Wells Fargo fires employee for 1972 shoplifting conviction! The banksters can kiss my ass!

[Better Believe It]

Wells Fargo fires employee for '72 shoplifting conviction
By Tom Murray , WTMJ News Team
May 7, 2012

MILWAUKEE — A Milwaukee woman is now unemployed after Wells Fargo, her employer, discovered she committed a crime more than 40 years ago.

Yolanda Quesada was fired when a background check revealed she shoplifted in 1972.

Quesada says she was a good employee, and has the pins, certificates and photos to prove it. But her supervisor walked her out the door last week after more than five years of service at Wells Fargo.

"I think there's more important things in life than something I did 40 years ago," Quesada says.

See the TV interview at:

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/07/11578176-wells-fargo-fires-employee-for-72-shoplifting-conviction?lite

[SidDithers]

1. Did she lie about her previous conviction when she began her employment with Wells Fargo?...nt

Sid

[villager]

5. I guess lying is only encouraged if you're going straight for an executive position?

[SidDithers]

10. Have you never been asked "Do you have any prior convictions" when applying for a job?...nt

Sid

[RebelOne]

17. Never. n/t

[littlewolf]

60. every job I have ever held ....nt

[Honeycombe8]

80. All apps I remember ask about prior convictions...can't recall if they're limited to felonies

or include misdemeanors, too. I don't have either, so I didn't pay much attention to that.

[DevonRex]

15. I think Sid's point is that

perhaps she would have been hired and not been fired had she told the truth about that 40-year-old shoplifting offense. Most of us did really stupid stuff when we were kids. Most of us got away with it. Some of us got caught. But we all have to own up to those things as adults, whether we got caught or not.

When we do, it's a freeing experience. Although I absolutely understand, in this job market, not wanting to jeopardize getting hired in the first place.

Edited to take out the part where I said shame on the bank, etc., since they apparently had no choice given FDIC regulations about lying on her application about past convictions. Sad all around.

[villager]

21. Actually, we don't have the slightest idea, do we? It's all conjecture on Sid's part.

But obviously, the consequences of "lying"-- about something she may have legitimately thought was expunged from her record at this point -- are different for her than for a CEO.

[DevonRex]

24. No. It's right. It has to do with FDIC. In order for the deposits to be insured

they have to abide by certain regs. BBI thinks they could have just stayed quiet but that's silly. They have certain measures in place to check records and those are audited by FDIC inspectors regularly, just like other govt inspectors audit other records regularly. It would have been found.

Then where would all the depositors be? Uninsured. Personally, I would never bank at a bank again. I use a credit union and would advise everyone to do the same. But it's still insured and I expect them to follow all procedures accordingly to keep my money somewhat safeguarded.

Hopefully this woman will be gainfully employed in no time at all. It sounds like she made a mistake when she applied. Now she knows better. And it sounds like she has been a really good employee the entire time.

[Major Nikon]

57. How is it conjecture?

He asked a question. He didn't express an opinion.

It's a very valid question. Getting fired for lying on your job application is quite common. 5 years after the fact also tells me the odds are good that this employee was a fuck up and they were looking for a reason to fire them anyway.

And no, the rules really aren't all that much different. Even CEOs are subject to firing if they lie on their application.

[msanthrope]

6. Well, don't bring facts into the outrage Sid...she was fired for lying, since the crime itself would

probably fall under the de minimus exceptions to the FDIC statutes.

She probably didn't disclose...a 40 year old shoplifting conviction would have allowed her to claim de minimus or waiver under FDIC.

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. While her 40 year old conviction may have fallen under the de minimus exceptions ...

In the case of most financial institutions, it would have excluded her from employment consideration.

The reality of recruitments has it that ANY convictions, especially those involving theft means the application gets no further consideration.

[DevonRex]

18. Wow, so they legally had to fire her?

That's a whole different story, then. Now I have to edit slightly. Thankfully only slightly.

[msanthrope]

65. Yes. They did. nt

[sabrina 1]

30. Why would that be a problem with Wells Fargo? Isn't lying part of how you rise to the top

there? Her only mistake was not becoming a CEO. Then she could have lied and stolen, as they have my friend being one of their many victims, with nothing but accolades and huge bonuses.

