Hacker News Reader

Comment by zer00eyz | Hacker News Reader

Your dead wrong.

For years there was "no value" in discussing salary... but companies were allowed to ask you "how much did you make at your last job".

So we have/had a system that is "pro company" and "anti-worker" that took a LONG time to change and let a lot of things that we probably always would have been upset about go on.

There is value in publicly naming the company that didn't hire him. It stops someone else in his position from wasting their time. The only entity that benefits from him NOT disclosing the policy is the hiring company.

It "might" make a company look bad if it got out that they DO or DONT hire people who were once criminals - and then we get into a larger set of questions.

Is their policy a stealth racial bias? Is the purpose of the justice system to lock people up and then create social shunning or reform?

This is another case where tradition and the status quo does not make sense.

View on HN

I agree with your position when taking a global scope. When looking at it in the narrow scope of the OP's position and goals, I don't see any benefit for them.

If everyone takes that stance then NOTHING changes - your suggesting apathy - this is how the status quo remains in place.

OP literally has nothing to loose and everything to gain by being honest about his situation - the knowledge is already public and working against him.

Also thank you for sharing - happy for the dialog!

Another interpretation is that we can achieve a moral victory even without asking more disadvantaged members of society to make a sacrifice for dubious gain.

If one believes that moral conduct ought to have a relationship with moral results, then one must also coldly ask what sort of results one truly expects from this.

We continue to build technology without thoughts of consequences. OP's issue IS one of technology. What 20 years ago would have required actual WORK is now a service any one can utilize. Companies that never would have asked for criminal and financial history now do so as a matter of course, because it is cheep, because they can.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

-- Martin Niemöller

If those who have these issues don't stand up and speak (and to a larger audience than HN) how are they going to get the attention for us to speak up for them? OP has been punished, he should speak out that he is CONTINUING to be punishes, he IS a sacrifice.

I don't think you addressed "how would a potential employer view that?"

If someone is making a factual statement about another employer I don't have any qualms with it.

If you were a minority or a woman 10 years ago, even 2 years ago the policy of "don't speak up" was more or less there to maintain the status quo.

Here is an individual who, because he has no privacy, is disqualified from jobs. Note that the merits of his crime and weather or not he should have privacy because of it are another matter.

But a company - you should not talk about them - they have a better right to privacy than OP or any one else in this thread.

Something is very wrong here. This isn't a trade secrete were discussing it is a corporate policy one that could be made clear and public but it isn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com