The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 17, 2013 8:22:49 GMT -5
So folks here think that putting a bunch of children at risk is more in line with Christ's teachings than terminating the lady's employment (with a decent amount of severance)? Really ? And are you really arguing that there is absolutely no possible way to help this woman without putting others at risk? Seems un-christlike to me to not find a solution that does both, but rather to just fire her in a CYA move. I've posted earlier about how we will NEVER know the full story because she is the only one able to speak freely. I have been in a situation where alternatives were offered, none of which were suitable to the folks in question - who would not be satisfied with anything less than keeping things exactly as THEY wanted it. They were able to spin their sob story as they saw fit to the media and my organzations lawyers advised us not to speak on the issue. (And I'm not trying to imply this lady is telling tales, just that there is ALWAYS more than one side to a story). It's very easy to vilify an organization who does not have the same freedom of speech as the person spinning the story. So, since you find it so easy to fault the solution the school found, what would be your solution?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,488
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 17, 2013 8:27:05 GMT -5
So folks here think that putting a bunch of children at risk is more in line with Christ's teachings than terminating the lady's employment (with a decent amount of severance)? Really ? Christ would have stood in front of this woman AND found a solution acceptable to all.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,488
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 17, 2013 8:41:23 GMT -5
Christ would have stood in front of this woman AND found a solution acceptable to all. I'm not up on all the school shootings, etc - but I can't think of one that was the result of an abusive ex of a teacher or abusive father of some students. Usually - it is some student and in new haven - not sure why the target was that school. I don't see this putting the students at risk. The parents are reacting to the lock down, but I'm not sure exactly shy they choose to lock down the school. Did the ex get violent in the parking lot? Was he trying to get into the school after being told to go away? I haven't seen this addressed in detail in the news articles I've read on this subject. Does anyone have a source that shines some light on this? Rukh-according to the letter sent to parents after the incident, there was no interaction of any consequence other than the ex-husband's car was seen in the parking it. The letter to the parents: media.nbcbayarea.com/images/LettertoParents.jpg
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Jun 17, 2013 9:09:55 GMT -5
Drama - noones arguing that this employer couldn't take this course of action. We're arguing that they shouldn't.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 17, 2013 9:29:13 GMT -5
I was responding to Lena asking if this would become part of employment screening for everyone. My answer was no and I explained why. Private can already do what it pleases. Public can't.
Well they can, they can just move my resume to the shred pile or come up with another reason to terminate me. No employer is obligated to tell me why they fired me.
Private is just more open about it.
So I think it's bogus to assume because of one incident that all employers will now not hire DV victims. Especially when we consider this was a private employer. If it was a public sector job I might be more inclined to hypothesize about it.
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Jun 17, 2013 9:55:09 GMT -5
But aren't most employers private employers
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 17, 2013 10:47:42 GMT -5
But aren't most employers private employers
I should have said religious vs secular I guess. Creighton operates under different rules than UNMC. They can because they accept no state funding.
I could depending on the situation and how pissy people want to be be fired for anything that is considered a breach of my morality clause at Creighton and the morality clause is governed by the Catholic doctrine.
Private Christian schools operate the same way. It's not the same as working for a public school and Southern's post on the first page goes into that.
Creighton can pretty much do what it wants and be fairly open about. UNMC technically can too but are probably not going to be open about it. I don't see the state funded unversity I am working for asking potential or current employees at DV and culling people for it.
Small Chrisitan school, possible but they can also fire/not hire me because I drink, have pre-marital sex, I'm pro choice or any else that goes against whatever doctrine they follow.