[Art_from_Ark]

55. To paraphrase the theme song from Baretta:

If you're gonna do the crime, go for the big time

[hobbit709]

62. The only thing I was ever asked was if I had been convicted of any felonies.

To that I could truthfully say no.

[joshcryer]

78. She may have forgotten, and therefore did not in fact lie.

[Cerridwen]

97. No.

Rick says he disclosed his conviction. Yolanda didn't because she was only asked if she'd committed any felonies. Her crimes were misdemeanors. And she's being punished again four decades down the road. "I think I should get it back because it's something I did 40 years ago. I paid for it, I've changed my life."

From this link

Please note also, this has happened to many employees even though they had reported their convictions at the time of their hire.

This is happening because of new federal regulations.

[CurtEastPoint]

2. And GET THIS: ""We are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing...

...the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust," a spokesman for Wells Fargo told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

WHAT ABOUT THEIR UPPER MGMT FUCKING THIEVES?

[Better Believe It]

4. Federal laws don't apply to millionaire banking executives.

[msanthrope]

14. Actually, they do apply equally. The irony here is that she didn't disclose a crime

that would not have prevented her from getting a job in banking...her concealment, however, is a crime.

[Better Believe It]

44. What outrageous crime did she commit that would prohibit her from handling banking funds?

Oh .... she wasn't handling banking accounts.

However, she might steal a pencil or a roll of toilet paper out of the restroom.

Off with her head!

Blacklist her from the banking industry .... meanwhile the real crooks on Wall Street go free.

And yes, the banksters are allowed to lie on their resumes.

Does anyone here think banking executives don't lie or conceal information on their employment "applications"?

But we are talking about two classes of justice, one for ordinary working people and another for corrupt Wall Street and big business tycoons.

The same rules don't apply.

It's all about class.

[Politicalboi]

3. I love this

"We are bound by federal law that generally prohibits us from hiring or continuing the employment of any person who we know has a criminal record involving dishonesty or breach of trust," a spokesman for Wells Fargo told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Unless of course WE do it.

This woman might start thinking of writing a book. I'm sure she could open our eyes to tactics that we never thought a bank would do.

[haele]

7. Stupid teen/early twenties type youth action gets you fired 40 years later?

She's a totally different person than she was at 17-something to 20-something. And with a name like Quesada, she could have been charged with shoplifting for any reason at that time - Minority employees were regularly charged with theft or with shoplifting without an investigation if the cash register drawer or inventory came up short up through the 1980's - I had a black classmate who was fired from her student job at a local five and dime chain for theft/embezzlement when the drawer she and three other employees had been working came up short in 1979. Charges were filed, but later dropped very quickly when her parents hired a lawyer instead of letting her plead guilty or go through a public defender.

We heard through the grapevine through another friend who worked there that particular cash register still had a tendency to come up short $10 or $20 a week even after Pat was fired. Almost a year later, a nice white lady who had worked there forever suddenly decided it was time to retire early, and the loss at that register stopped.

Haele

[msanthrope]

12. No--failing to disclose it does. Under FDIC rules, her conviction could have been waived

or given de minimus exception...

What she didn't do was tell Wells Fargo...and they don't have much of choice.

[Better Believe It]

19. Please don't defend and try to justify the banksters mistreatment of working people.

Because in my opinion that is exactly what you have done in accepting their arguments in defense of their cruel treatment. I don't think Well Fargo appealed to the government for an exemption and they certainly didn't even have to raise it the issue to begin with.

Do you really think they feared the "mighty arm" of government regulators who would hammer them for "failing" to fire her when the government turns a blind eye to massive criminal activity and theft of banksters?

And if she had "confessed" 35 years later to her terrible crime against the high moral standards of the rich banksters, Wells Fargo would not have hired her!

That's how modern day "free market" capitalism operates for working class people.

You're damed if you do and damed if you don't.

[sabrina 1]

32. There is no defense for this, please stop trying to excuse it.

Wells Fargo did not disclose to my friend that they used robo-signing to forge documents to take away her home. One on many illegally fore-closed-on homes. Looks like they will get away with it also, a deal having been made because they are 'too big to fail'. Yes, she will be offered a small sum of money under that deal. Which she will refuse as it is an insult.

So, according to them they must abide by the law??? I don't think I've laughed as much in weeks.

