21–30 of 170 posts
I believe the only clear way for him is to leave the US and land some international job at some place good as Australia or Sing. Yes, the US will loose a good cyber cop. But as you can see here, this is entirely the US systematic problem. Simmons does not deserve to serve lifetime living in the US, struggling for foodstamps.
In his case, it sounds like the problem isn't homelessness itself, but: 1. A crappy background check system that reports him as an ex-con/drug dealer when he's been exonerated. 2. Companies using those systems and judging him without giving him a chance to speak up.
I believe the only clear way for him is to leave the US and land some international job at some place good as Australia or Sing. Yes, the US will loose a good cyber cop. But as you can see here, this is entirely the US systematic problem. Simmons does not deserve to serve lifetime living in the US, struggling for foodstamps.
How is that supposed to work? He can't even afford to leave Seattle.
I believe the only clear way for him is to leave the US and land some international job at some place good as Australia or Sing. Yes, the US will loose a good cyber cop. But as you can see here, this is entirely the US systematic problem. Simmons does not deserve to serve lifetime living in the US, struggling for foodstamps.
How is that supposed to work? He can't even afford to leave Seattle.
I believe the only clear way for him is to leave the US and land some international job at some place good as Australia or Sing. Yes, the US will loose a good cyber cop. But as you can see here, this is entirely the US systematic problem. Simmons does not deserve to serve lifetime living in the US, struggling for foodstamps.
Why is he failing background checks if he's never been non-wrongfully convicted? Genuinely curious to hear from anyone with experience on the employer side of this.
Even if dismissed or wrongfully convicted, any mention of anything criminal would cause concern. It's that idea of "where there's smoke there's fire" type of thinking that seems to go on around this kind of stuff. When other candidates exist without the 'concerning circumstances,' why take a risk?
For better or worse, it makes sense. Seeing that someone was arrested for crack for any reason would raise suspicion. There would be little motivation to look into further details once seeing "arrested for crack" pop up in a search about a candidate.
I believe the only clear way for him is to leave the US and land some international job at some place good as Australia or Sing. Yes, the US will loose a good cyber cop. But as you can see here, this is entirely the US systematic problem. Simmons does not deserve to serve lifetime living in the US, struggling for foodstamps.
Visas require background checks and I am not sure how that would work out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure what's the problem with drug dealing? If he was selling weed, then he was in fact doing a public service against fat cats in pharma industry. Also nobody is forced to buy drugs.
Well, for one thing the charge was for selling crack cocaine...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article states that he's gotten job offers before that were he couldn't accept, presumably because he failed the second kind of background check. Would the employers generally tell someone the reason for rescinding an offer?
In America they would absolutely not disclose the reason for not hiring someone. Commonly accepted HR wisdom in the US is that it would open the company up to lawsuits.