home

Sunday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 08:17:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Thousands showed up in Denver today to register to audition for American Idol. By 7am, the line extended 1/4 mile around the stadium. The process continues through Tuesday, when those selected today and Monday will get to sing for the judges.

I wonder how many of them have read the release (pdf)they must sign before going on. Or, in the case of the younger aspirants, if their parents have read and understand it. Why do these reality shows get away with these one-sided contracts filled with legalese only a legal expert could decipher? Compare it to their FAQ's for auditioning, and the Rules, which are in plain English.

What happened where you are today? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Kids Recant Sex Abuse Claim Against Dad After He Serves 20 Years | Sotomayor Hearings Start Today >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Night Open Thread | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I'm a few months out of Contracts (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 08:33:26 PM EST
    but that first paragraph of the American Idol "contract" makes me a little suspicious of its enforceability.

    Is being given the opportunity to be chosen (at the some discretion of the producers) sufficient?  That looks like an exam question to me,

    I'm not a lawyer ... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 08:29:20 AM EST
    but can you sign away your rights to pursue a defamation or libel suit?

    This release seems to ask contestants to waive these rights even in regards to information made up by the producers of the show.

    Given the nature of the show, I understand the inclusion of this provision.  

    But is that enforceable?


    Parent

    Some rights you can't sign away, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 08:57:11 AM EST
    though I don't know if those are such rights. The real problem with this contract, as I see it, is insufficient consideration. IMO if that's not the case, then it might be unconscionable (though courts are loathe to make that determination).

    Parent
    Surgean General (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CST on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 12:29:47 PM EST
    Announced.  Sure looks good on paper, although nothing said about her general philosophy re. abortion rights.

    I just returned from hearing the Indian (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 08:30:10 PM EST
    Ambassador to the U.S., Meera Shankar, give the Gandhi Memorial Lecture to high school scholarship winners.  Then two of the students read their essays about Gandhi.  One, Luis Gonzales, an AVID scholar, was an excellent public speaker.  He tied bloggers and journalists in China to Gandhi, saying both do important work while adhering to non-violence.  

    Then I saw one of the AVID scholars walking with a friend and offered them a ride.  Both are the first in their families to go to college--this fall--one to UC Irvine and the other to UC Santa Cruz. The girl going to Irvine hadn't visited the campus.  What a bold adventure.

    They ALWAYS do it again (none / 0) (#3)
    by JamesTX on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 08:35:45 PM EST
    I am so sick of hearing that. I ran across this on Grits:

    http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2009/07/steep-decline-in-ex-offenders.html.

    I have never really understood what purpose background checks for employment serve. At one company I worked for, they fired a guy after someone dug up an old offense. Apparently, denial of reasonable employment opportunity is part of the unwritten punishment for crime in America, and people have come to expect it. It is a sort of extended life sentence at hard labor for any conviction. That has to be the reason for it, if the data from this study are valid. It can't have anything to do with security, because ex-offenders are actually less likely to commit crimes in the long run. Could this be more about creating and economic underclass than it is about crime?

    The future employer investigation (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 09:03:29 PM EST
    of potential hires extends to credit checks, as well. Do not hire people who need the money no matter how many months they've been unemployed seems to be the result. Attitudes like this were once to maintain the integrity of the employer (i.e., a huge employer in my area in years past would terminate anyone who got a notice of garnishment).

    I think all these "checks" are to utilize every possible means they can to discriminate against age, race, gender, or whatever the employer is hoping to keep out of their workplace.

    I did just see a blip on tv about a restaurant that ONLY hires ex-convicts to give them experience in the field, and a solid job on their resumes.

    Lying on a resume, or job application is never, ever a good idea, though.

    Parent

    Yes, I've heard (none / 0) (#11)
    by JamesTX on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 10:15:23 PM EST
    many companies do check credit, especially for upper level employees (perhaps not the one's they pay meager hourly wages to and expect to have bad credit). Many of them want their suit staff to be spotless. I've often thought that hiring only ex-cons or even only registered sex offenders would be an excellent business plan. If it were designed where they were actually significantly in on the payoff then they would have motivation to beat any typical yuppie firm.

    Parent
    A poor credit report often results in a swift (none / 0) (#25)
    by easilydistracted on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    denial for a government security clearance, in those jobs needing those requirements, especially unpaid collections. I have seen clearances, even TS, granted in cases involving felony weapons convictions and yet denied in cases of bankruptices and unpaid collections. This investigative process is lenghty, sometimes taking up to two years to complete. Companies will use these consumer reports to prescreen applicants so they don't hire an employee to only learn two years later that such individual can't satisfy security requirements.  

    Parent
    Lying on a resume... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 08:31:15 AM EST
    is the only idea if you're a convicted felon...the odds are better the employer won't check at all than if they do check and give ya the gig.  It's as much of a no-brainer as getting the magic juice from GNC if you prefer a spliff to a martini to unwind.

    Honesty is not a virtue in this society, its a liablilty.  We value sneaky and shady.