[guardian]

85. I am sorry for your friend's situation.

Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 10:54 AM - Edit history (1)

But I suspect the main reason she is losing her home is that she didn't pay several month's of mortgage payments; and wasn't able to bring the account current.

[haele]

34. I just went through a Government security clearance process - there are appeals processes

and I've filled out many a financial disclosure form or background check form.

If she didn't disclose because she could have forgotten a conviction that happened in the hazy past, there is a point that she could say "aw, shit - it was 40 years ago, I was just a stupid kid, got the scare of my life at the time, paid my fine and the store back, and then I forgot about that episode..." - especially something that is frankly such a minor charge that she probably never went to jail, just went to court and paid a fine.
At that point the conviction was discovered (way past the statute of limitations, BTW), she must provide a legitimate and reasonable justification for not stating that information, and request an exception for the conviction on the grounds that it is not applicable to her present employment, just as she would had she put it on her disclosure form.

Most employers don't require you to put down any convictions other than felony convictions (Shoplifting is a misdemenor in most places - even back when I was a tad in the 1960's...)- or if you are in a position of fiduciary trust - embezzlement, misapplication or fraud.

I know the argument - rules is rulez - but it seems as if Wells Fargo had another reason to get rid of her, and used this as the excuse.

Haele

[slackmaster]

28. Title 12 USC § 1829 has no statute of limitations. Prior approval of the FDIC would be required...

...for any bank to hire her.

[msanthrope]

8. I don't have a problem with FDIC regulations....she would have qualified for waiver, or

de minimus exception had she disclosed the conviction.

Wells Fargo doesn't have much of choice here....and I despise them, it pains me to say that.

[Better Believe It]

22. "Wells Fargo doesn't have much of choice here" Yes they did!

Wells Fargo officials could have kept their mouths shut and done nothing or they could have appealed to the Obama administration to make an exemption in this case.

Do you really think President Obama would have turned down such an appeal and supported her firing in this election year???!!!!

That's not how things work in DC or in the White House in this type of case.

[slackmaster]

31. You would prefer it if Wells Fargo lied to federal regulators about it? Only the FDIC..

...can grant an exception for a situation like this. The President has no authority to direct the FDIC to do anything.

[Better Believe It]

45. Yes. "The President has no authority ...." I know. Obama is powerless and has no influence ....

with federal bank regulators.

Right.

Only Republican presidents have vast powers and influence.

Sure. That's the ticket!

And Wells Fargo could not or should not have appealed to federal regulators and/or the Obama administration to leave her alone.

Is that your position?

Are you presenting your strongest argument in defense of Wall Street?

[SidDithers]

49. Is it your position that every company should appeal to...

the Obama administration, every time they have an employee who lies about their prior shoplifting convictions?

Sid

[slackmaster]

50. The law is very specific. There is no provision for exceptions to 12 USC § 1829 after the fact.

For an FDIC-insured institution to be able to LEGALLY hire someone with that kind of criminal background, prior written approval from the FDIC is required.

Who was the President of the United States five years ago?

[SidDithers]

53. Damn you and your inconvenient facts!!...

Don't you realize this is outrage based entirely on emotion?

This thread, and the replies by the OP and their fanboys and girls, is the perfect example of truthiness in action.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

67. Don't YOU realize that Wells Fargo claiming they must abide by the law, is simply laughable in the

US. No emotion involved, we are now a lawless country, at least where war criminals and Wall Street criminals are concerned. Maybe pay a visit to the US sometime and tell some random people this story, which I did today and watch the reaction, unless of course they are far right wingers, who will always defend the banks.

Just about everyone who has heard this story see it as a reminder of how Wells Fargo and the rest of the crooked banks got away with the biggest bank heist in history.

They should never have fired her, all it has done is remind everyone that we are still waiting for the prosecutions.

[treestar]

66. How could the President have time to take up every single case?

The bureaucracy will handle it.

And if the lady didn't disclose her conviction when she easily could have and avoided the problem, whose fault is that?

And maybe she can appeal and claim she didn't know it still counted.

[Better Believe It]

71. I'm looking forward to Obama taking up a single case. This would be a good one. After all, he

did describe himself as a "warrior for the working class".

[treestar]

73. You're asking for a Peron or Castro like situation

Where they take up a few well known cases, but that doesn't necessarily help any but just the few who were noticed.

Of course the President can't handle every single case. Should he do your tax return, too?

[Codeine]

36. Oh good lord. nt

[SidDithers]

38. And there it is...

'It's Obama's fault this woman was fired!!'



Sid

[joshcryer]

79. I'd rather the banks follow the laws.

But in this case certainly something could've been done, because I can't fault the woman for potentially forgetting about something 40 years ago. The fact that the background check at her initial employment didn't bring it up causes me to think someone was out to get her.

[Better Believe It]

82. When that happens let me know!

[slackmaster]

88. I would have more sympathy for her if her excuse was "I'm sorry, that was so long ago I forgot!"

Instead her line is that it's no big deal. She admits that she intentionally failed to disclose the conviction.

[SidDithers]

89. Convictions. Plural...

From the video she admits there were 2 convictions.

Sid

[joshcryer]

101. I was not aware of that. If she admitted that it was an intentional avoidance to disclose...

...then she should be fired.

[Robb]

9. If a bank is FDIC insured, they can't employ her by law.

I hate Wells Fargo perhaps more than the next guy. But this is the same for all banks that are FDIC insured.

[msanthrope]

13. Well, they can employ her--if she discloses it. Her crime would have either

qualified for waiver, or gone under the FDIC de minimus exception.....at least, that's my reading of the statute.

It's not completely draconian. But failure to disclose is taken seriously.

[Codeine]

11. No, she was fired for lying on her application. nt

[Better Believe It]

23. So what?

So have I in order to get a job with some big corporation!

Millions of workers have to do that in order to avoid corporate "blacklisting" and discrimination.

The banks and big corporations lie to us and their employees all of the time.

And that is accepted as "free market" capitalism.

[RockaFowler]

26. What took them so long??

They did a background check on me before I was hired. Not when I worked here for 5 years

[slackmaster]

29. Banks are routinely doing deep background checks on current employees

The regulatory environment is tough, with all of the recent mortgage-related problems and identity theft incidents.

[RockaFowler]

33. Thanks for this

I had no idea

It seems it should have been caught 5 years ago, though

[sabrina 1]

41. How deep are the background checks they're doing on their CEOs?

This is laughable. We no longer live in a country that respects the law. War criminals, torturers, Economic criminals, all get bailed out and excused of their crimes.

But one woman has a 'deep background check' reveal a crime she committed forty years ago and all of a sudden, Wells Fargo of all people, has to abide by the law? Too funny, I can't see too many people buying this.

Let's subject all Wells Fargo employees and their Law mills and especially their CEOs to these 'deep background checks', in fact we don't have to go too deep when it comes to Wells Fargo, and if they apply the law to the criminals who are working for them, then this can be taken seriously. Until then, the law should be applied to her in the same it has been applied to them.

[slackmaster]

42. Much deeper than the checks done on employees who don't handle cash

It' easy to make an empty claim that bank CEOs aren't subjected to a rigorous vetting process. Backing up such a claim with verifiable information would make a truly great post.

ETA a basic employee background check runs about $50. Executive candidate checks run into the thousands, and include extensive checks for things like involvement in regulatory actions, professional licenses, civil complaints, potential conflicts of interest, and a whole lot of other things that employers don't bother with for low-level workers.

[sabrina 1]

69. Well, they apparently didn't get their money's worth. The crooked CEOs are still collecting millions

and have suffered zero consequences for all the victims they created. Not to mention they have the US Government covering for their crimes, making deals to get them off the hook. Until those issues are resolved, Wells Fargo would do well to reinstate this woman. Firing her has simply reminded people of their own top level corruption that cost thousands of Americans their homes.

[slackmaster]

93. The law can't do anything about it until they are convicted of crimes

HTH

Until those issues are resolved, Wells Fargo would do well to reinstate this woman.

There is no legal avenue for Wells Fargo to reinstate her. When she failed to disclose her convictions on her job application five years ago, she sealed her own fate.

[Better Believe It]

46. I agree. The banksters are having a really tough time now. My thoughts and prayers are with them.

Last edited Mon May 7, 2012, 11:06 PM - Edit history (1)

[slackmaster]

54. Times are tough for liars, too

[Better Believe It]

72. Unless you're rich and a CEO bankster.

[slackmaster]

27. Both, actually.

It's against federal law for a bank to knowingly hire someone with a conviction for "any criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust or money laundering..."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/1829

[Rex]

20. It is a lesson to all Americans!

If you really REALLY want to commit a crime...make sure it is so outrageously huge (SEE savings & loans scandal) that you will not only be rewarded for it, but might seek an elected office to run for! Or at least own a bank or two.

[slackmaster]

25. A bank can be fined up to $1 million per day for hiring someone with a theft conviction...

...without prior written consent of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/1829

If you think an injustice has been done here, complain to your representatives in Congress. Wells Fargo, as big and mean as they are, have to comply with the law. Compared with the criminal organization known as Bank of America, Wells Fargo is a big fuzzy bunny.

[Better Believe It]

47. "Wells Fargo is a big fuzzy bunny." As demonstrated by this firing!

[slackmaster]

51. The law is very clear. Wells Fargo had no choice but to terminate her.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12/1829

"Wells Fargo is a big fuzzy bunny."

Quoting someone out of context like that is rude. I actually wrote this:

Compared with the criminal organization known as Bank of America, Wells Fargo is a big fuzzy bunny.

[Better Believe It]

58. You're right. ""Wells Fargo is a big fuzzy bunny" compared to other banks.

They just love their employees!

So this "big fuzzy bunny" appealed for an exemption from government regulators so they didn't "have to" fire her .... is that right?

If they made no effort to keep her, where was the fuzzy, wuzzy of this cuddly bunny Wells Fargo?

Perhaps you meant "fuzzy tyrannosaurs"!

[slackmaster]

61. There is no provision in 12 USC § 1829 for a bank to seek approval after the fact.

Prior approval from the FDIC is required by the law, which has been in place since the FDR administration.

If you an prove otherwise, I'll concede that Wells Fargo could have legally chosen a different course of action.

[SidDithers]

63. I admire your patience and perseverance...

in trying to reply calmly, and with facts and information.

I fear, however, your time could be better spent on almost anything else.

Sid

[slackmaster]

64. Yeah, I'm going to make myself a nice salad for dinner. I have fresh avocados and grapefruit.

Maybe add some bacon bits, a little good lettuce, fresh Roma tomato wedges, and a homemade dressing.

[Better Believe It]

74. Do you have any more effective arguments in defense of patriotic Wall Street do-gooder bankers?

[slackmaster]

76. You're arguing against one of our most important consumer protection laws.

A cornerstone of the New Deal.

I'm finished with this discussion. If you don't like the law, take it up with Congress.

[Jello Biafra]

35. I'm sorry, but if this woman was not Hispanic this would have not been an issue....n/t

My racist flag got activated. Just like Latoya Hudson and the firing because of her credit score.

[slackmaster]

37. If Wells Fargo's issue with her was based on her Hispanic heritage, why did they hire her?

Your post makes no sense.

[Jello Biafra]

39. They have to hire her that is the law.....

however, because of her heritage, she would not be likely to get a pass because of something 40 years ago.

[slackmaster]

40. Wells Fargo doesn't legally have the option of giving her a pass. Now that they are aware...

...of the conviction, they face a fine of up to $1 million per day for keeping her employed. It's a provision of the act that created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

[Better Believe It]

48. And how many times have big banks ever been fined for not firing a low level employee ....

on this kind of technicality?

Answer.

Never.

I've heard enough lame arguments in defense of Wall Street banksters.

[slackmaster]

52. Please provide a credible source to back up your factoid.

TIA

[Better Believe It]

56. Can you provide any evidence that any bank has ever been fined a million bucks or less for that?

I couldn't find any.

But, perhaps you're more skilled at using search engines than me and can find such cases.

I'm be looking for any additional ammunition you might want to post in defense of Wall Street banksters.

That is what you're trying to do .... right?

Or am I mistaken?

[slackmaster]

59. I did check. It seems the law has often been enforced against non-profits and other small players.

Big banks, not so much. But it's still the law.

I'm be looking for any additional ammunition you might want to post in defense of Wall Street banksters.

That is what you're trying to do .... right?

Or am I mistaken?

You are mistaken. I hate big banks as much as anyone else on DU. I'm being actively victimized by one at this very moment - Bank of America.

Why are you defending a documented liar who is a convicted thief? My checking account and an equity line of credit happen to be at Wells Fargo Bank. I don't want a criminal working there.

[sabrina 1]

68. Why would you still be dealing with Wells Fargo? They stole my friends home, illegally.

And she is one of their tens of thousands of victims. I do not want to do business with a bank that robs people of their homes and who hired crooked law mills like Stephen Bauer eg. The least you have to worry about with Wells Fargo is someone like this woman. Hard to believe you are not aware of the corruption they are guilty of.

The government has acknowledged the theft of my friend's home, among thousands of others. They are hoping she will settle rather than sue Wells Fargo. She won't, no way is she willing to accept a 'settlement' that can in no way make up for the theft of her home. Can't imagine why you are worried this minsicule issue, when the major crimes committed against customers of that bank will take years to resolve.

[slackmaster]

70. A few reasons, but first I must say I'm sorry about your friend's home.

1. Over more than two decades, every bank or S&L I"ve chosen to
do business with has ended up being acquired by Wells Fargo, including a bank where I worked for eight years. Because of that background I still have useful relationships within WFB..

2. Doing all of my banking through one interface saves me a lot of hassle.

3. I am able to keep balances high enough to avoid usurious fees.

4. Wells Fargo has treated me well as a customer, for well over 20 years.

5. Wells Fargo is Bank of America's biggest competitor in this market, and I hate BOA with a passion.

HTH

[sabrina 1]

75. Thank you. They did not treat my friend well, despite her being a good customer for a long time.

But like you, she did not start out being a customer of theirs, her original bank was taken over by them, along with her mortgage.

I understand the convenience, she did too, until it was convenient for them to refuse to even answer a phone call from her. So, I hope you never become a victim. We do all of our banking now with Community Banks and/or Credit Unions. No longer trust these Big Banks. I've seen too many victims and if the European crisis deepens, as it probably will, those are the Banks that will be most affected.

I truly hope that doesn't happen and that you continue to have no problems with them. But personally after seeing how they treated people, like my friend, I would never trust them. The workers are a different story, they are usually very nice people and for their sake I hope Europe succeeds in overcoming the damage done there by Wall Street.

[slackmaster]

86. My HELOC was originated at Wells Fargo. Refinincing it at another institution would not be possible,

at least not now, because of the damage that Bank of America has done to my credit scores with its false and illegal derogatory credit reporting that falsely shows me as a borrower on my ex-wife's credit card. BTW, I've gotten that removed from one of the bureaus and am hammering on the other two. I won't stop until the damage is removed.

I have pro-actively alerted Wells Fargo about the situation with BOA long before my ex-wife went delinquent on her Visa card payments to try to make sure Wells doesn't cut my credit line. Many banks have done to equity line consumers as a result of falling home values and credit scores. The Wells Fargo mortgage people welcomed my disclosure and assured me, in writing, that as long as I make the required payments on time on all of my Wells Fargo obligations (the HELOC and a MasterCard that I use rarely,) I won't be at any risk of a credit line reduction.

That's very important to me - the HELOC (with its limit of more than $200 K) is a component of my emergency reserves. If I have a sudden need to buy a car, or a big out-of-pocket medical expense, or some other unforeseen emergency, the HELOC would allow me to borrow the money at a low rate as opposed to putting the charge on a credit card, or taking a premature distribution from a retirement account.

I don't trust Wells Fargo like I do a family member or personal friend, but in my case they are the devil I know.

[Better Believe It]

77. What a slimy and shameful personal attack you have made on this victimized worker at Wells Fargo!

Last edited Tue May 8, 2012, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

You should be ashamed of yourself.

It's not excusable.

And you call yourself a progressive?

That's it for me.

For the first time ever on DU I must place a poster on total ignore for taking the side of big business and Wall Street against working people.

There is a growing conflict in America between the 1% filthy rich and the rest of us and your posts clearly indicate you're on the wrong side in this conflict.

I don't want to read any more of your lame posts in defense of Wall Street and corporate American tycoons when they attack ordinary working people as in this case.

Therefore you're now on my ignore list.

Bye.

[SidDithers]

81. Who didn't see that coming?...

Sid

[FSogol]

99. LOL. I wish we had kept a running count.

Who many on ignore? 28k? 43K? Who can tell?

[slackmaster]

84. If the "progressive" ideology means letting unrepentant thieves and liars work for banks,

I'll have nothing to do with it. BTW, I don't know where you got the idea that I call myself progressive. I never have. I consider myself a moderate, a centrist. I think for myself, adopt the ideas of others when they make sense, and reject those that don't make sense.

There is a growing conflict in America between the 1% filthy rich and the rest of us and you're posts clearly indicate you're on the wrong side in this conflict.

Isn't the real conflict between those who take things that they don't deserve, vs. those who don't?

For the first time ever on DU I have must place a poster on total ignore for taking the side of big business and Wall Street against working people.

Big business and Wall Street didn't write the law. Congress did at a time when our nation was in the worst financial crisis in history, and I expect banks to abide by it. If the story had been about Wells Fargo covering for her and NOT firing her (or any other employee at any level who was found out to have done something similar,) I'd be very pissed at Wells Fargo.

I don't want to read any more of your lame posts in defense of Wall Street and corporate American tycoons when they attack ordinary working people as in this case.

Wall Street tycoons didn't do anything to Yolanda Quesada other than what the LAW required, and I haven't said a single word in their defense. She did it to herself by making two very bad decisions - One 40 years ago, the other five years ago. Is she someone who can be counted on not to lie or steal again in the future when it happens to be convenient or doesn't seem like a big deal to her?

Connect the dots!

[Liberal_in_LA]

43. that will teach her!

[Mr Dixon]

83. IMO

This the beginning of the end for all valueless personnel according to the banks, Wells-NO-go, Bastards of America and shitty group are all going to pull crap like this, replace people with automation, more money less overhead.

[slackmaster]

87. Corporations in general stopped treating people as valued assets about 30 years ago

My stepfather was an engineer in the aerospace industry. He served in the Navy from 1934 to 1956, and landed his position at Convair immediately. He never worked anywhere else until his retirement in 1987.

He was laid off a few times due to lack of work. During the brief layoffs (none longer than five weeks) he was allowed to use the library and other facilities at Convair. He was free to look for other work, or wait until Convair got more contracts (which it always did back in those days.) Upon re-hire, his benefits and seniority were always grandfathered without question.

He had a nice defined-benefit retirement plan and a generous stock purchase plan. My mom is financially secure now partly because of those perquisites. All of that with NO UNION REPRESENTATION, EVER.

I'm 54 years old. I started working in 1981, and have never experienced that kind of relationship with an employer. I can't think of a single person in my peer group who does. Maybe one, a friend who works for DHS and is now located in Bonn, Germany. But what used to be the norm for US workers is long gone.

It's not just the banks. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

BTW, this thread isn't really about that. It's about a person who stole in her youth, got caught and convicted, lied about it on a job application, and now thinks it shouldn't be a big deal even though long-standing federal law is quite strict and clear on her ineligibility to have ANY job at a bank without prior approval from the FDIC.

[Mr Dixon]

92. Really

I beg to differ the article may have hoped that people would latch on to 40 years ago as the headline, but as pervious mentioned background checks only go back 10 years at the most. So this is a classic “watch the right hand and pay no attention to what the left hand is doing” people siding with the banks and corporations baffle me. This whole mentality of as long as I get mine screw everybody else seems more Freeper then DU but that is just my opinion. This lady worked in customer service answering calls, no money touched her hands, yet people are co-signing the banks decisions? The governments made them do it? AYFKM. These crooks robbed the entire world not just this country and they would do it again given the opportunity, so miss me with they had to do it crap. In fact that banks and big business always spin the stories to get the most naive among us to parrot their cause.

[slackmaster]

94. I haven't "sided" with banks or corporations here. I have pointed out repeatedly what the law says.

I expect EVERYONE, including banks, corporations, and individuals, to abide by the law.

This lady worked in customer service answering calls, no money touched her hands, yet people are co-signing the banks decisions?

The law that applies in this situation makes no distinction between positions that involve handling cash and those that do not.

Here it is again. The term "Corporation" refers to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

12 USC § 1829 - Penalty for unauthorized participation by convicted individual

Current through Pub. L. 112-90. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
(a) Prohibition
(1) In general
Except with the prior written consent of the Corporation—
(A) any person who has been convicted of any criminal offense involving dishonesty or a breach of trust or money laundering, or has agreed to enter into a pretrial diversion or similar program in connection with a prosecution for such offense, may not—
(i) become, or continue as, an institution-affiliated party with respect to any insured depository institution;
(ii) own or control, directly or indirectly, any insured depository institution; or
(iii) otherwise participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of any insured depository institution; and
(B) any insured depository institution may not permit any person referred to in subparagraph (A) to engage in any conduct or continue any relationship prohibited under such subparagraph.
(2) Minimum 10-year prohibition period for certain offenses
(A) In general
If the offense referred to in paragraph (1)(A) in connection with any person referred to in such paragraph is—
(i) an offense under—
(I) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, [1] 1014, 1032, 1344, 1517, 1956, or 1957 of title 18; or
(II) section 1341 or 1343 of such title which affects any financial institution (as defined in section 20 of such title); or
(ii) the offense of conspiring to commit any such offense,
the Corporation may not consent to any exception to the application of paragraph (1) to such person during the 10-year period beginning on the date the conviction or the agreement of the person becomes final.
(B) Exception by order of sentencing court
(i) In general On motion of the Corporation, the court in which the conviction or the agreement of a person referred to in subparagraph (A) has been entered may grant an exception to the application of paragraph (1) to such person if granting the exception is in the interest of justice.
(ii) Period for filing A motion may be filed under clause (i) at any time during the 10-year period described in subparagraph (A) with regard to the person on whose behalf such motion is made.
(b) Penalty
Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a) of this section shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 for each day such prohibition is violated or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.

[Mr Dixon]

96. SMH

Stop please stop, those laws are created for peasants, they do not apply to CEO’s. You completely washed over the fact that this crime happened 40 years ago, I’m 40 and I can’t even begin to tell you what I did at 5 years old. This is not about the law it’s about the money, who has 40 years worth of records on anybody? There was a time when statute of limitations for rape was like 10 years your tell me 40 years for shoplifting trumps rape, I think that law has changed by the way. However you’re correct not only banks do this, big business does this every day, quarterly number are off just cut 100 low level low paying jobs and the number bounce back. This system is not fair and it is especially unfair if you don’t understand it. The system you grew up in has changed, it may have been in the crawl stage in your youth, but it is standing tall right now on the shoulders of the poor and soon to be poor. Yes you may have made it to a point in your life where these types of actions do not affect you; however that doesn’t mean it is not happening.

[guardian]

100. If you don't like the LAW

then complain to your lawmaker and try to get it changed. Stop blaming those that are obligated to follow the law. Geeeeezz.

[lonestarnot]

90. Good gawd. Now there is one for the record.

[Better Believe It]

91. "the rich are just better people than you"

Golly, sounds fair
By: Attaturk
May 8, 2012

Well, this seems quite equitable — Wells Fargo managed to help guide the country into an economic collapse as well as robo-sign and otherwise abuse tens, if not hundreds of thousands, of home owners out of their mortgages and only on occasion received a mild talking too.

But if you are but a worker for Wells Fargo, well, the rich — especially when they come in the personhood of a large corporation — are just better people than you:

Yolanda Quesada was fired when a background check revealed she shoplifted in 1972.

Obviously her real problem was not working in management

http://firedoglake.com/2012/05/08/golly-sounds-fair/

One reader of the article commented:

"While I understand and agree with the gist of this story, something does not sound right as background checks are completed before the person starts not after 5 years of service. And background checks do not go back 40 years they go back 5 and in some cases 10 years."

Interesting observation. BBI

[SidDithers]

95. Keep trying...nt

Sid

[Cerridwen]

98. Most of this thread is discussing something that didn't happen.

Most of the replies defending the bank are saying that she lied on her application; she didn't. Neither did others who have also been fired recently due to the change in federal regulations.

Rick says he disclosed his conviction. Yolanda didn't because she was only asked if she'd committed any felonies. Her crimes were misdemeanors. And she's being punished again four decades down the road. "I think I should get it back because it's something I did 40 years ago. I paid for it, I've changed my life."

From this link

Please note also, this has happened to many employees even though they had reported their convictions at the time of their hire.

This is happening because of new federal regulations. At the time these people were hired, those regulations were not in place.

[Better Believe It]

102. Thanks for the additional information and link.