Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Demerit Points - public domain?

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by titus, Mar 23, 2006.

  1. A friend of mine recently applied for one of those advertised prison officer jobs. A couple of days ago he got a phone interview, during which the interviewer questioned him closely about his past, especially relating to any convictions. Fair enough.
    Then she asked about traffic convictions, something I would have thought was out of bounds unless it amounted to a criminal offence like dangerous driving, drink-driving, etc. But no, she wanted to know ALL his speeding offences throughout his life. Thinking he was on safe ground, he down-played it a bit, but admitted to several.
    The interviewer then said, "Are you sure you're telling the truth? Haven't you had more than that?"
    "No." he says.
    "Well we know you have. That's the end of the interview. Goodbye."

    So. Did she have his police record in front of her, complete with demerit point convictions, and if so, should she have? Bear in mind this is a private operator, not the police or the government doing the interviewing.

    I know various jobs require police checks, but should employers have access to our traffic conviction records? And make employment decisions based on that?


     
     Top
  2. Yes, and yes.

    ... covered by the Corrections Act, and falling under Corrections Victoria within the Dept. of Justice.

    For Police and Corrections Officers - absolutely.

    The decision was made based on your friends un-truth. If the company was concerned about your friends driving record, he never would have been called. Get your friend to call Corrections Victoria (DoJ) if they are concerned.
     
     Top
  3. OK, I can accept that there might be exeptions in certain positions.
    He's pissed off, but them's the breaks. A agree it's the truth issue that got him.
    Here's another matter to consider - most of his traffic convictions were well over five years old, some of them over 20. Now he doesn't know exactly how many she could view, but it seems likely they were quite old.
    Aren't such convictions supposed to be expunged from all records after a certain number of years? (unless they result in a prison sentence of more than a certain length or involve child molestation).
    Or do certain bodies retain complete records, regardless?
     
     Top
  4. The only thing that really disappears are offences as a juvi (in most cases). The rest floats around for ever..... Esp for sensitive jobs, security clearances etc.
     
     Top
  5. Big Brother lever lets go of any information :shock:
     
     Top
  6. It was a simple truth/honesty test. He failed.

    End of story.
     
     Top

  7. Very true. It's not that he lied about some potentially minor traffic offences but when conducting security clearances and the like they take the view 'OK, they lied to us about X, what else did they lie about'. And that just opens up a whole can of worms.

    I just went through the same thing for a job, for a large majority of things they don't actually care what you've done (short of killing kittens and the like) e.g. speeding, illicit substances. It's the fact that you are honest about it...and that you don't do it anymore of course :).

    Additionally alot of times they are helping to protect you from being placed in a situation where another party could blackmail you to some end (such as a person with a security clearance knowing certain information, or in this case, a corrections officer, its just as relevant). If someone was to come to you and say 'I know X about you, now do this or I tell your employer (leading to dismissmal or whatever', you can simply turn around and say 'go ahead, they already know'.
     
     Top
  8. It is all Irellivent.
    It was not an Interview question. It was a test, a test of honesty. A Test he failed.
     
     Top
  9. I have what's caled in NSW (not sure if it's the same in other states) a "Section 56 - Conviction Not Recorded". Which means that under normal circumstances, for all intents & purposes, I don't have a criminal record and I don't have to tell propective employers about it. But they stressed, that if police/judiciary etc. feel that it is warranted, they can dredge it back up and use it against me in any further proceedings.

    So yeah, the bastards can do whatever they feel like.

    (Before anyone asks, it was for break and enter of the Democrats Sydney office during a protest against the implementation of the GST...)
     
     Top
  10. Nonsense. He was being tested to see if he could lie convincingly, or fabricate a plausible explanation at short notice and under duress. He failed, nevertheless.
     
     Top
  11. No it's not irrelevant. Yes, he failed the test, but that's not my point. I'm asking whether employers should have access to this kind of information in the first place. Mouth indicates that it is legal for them to have it, and I'm happy to accept that this is the case. I don't agree that it's morally right for them to have it, but that's my problem. I'm questioning now whether information is kept (and used) that should have been permanently removed from the record.
    What concerns me most is that in spite of some fairly comprehensive privacy legislation, certain authorities SEEM to take it upon themselves to exempt themselves from these rules. I'll give you another example. Someone close to me works in a health-related field that means she administers many peoples medical records. There have been more than a few instances of her superiors asking her to forward such records here and there, even though this is technically illegal. She has suspicions about why some government departments would want someones medical record, but the real reason will never come to light.
    My concern about some traffic records is about whether it should even exist, particularly if (my interpretation of) legislation would suggest that it shouldn't.
     
     Top
  12. Actually, he is the most implausible liar I have ever met! He has a history of coming out with the most outlandish excuses for being late for work, etc. that I've ever heard. I think they did him a favour knocking him back, as sooner or later he was going to end up behind those bars!
     
     Top
  13. Of course they had that sort of information readily available to them. They have every right to have it. If they are interviewing somebody for a position, such as a prison guard, they need to know their history, and if they are an honest person or not.

    Any job which involves the law, be it police, customs, prisons, are all high security positions. My partner works for Customs, and even I have to be careful what I get up to to a large degree. For higher security level clearances, it is not just the person that gets called into question, but also everybody they know, especially those they are closest to.
     
     Top
  14. lol its only people who were bullied at school or other social misfits .. ie like to tourture small furry animals that would apply in the first place
     
     Top
  15. what a crap job, wouldn't he be happier cattle prodding the cows up the death ramp at the abortoir?
     
     Top
  16. Although it's a bid dodgy having your records there - and it is a bit un-nerving having your personal details exposed for some random to read. He will probably be holding a gun and have to beat around inmates (i didnt say that) so i think they need to have some sort of test about his background and to see if hes truthful.

    She did ask about his convictions --> It would be stupid to assume that you would not get a job just because he had a speeding ticket, but it's better to be safe than sorry. It's just like Customs - Declare it (no probs) or risk it (and even if it is infected or not you will probably get a fine).
     
     Top
  17. Another strange thing is that he has more or less done it before - worked in a youth training centre once, back in the days when they would take anyone (no police checks back then).
    And quite enjoyed it. (No, not a sadist or kitten-torturer).
     
     Top
  18. I agree with scooter really, who would want to work in corrections anyway?

    But yes you're right, the bigger issue is about privacy. Although I must say I have long grown past the point where I felt getting cranky about these types of things would make any skerrick of difference.

    Add 1 cup of apathy, with 2 tbsps of cynicism. Serve cold.
     
     Top
  19. Personally i reckon the truth or dare test is full of s(*&

    "He lied about speeding fines nope he's not right for us"

    Full of s*&%!!!
     
     Top
  20. It is likely as a Corrections officer, the prisoners are likely to make a lot of accusations against you.

    If you show dishonesty during a job interview what chance have you got when you have a false accusations made against you. A dishonest person is believed to be more susceptable to corruption as well.
     
     Top