It's a sucky situation that was made more difficult because she works for a private religious school. I don't see non-religious employers suddenly deciding to screen/fire all employees who have been victims of DV.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 17, 2013 11:12:03 GMT -5
So, since you find it so easy to fault the solution the school found, what would be your solution? Keep on the teacher. All this "WON"T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" crap is a huge overreaction & everyone getting their panties in a bunch. The guy will be wearing a ankle bracelet & the school has shown they have the capability to spot him upon entering the parking lot & go into lock down. Add to that there is no reason to think that this violation of a restraining order will lead to more violations or means that his is psychotic with the intention of shooting up the school. It is pretty common for a guy to violate a restraining order once. They think if they can just see her/talk to her, then they can make things right. 6 months in jail tends to leave them rethinking that plan and most do not do it again. I have yet to see anything that makes me believe that keeping her on actually puts any kids in danger. I could see that argument if he continues to show up, but seriously he drove through the freaking parking lot & they are going to fire her. Complete BS & very unchristian way to care for someone.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Jun 17, 2013 11:15:46 GMT -5
Complete BS & very unchristian way to care for someone.
Pretty much but that's not all that uncommon, unfortunately.
And I'm not attacking Catholics specfically with that, all religious schools are rather hypocritical to work for. It's the price you pay working for them and sending your kids there.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 17, 2013 11:22:44 GMT -5
Rukh makes a good point here that no one has addressed. What happens when next abused woman is in a similar position? Let's call her mrs. Jones. Do you really expect that mrs. Jones will come forward and warn the school that something might be up? Give the school the chance to prepare just in case if she knows that the result of her (correct) actions will be that she gets fired? Mrs. Jones will likely think about her ability to take care of her own children first and just roll the dice. And then if something does happen we will all just shake our heads and wonder why mrs. Jones did not warn the school, and why the police did not lock the A*hole up, etc, etc, etc. While all the gut reactions I have read here are understandable, the result could easily be less safe schools rather than the opposite. Or do you all really believe this teacher and her abuser ex are the only ones out there? How many school shootings have been perpetrated by irate ex-husbands or boyfriends? How many injuries on school campuses have happened, where an innocent/unrelated child has been hurt by an abusive husband? In reality, the guy wanted to show up and make a fuss, but the chances that it would get violent are pretty small. Violent ex-husbands don't often go on shooting sprees.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jun 17, 2013 11:47:25 GMT -5
So, since you find it so easy to fault the solution the school found, what would be your solution? Keep on the teacher. All this "WON"T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" crap is a huge overreaction & everyone getting their panties in a bunch. The guy will be wearing a ankle bracelet & the school has shown they have the capability to spot him upon entering the parking lot & go into lock down. Add to that there is no reason to think that this violation of a restraining order will lead to more violations or means that his is psychotic with the intention of shooting up the school. It is pretty common for a guy to violate a restraining order once. They think if they can just see her/talk to her, then they can make things right. 6 months in jail tends to leave them rethinking that plan and most do not do it again. I have yet to see anything that makes me believe that keeping her on actually puts any kids in danger. I could see that argument if he continues to show up, but seriously he drove through the freaking parking lot & they are going to fire her. Complete BS & very unchristian way to care for someone. Again, this guy has a 20 year history of violence and disreagarding the law. Only a fool would think 6 months in jail is going to change that. And had the school not been put in lockdown, can you really say for certain that he would have stayed in the parking lot? Can you really say that even with the precautions they took, that had he decided to do something, they could have stopped him? Most school buildings aren't really built for security and you don't know how long the police typically take to arrive. You're also assuming that nobody at the school had any idea what was going on between the two of them until she warned the school, and that they wouldn't have put the school in lockdown if he showed up. That's a rather silly assumption. You don't really know how much they knew prior to the lockdown incident or how afraid they already were. The letter the diocese sent wasn't meant to be a complete history of what has gone on. If it was sent to just her, it would omit any details that would make it more unkind (Like "We've known for years that you were married to an abusive asshole and have been scared for a while about what he would do and this last incident was the last straw.") If it was sent to the parents, then it would only reveal what they felt they had to reveal, not lay out every detail of this poor woman's life for all to see.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 17, 2013 11:57:37 GMT -5
So, since you find it so easy to fault the solution the school found, what would be your solution? Keep on the teacher. All this "WON"T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN" crap is a huge overreaction & everyone getting their panties in a bunch. The guy will be wearing a ankle bracelet & the school has shown they have the capability to spot him upon entering the parking lot & go into lock down. Add to that there is no reason to think that this violation of a restraining order will lead to more violations or means that his is psychotic with the intention of shooting up the school. It is pretty common for a guy to violate a restraining order once. They think if they can just see her/talk to her, then they can make things right. 6 months in jail tends to leave them rethinking that plan and most do not do it again. I have yet to see anything that makes me believe that keeping her on actually puts any kids in danger. I could see that argument if he continues to show up, but seriously he drove through the freaking parking lot & they are going to fire her. Complete BS & very unchristian way to care for someone. Something folks seem to be missing here. She worked for them for 14 years. During those 14 years I'm assuming she spent at least part of them in a relationship with the Ex. The school already had a process in place to get extra security on campus on very short notice, now why do you think that is the case? Perhaps there is a pattern of this sort of thing happening? Tell me, how long would it take for you to arrange extra security? There is obviously more here than what is being fed to the media, but go ahead and keep bashing the school for having to make a difficult choice. As far as the ankle bracelet, someone in law enforcement already posted earlier how useless those are so any reliance on that for security is faulty as best. And the guy did not violate a restraining order once, he did it FOUR times in less than two days. You are trying to play down how dangerous this guy is but his criminal background check (as referenced in the letter the lady chose to make public) speak of a very different story. Finally, there's been a lot of talk about how little punishment these guys get in general, however this one went to jail for 6 months. I'd like to know how common it is for someone to do jail time for violating a restraining order, but not doing anything else. It seems to me that something more went on in that parking lot than is being communicated.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 17, 2013 12:17:53 GMT -5
Again, this guy has a 20 year history of violence and disreagarding the law. Only a fool would think 6 months in jail is going to change that. It seems that as you see all women who marry loser men as morons who don't love their children, you also see all abusers as vindictive psychos plotting to shoot up public places to take revenge on their ex's. You seem to have an unusual & very negative view on much of the world. But, seeing as how this is your belief, then their is nothing I can say to otherwise show you that it is ridiculous to think the children were in danger simply because he violated the restraining order by driving through a parking lot 1 time in the two years since a divorce. But, you have your opinion & I have mine. I am guessing you also think she is an idiot & blame her for reproducing with a man of this caliber also, since we know only stupid women would marry or procreate with a loser. So, I can see why you have little empathy for her current situation & fully support the school in firing her ass rather than finding a more christian solution.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 17, 2013 12:31:47 GMT -5
The school already had a process in place to get extra security on campus on very short notice, now why do you think that is the case? My guess is because they have a lot of schools & merely called neighboring schools to have them send over their security. Seems like if this was a regular occurance, they would have mentioned that in the letter. That seems a lot more relevent to her firing that stuff that happened 20 years earlier in alaska. If we are trying to prove a pattern, then show a pattern relevent to their fears of him coming to school, not by what he did in his early 20's in previous relationships. I actually don't think this is the case because they would have arrested him much sooner. I am a little confused because I have read about this being a temporary restraining order & also read that it has been in place since the divorce. But, supposedly the restraining order only limited him to contact regarding the children. So I am either guessing that the restraining was not temporary & that all weekend contact was done under the guise of contact regarding the children. Which meant it was legit, but didn't mean he didn't cause problems. So the police couldn't arrest him in violation of the order, but it might have been enough to scare her. Or, I think more likely after the 3 incidents over the weekend she got the temporary order & this was the first violation of it. Here temporary orders only last 10 days, so this explaination makes more sense to me. Regardless, we are both making assuptions & judging what happened based on those assumptions. Based on what we do know, it seems like an overreaction. It is possible there is more we do not know, but neither of us know if that is actually the case. You are simply assuming there is more to this & I am assuming there is not.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 17, 2013 12:40:45 GMT -5
I actually don't think this is the case because they would have arrested him much sooner. I was confused as well. The article said that they had "a bad weekend" with him and had called the police multiple times. How many times in one weekend do you need to call the police on someone before you get some protection? What a nightmare!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 17, 2013 12:43:28 GMT -5
We know nothing of the sort.