    Parent

    Such a problem.... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 09:12:27 AM EST
    I don't think we "value" sneaky and shady, though I do think we have given in way too much to the things we fear and things we claim to detest and turn a blind eye to it.

    Parent
    Actually, yes, everyday (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 09:30:03 PM EST
    Have you seen the cost of business liability insurance these days?

    We write those policies where I work. No application for coverage includes the question of whether or not any employees are ex-convicts, or have poor credit ratings, or any personal data.

    Parent

    Are you saying (none / 0) (#10)
    by JamesTX on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 10:08:54 PM EST
    the policies are not based in insurance requirements? That is, the policies are purely the decision of the employer?


    Parent
    You lost me... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 10:51:51 PM EST
    I'm saying the insurance premiums (price a business pays for liability insurance) is not based in the personal histories of the employees they hire.


    Parent
    It's liability for lawsuits (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 11:02:31 PM EST
    that has a lot of employers jumpy.  Especially public sector now; in my state, everyone -- even the hottest, best-known Harvard faculty and the like -- has to go through a criminal check, after cases in which child molesters had school jobs and bus drivers had bad driving records and worse.  And the legislative reaction looks like over-reaction, but these cases really did cause very costly suits -- not to neglect, of course, the pain and suffering of victims.

    And there also have been so many cases of faux resumes, it's really amazing.  So everything gets checked these days.  It's just the way it is now -- and believe me, at the hiring end, it's also just mind-boggling.  Not that the public sector can do much hiring in this economy, anyway. . . .

    Parent

    Huge difference between (none / 0) (#14)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 11:30:02 PM EST
    criminal behavior of people who work among the people they victimize, and whether or not a telephone customer service rep has a drug conviction or lousy credit score.

    Outside of the trusted professions of medicine, education, religion, I'm trying to remember a time when an employer was held liable for a crime committed by an employee.

    Parent

    Of course. But (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 09:47:38 AM EST
    again, at least in my state, it's legislative over-reaction, resulting in laws written 'way too wide.

    Parent
    Local school bus driver (none / 0) (#27)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 11:11:49 AM EST
    hired by a transportation contractor was caught driving under the influence (drugs, not alcohol) and in the possession of drugs.  He had a history of DUI violations that the contractor's background check (only the previous three years) hadn't caught.

    This revelation really upset a lot of people.  

    Parent

    Often the checks don't (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    cross state lines, as well. We had a school worker with history that would have prevented him from getting his job, but the history was in another state and the check didn't reach beyond state borders.

    I'm surprised, though, in the case you site, Fabian, that the DMV didn't flag it when they issued his special license to drive a bus.

    Makes one wonder what all this surveillance we're under is really good for :)

    Parent

    I'm surprised that the state would issue him a (none / 0) (#28)
    by easilydistracted on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 11:20:44 AM EST
    a license to operate school buses with such a background. 12 points at any given time, as the article reflects, is unacceptable in my view for individuals entrusted with chauferring our children. His school bus endorsement should have been suspended, and then the employer would have noted that fact upon verfying his license at time of hire.

    Parent
    It was on the contractor. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 11:46:03 AM EST
    A measly three years for a background check?  I'm guessing they were cutting corners to save money.

    They got raked over the coals for that.  You just do NOT mess with people's children.

    Parent

    That is what I meant. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by JamesTX on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 12:16:08 AM EST
    Of course, as the other commenters are pointing out, these companies have liability concerns that go beyond insurance. The problem is probably not human resources policies, insurance companies, or anyone else, as has been pointed out. The problem is the conservative attitude toward criminal justice, and everyone else is just reacting to the market created by that atmosphere. It has several aspects, such as the primitive generalization of guilt thing. That is reasoning like "if something bad happens and a person with a record is around, then that person caused it". As with all conservative reasoning, it rolls back to an earlier state of social development, such as when people who broke rules were accused of causing earthquakes. The other is competition. As resources dwindle and good jobs are hard to come by, a person with a clean record feels like they deserve any position held be someone with a conviction. There are other parts to it as well. It's a mess, because it is all very short sighted. Almost all people convicted will return to society, or stay there to begin with. If we expect them to adjust to an environment where they have no hope of success a priori, then they will sink into antisocial thinking. We are manufacturing our own enemies.

    Parent
    Very true (none / 0) (#18)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 08:18:58 AM EST
    As I said earlier, this is another mechanism for weeding people out of the hiring process. Somehow employers feel they get a higher quality workforce if the get the "riff raff" identified. They see it as pro-actively eliminating headaches. What's entertaining, though, is they have all the headaches they can want, and then some with their heavily screened staff.

    Let's never forget that some creative entrepreneurs are getting no less than $100 per person to "investigate" potential new hires. That there is no defense for mistaken identity, and you are not allowed to know the results of their search on you.


    Parent

    I really agree (none / 0) (#31)
    by JamesTX on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 12:18:36 PM EST
    with the idea that getting rid of the "riff raff" does nothing to reduce an employer's headaches. Quite the contrary. I suspect the reason people who have been through the system are less likely to offend is because they have, in the emotional sense, "met their match". They have accepted their own limits from being brutally overpowered by a unyielding and often corrupt system. They don't want to do anything to let it happen again! People without records are more cock-sure, more demanding, and probably...just probably... ultimately less loyal.

