> Should Hans Reiser be given a second chance because he's good at file systems?
I'm not sure I'm able to follow your analogy. Hans murdered his Russian mail-order bride who was getting a divorce from him. There's a pretty big difference from a convicted murderer to an alleged sexual harasser.
If someone came to me and told me that they'd been convicted of murder, I could not in good conscience hire them and expose my team members to that risk. There would be no further discussion.
If someone came to me and told me that they'd been accused of sexual harassment and had left that job, I'd inquire and try to understand the details. There is much more gray area. If someone had physically assaulted another person, I'd immediately say no-hire. If someone had made untoward sexual remarks and was unapologetic for it, no-hire. If someone had said they misread someone else's body language and made a pass was apologetic for it, then negative, but not an immediate no-hire.
This seems disturbingly severe. Someone misread body language, was corrected, and immediately apologized; you say that's a negative?
Also, what happens to more serious crimes when a person is released from prison? I've had several ex-cons on my team from time to time. My view is, if they've been released from prison then they've done their time and we (as a society) owe them a chance to show that they can rehabilitate. What's the alternative? Once you've committed a crime, even a serious crime, you should be unemployable and starve on the street? It's a serious question.
Yes, I perceive that as negative compared to someone who did not exhibit that mistake. I'm not saying that's a no-hire or an extreme negative. I'm trying to communicate that is an indicator of a possible issue, that means it needs to be looked at further to see if there's a pattern of misreading body language.
> Once you've committed a crime, even a serious crime, you should be unemployable and starve on the street? It's a serious question.
I understand and respect the question you've asked. I want to make sure we separate genuinely serious crimes like murder/rape from crimes that are perceived as serious but in my subjective opinion are harmless like drug use. If someone had been convicted of using or even selling cannabis, I would not perceive that as a negative. If someone had been convicted of murder, I would perceive that as unemployable in my team. The reason being is that I could not consider exposing my team to that risk. I can see that even here, there's some gray areas. For example, if the murder was in self-defense or an act of revenge, and there had been a long period of healthy behavior, then perhaps this could be mitigating factors. I would not want anyone to be unemployable or to starve. There are jobs that are less team oriented that might be suitable, or where the risk can be more tightly controlled.
I'm not sure I'm able to follow your analogy. Hans murdered his Russian mail-order bride who was getting a divorce from him. There's a pretty big difference from a convicted murderer to an alleged sexual harasser.
If someone came to me and told me that they'd been convicted of murder, I could not in good conscience hire them and expose my team members to that risk. There would be no further discussion.
If someone came to me and told me that they'd been accused of sexual harassment and had left that job, I'd inquire and try to understand the details. There is much more gray area. If someone had physically assaulted another person, I'd immediately say no-hire. If someone had made untoward sexual remarks and was unapologetic for it, no-hire. If someone had said they misread someone else's body language and made a pass was apologetic for it, then negative, but not an immediate no-hire.