If Charlesworth's showing up at the school would have been a non-event had Mrs. Charlesworth not said anything, then Mrs. Charlesworth is better off not saying anything. I agree with you.
But why is her silence a bad thing in your mind? Because it "puts everyone more at risk because schools won't be on the lookout & the guy could easily enter". Yet according to you, Charlesworth showing up would have been one big non-event. So why would we assume that everything works out better if Mrs. Charlesworth says nothing in this case, but simultaneously assume that the children/staff are at greater risk the next time a raging ex-husband shows up to an unaware school?
I understand the tradeoff between two types of error:
I. next victim notifies school; benign ex-husband shows up; victim is fired despite non-event II. next victim doesn't notify school; malicious ex-husband shows up; school is unprepared and unpleasantness ensues
and that the possibility of I being true in this case (which we don't know) might inspire future victims to reevaluate the relative likelihood of the two errors.
This tradeoff is always going to exist. It exists because we want to avoid putting students and staff at risk in future. We do not 'fix' the problem with a solution that presently puts students and staff at risk.
#1 was apple's suggestion. I have no problem with it, but it hinges on a job opening that quite possibly doesn't exist without firing somebody. If by #2 you mean they could have moved her to another school in the diocese, there's absolutely no logic to this. They'd already identified her as a threat to student safety in the San Diego diocese. If you mean they could have moved her to another city where the risk was mitigated (which again presumes the existence of a job opening), it would to the receiving diocese to engage in their own risk assessment and determine if bringing her on was worth the risk. Hence you'd be blaming the wrong people.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 17, 2013 12:58:25 GMT -5
We know nothing of the sort. Wait...You are saying that if the school did not have the information regarding the restraining order & he drove through the parking lot, she still would have been fired? Seriously? Why would a parent driving through a parking lot create any attention, much less require the firing of the ex-spouse?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Jun 17, 2013 13:03:51 GMT -5
We know nothing of the sort. Wait...You are saying that if the school did not have the information regarding the restraining order & he drove through the parking lot, she still would have been fired? Seriously? Why would a parent driving through a parking lot create any attention, much less require the firing of the ex-spouse? Maybe they suspected he was going to get out of his car. If there was no risk of that happening and it was all just mass hysteria, hopefully the next victim won't notify his/her employers and spark mass hysteria for nothing.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 17, 2013 13:08:07 GMT -5
Wait...You are saying that if the school did not have the information regarding the restraining order & he drove through the parking lot, she still would have been fired? Seriously? Why would a parent driving through a parking lot create any attention, much less require the firing of the ex-spouse? Maybe they suspected he was going to get out of his car. If there was no risk of that happening and it was all just mass hysteria, hopefully the next victim won't notify his/her employers and spark mass hysteria for nothing. And?....I think we are talking about two different things here. I am saying that had she never notified the school of the restraining order & he had proceed to do exactly what he did - drive through the lot, then should would not have lost her job. Are you saying this is untrue? Why would they be worried about him getting out of his car if they had no knowledge of a restraining order? ETA - also you are exactly right, the next victim won't notify the school regardless of risk. Why risk losing my job to prevent a possible incident if I am going to get fired regardless of whether an incident occurs.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Jun 17, 2013 13:15:59 GMT -5
Angel! - with respect to the security - I can't speak for that area but in the Chicago area Catholic schools do not have ANY security - there is no calling the school one town over for backup, there simply is none. That is the point I was trying to make (obviously not very clearly) is that the norm is for there to be NO security at all. For the school to have made arrangements to get extra security there is pretty extraordinary.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jun 17, 2013 13:36:18 GMT -5