    Parent
    As someone pointed out below (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 06:36:37 AM EST
    certain large employers do screen and for very good reasons.  I worked at a children's hospital and they do a lot of work screening employees and it isn't because they are looking for excuses not to hire people.  It's a very much a liability issue.

    Jeralyn posted the story about an addict stealing drugs and contaminating syringes in a hospital.  That one employee cost the hospital a LOT of money.

    Parent

    I agree with your premise (none / 0) (#36)
    by JamesTX on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:47:29 PM EST
    in principle, but I suggest there should be some degree or limit attached. For example, name a job that really cannot be construed to meet your criterion:

    ...invloves children and the elderly have every right to be picky when it comes to employees.. also government and security jobs and jobs involving money.

    What job doesn't involve money?

    I work for an employer that seemingly arbitrarily classifies all positions as security sensitive positions. The obvious motive is to avoid hiring anyone with a criminal record for anything, because it is a very conservative place politically. But it is a long shot to say that all the jobs are actually security sensitive. In fact, few of the employees have the power or opportunity to do anything that could be a "security" threat. "Security", very broadly construed, covers everything and everybody.

    Policies must not only be evaluated for their internal or a priori logic (of which your argument is an example), but also for their actual pragmatic effects. A perfectly logical policy can turn out to have disastrous unforeseen consequences which outweigh benefits.

    Excluding people with convictions from any type of reasonably gainful or meaningful employment is the net effect of this approach. Sure, a case can be made that they "deserve" it. In fact, that has been the conservative approach to criminal justice for thirty years. The only thing that seems to matter is what some fictional character, some caricature, which represents the class of "criminal", deserves. Then everybody with a record gets the treatment.

    Somewhere along the way a cost/benefit evaluation must be considered. If conviction for anything means life at hard labor and poverty wages, I am not sure that is ultimately acceptable as a social policy. The result can't be all that good, and alternatives can't be that bad. Ultimately, it means all crimes are equal, and all punishment is max -- social death through economic deprivation. There is more than one point of view which bears on any policy, and the motive of safety of the innocent at any and all costs, carried too far, becomes debilitating for us all. We saw that in the Bush fiasco. The pursuit of "security" at any cost is a doomed policy.

    Parent

    Anyone live in the city where the movie (none / 0) (#6)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 09:15:37 PM EST
    Soul Power has been released?  Anyone see it yet?  I can't wait to see that in a good theater with a awesome sound system

    Local news reporter (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sun Jul 12, 2009 at 09:25:25 PM EST
    reports "Bahstia" day

    heh.

    I don't blame them. (none / 0) (#16)
    by Fabian on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 06:28:11 AM EST
    Might be more fun to be in a reality show than to watch it.  

    And far more educational!

    Agreed (none / 0) (#26)
    by KoolJeffrey on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    I think Mr. and Mrs. Blago were counting on their day in the sun.

    Parent
    Manipulating The Market (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 02:39:08 PM EST
    This is how it is done:

    Johnathan Weil reports a US prosecutor says a stolen Goldman Sachs computer program capable of manipulating global markets may fall into the wrong hands (wrong being other than the world's most powerful investment bank).

    [snip]

    All this leaves us to wonder: Did Goldman really tell the government its high-speed, high-volume, algorithmic-trading program can be used to manipulate markets in unfair ways, as Facciponti said? And shouldn't Goldman's bosses be worried this revelation may cause lots of people to start hypothesizing aloud about whether Goldman itself might misuse this program?

    According to his attorney, Aleynikov admits to downloading the software, but denies intending to use it in any "proprietary way." Aleynikov had left Goldman to work for fellow Russian emigre Mikhail Malyshev's start-up company, Teza Tech.

    [snip]

    Malyshev, a Russian emigre with a doctorate in astrophysics from Princeton, left Citadel's quantitative trading unit in February after the funds he helped run returned about 40 percent last year. Their performance stood out at a time when most hedge funds lost money and Citadel's flagship portfolios tumbled 50 percent.

    via robot wisdom

    More Pressure On Obama (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Mon Jul 13, 2009 at 03:08:47 PM EST
    More pressure for Obama to investigate BushCo war crimes illegal wiretapping etc:

    That makes four fronts on which the intelligence apparatus is under siege. It is just the kind of distraction from Mr. Obama's domestic priorities -- repairing the economy, revamping the health care system, and addressing the long-term problems of energy and climate -- that the White House wanted to avoid.
    A series of investigations could exacerbate partisan divisions in Congress, just as the Obama administration is trying to push through the president's ambitious domestic plans and needs all the support it can muster.

    "He wants to dominate the discussion, and he wants the discussion to be about his domestic agenda -- health care, energy and education," said Martha Joynt Kumar, a professor of political science at Towson University who studies the presidency.

    NYT

    Sunday Night Open Thread | 32 comments (32 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment