And I simply wont work for someone that I feel I have to lie to.
No, the employer will most likely win in that case because your still a liar. Or, if they really fear some kind of litigation then they will simply find a legitimate reason to fire you instead. Its not like its hard to fire someone for cause, or create a situation where an employee will indeed fail.
The time to bring up improper question or discrimination lawsuits is when you actually dont get the job because of an improper question or discrimination.....if you get caught having lied to an employer, your done one way or another. They may not fire you for the improper question, but they will simply find a valid reason to fire you anyway.
And to quote you: I'm just telling you the way things actually work. And thats exactly how it would go down.
You don't know very many 17-year-olds, do you?
And another way things work: Politicans lie, cheat, steal... and don't get in trouble for it.
Similar threads