Again, this guy has a 20 year history of violence and disreagarding the law. Only a fool would think 6 months in jail is going to change that. It seems that as you see all women who marry loser men as morons who don't love their children, you also see all abusers as vindictive psychos plotting to shoot up public places to take revenge on their ex's. You seem to have an unusual & very negative view on much of the world. But, seeing as how this is your belief, then their is nothing I can say to otherwise show you that it is ridiculous to think the children were in danger simply because he violated the restraining order by driving through a parking lot 1 time in the two years since a divorce. But, you have your opinion & I have mine. I am guessing you also think she is an idiot & blame her for reproducing with a man of this caliber also, since we know only stupid women would marry or procreate with a loser. So, I can see why you have little empathy for her current situation & fully support the school in firing her ass rather than finding a more christian solution. So, you can't refute the argument and instead are restorting to personal attacks. Typical of you.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 17, 2013 13:40:01 GMT -5
Angel! - with respect to the security - I can't speak for that area but in the Chicago area Catholic schools do not have ANY security - there is no calling the school one town over for backup, there simply is none. That is the point I was trying to make (obviously not very clearly) is that the norm is for there to be NO security at all. For the school to have made arrangements to get extra security there is pretty extraordinary. There are places that will send over a security officer for the day, given an hour notice or so. It isn't even really that expensive. So, maybe they have a contingency plan in place for this type of situation, and know which phone number to dial. It may or may not be a big deal.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jun 17, 2013 13:44:49 GMT -5
This isn't necessairly the case. He shows up, she calls the police, and he leaves before the police arrive, since he's already succeeded in his objective of scaring the crap out of his ex wife. At that point, it becomes a case of 'He said she said'. The police can't just arrest a guy without any proof that he violated the restraining order, and it is not unheard of for women to make false reports or make an honest mistake.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jun 17, 2013 13:53:34 GMT -5
You know, come to think of it, a children's hosptial would need to keep a few teachers on staff. And between drugs, kid touchers, and crazy divorce situations, they'd already have some pretty extensive security in place.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jun 17, 2013 13:56:14 GMT -5
I didn't realize that she had been there 14 yrs. I thought it was more of a new employee situation. So, the fact that she was a long term employee and they just canned her is a bit disturbing. It really demonstrates that your only loyalty should be to yourself because they will just kick you out the door like yesterday's trash.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jun 17, 2013 14:00:31 GMT -5
Personally, I'd rather loose my job than loose my life and leave my kids without a mother. The ex sounds like a scary piece of work.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jun 17, 2013 14:01:16 GMT -5
Personally, I'd rather loose my job than loose my life and leave my kids without a mother. The ex sounds like a scary piece of work. Well, if you lose your job, how do you take care of your kids?
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jun 17, 2013 14:03:05 GMT -5
Angel! - with respect to the security - I can't speak for that area but in the Chicago area Catholic schools do not have ANY security - there is no calling the school one town over for backup, there simply is none. That is the point I was trying to make (obviously not very clearly) is that the norm is for there to be NO security at all. For the school to have made arrangements to get extra security there is pretty extraordinary. There are places that will send over a security officer for the day, given an hour notice or so. It isn't even really that expensive. So, maybe they have a contingency plan in place for this type of situation, and know which phone number to dial. It may or may not be a big deal. Do you have any idea how limited the budgets of most Catholic schools are? Heck, I'd be willing to bet this woman could make better pay stocking shelves a the local Walmart than working at a Catholic school.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,762
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 17, 2013 14:04:39 GMT -5
I understand that, but I could see even the most meager of schools deciding to spend $200 for the day.
|
|
formerroomate99
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 12, 2011 13:33:12 GMT -5
Posts: 7,381
|
Post by formerroomate99 on Jun 17, 2013 14:06:44 GMT -5
Personally, I'd rather loose my job than loose my life and leave my kids without a mother. The ex sounds like a scary piece of work. Well, if you lose your job, how do you take care of your kids? How was she taking care of her kids before? Do you have any idea how poorly the Catholic schools pay?
|
|