41–50 of 170 posts
He could try working as a freelancer, on websites like Elance/Upwork or something and make some money. Then he could use that money move out of the homeless shelter and then look for a decent job.
+1 for freelancing idea, it might actually work if there are security jobs. But I think security in it's nature is something that needs assurance that person is capable of auditing the system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many companies offer relocation packages including travel costs and temporary accommodation.
Yes but they expect you to pay and they'll reimburse you. Not saying it never happens any other way, but that's the only way I've ever seen it done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> #2 is at least partly due to the fact the if the companies allowed him an opportunity to refute the claim, they would be incurring various legal liabilities. Interesting! I'd thought it was simply done in the name of efficiency.
You're too old. You have a criminal background. You're too overeducated. We think you'll sue. You're too young. It seemed that companies are loathed to take risk on employee. At the same time, lot of environments contained toxic working conditions, so it's not clear if their choice of employees matter much. But people must find a job to keep themselves afloat or depend on someone having a job. It didn't matter if you…
Is there anything we can do for him? I mean this is just nuts.
Now that he's in the NYT he will probably be OK. The question is what to do about other people in similar situations. I once received an application from someone quite famous. But he was famous because of a criminal case against him which was ongoing. We let this scare us off, because as a small company we didn't want the exposure if we did hire him. I'm not sure it was a very moral decision, but does your startup ha…
Pedant: the article is in the Seattle Times :-)
> he will probably be OK.
I sure hope so. I always have mixed feelings when I read articles like this. On one hand, things should usually end up going well for the person (assuming they're legitimate) because of the exposure. But, on the other, it's sad to hear of them being in the situation in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're too old. You have a criminal background. You're too overeducated. We think you'll sue. You're too young. It seemed that companies are loathed to take risk on employee. At the same time, lot of environments contained toxic working conditions, so it's not clear if their choice of employees matter much. But people must find a job to keep themselves afloat or depend on someone having a job. It didn't matter if you…
At the same time, there are a lot of employees suing companies "just because", so the feeling has some justification.
Don't forget that it doesn't prevent the creation of toxic working environments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the same time, there are a lot of employees suing companies "just because", so the feeling has some justification.
And where do those employees find the money to sue the corporation? Don't forget that it doesn't prevent the creation of toxic working environments.
Often from lawyers who work on contingency and then take the bulk of the damages.
Why did he not have sufficient savings to survive after he got out of prison?
(Not trying to blame him for anything, trying to plan for my own life. I strive to maintain sufficient savings so that I would never be homeless even if I never worked again.)
One thing I'm curious about is how he actually ended up homeless. Before the conviction, it seems like he was doing very well (BMW, townhouse). Why did he not have sufficient savings to survive after he got out of prison? (Not trying to blame him for anything, trying to plan for my own life. I strive to maintain sufficient savings so that I would never be homeless even if I never worked again.)