Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[Libran]

Some clarification points....

1. When I said teh company in question would not have given the go-by to some common sense approach...I am talking purely from experience. There are certain dos and donts that get circulated and shared among the Top IT companies. Clear process drawn out, including the documentation starting from calling in a person for interview, who should be part of the panel, sensitivity in dealing with these issues, format of letter to be issued and to be sought from an employee who has accepted to defrauding etc.,

2. There are close to 200 - 300 employees across companies in one city being interrogated and almost 80% of these turn out to be fake resume candidates. Have we heard of any complaints in the past of religion bias. Here is a case of striking the iron when it is hot..even a case of diverting attention from a possible truth.

3. We for a fact do not know what was the proof on the basis of which the company decided to take a call on retrenching the employe. Given the company, its past history, its ability to take a stand on Sr Management misdemeanours etc., I would not think that they would have been laid back in their approach and process.

4. On the issue of Black list, what I intended to state was that the BL interrogation is a slightly long drawn proces as it involves full fledged interrogation by organizations which are experts in this field. It involves calls, field visits, collating info and documents and all that jazz. Unlike a BGV on educational qualifications, this involves a little more investigative approach, using decoys etc., ( am I giving away too much  ) and the results take anywhere between 3 to 6 months... specific cases can be addressed on priority. Companies issuing fake certificates and faking experience are almost in the same bracket.. In one case, the company makes a business out of it, in the latter the experince is inflated and the company is party to issuing such inflated experience certificates...
In this case, the employee has reduced his experience to get a better fitment...like I mentioned earlier, teaching experience is hugely discounted for a job fitment.

5. On the point of whether Big IT companies will pick people from mom and pop shops , it is all a matter of what role you envisage for that person vis-a-vis the opportunity available with a client... Given that the person in question is a mechanical engineer, this issue is redundant.

I am willing to stick my neck out ans state that here is a clear case of a person using the communal card to seek publicity and a possible 'out of court settlement' ( he is in for some hard time, believe me)

[prfsr]

Ravi
The point is not whether the guy lied on his resume (from the point of view of the court case it is).

Let's consider this hypothetical scenario: say he lied and embellished about that company. Assume he has worked competently for 3 years at Infy. Now the lie is detected. If he was not a terror suspect, would he have been immediately fired?

[Libran]

One of the huge issues the IT industry is facing is that of fake resumes...
The fact that Infy decided to interrogate him post his arrest is logical...

Look at it from Infy's PoV ...
1) they cannot have a suspected anti-national on their roles.
2) Given the interrogative skills of our police(political interference, minority appeasement,lack of interrogative skills, inability to put two and two together unless it is money) his being proven innocent cannot be taken at face value.

This is very sad. Is this what WN calls ground realities -- that a Muslim is guilty until proven innocent? Okay take the word Muslim out, any suspect is guilty until proven innocent? Is that what educated Indians (not you personally) think is an acceptable "reality"?

More importantly...his showing 3 years of teaching experience as two could have two elements.. a need to
In my view, this is a case of an affected employee taking the religion angle to seek public sympathy...
Infy may not be the ultimate benchmark in people management, but let's give credence to the fact that they have their processes in place, their PR machinery is one of the best and they have understood, assimilated and proceeded based on an analysis of  the pros and cons of this action.

But you see your previous statements do not gel with this. All that the HR/PR did (assuming your prev point was true) is find a good excuse to fire a person who was found innocent after 9 days of illoegal detention.

At times like these I feel ashamed to be an Indian. Even with our great culture and extensive education this is how much faith we have in basic principles of social justice and equality?

edit: I am sure some will point to how much we are making of a small incident. To me it is the (lack of) principles involved -- that point to this possibly happening again and again.

Why do the two statements not gel , prfsr

I gave a possible PoV..but the 'more importantly' part over rides the earlier two points...that is 'a faked experience on a resume' would anyways be the sole point on which his termination would have been decided.

Recently, an IT employee killed his wife and committed suicide.. the company in question said that "it was a personal matter but are with the family in this time of tragedy"  and went on to provide all support to the family

Another case of an employee who ill-treated his wife and she complained... Again treated as "personal matter" ... did not get involved...

Employee ... filed for divorce... brought "women of disrepute" home... wife went to the papers... company did not get involved... 'personal matter'

But here is a case of "fake resume"... directly attributable to company's line of thought on these matters ... cannot be treated as personal matter...

Have you ever looked at this as purely coincidental... the review was anyways happening...coincided with the arrest, detention and release

[Libran]

Ravi
The point is not whether the guy lied on his resume (from the point of view of the court case it is).

Let's consider this hypothetical scenario: say he lied and embellished about that company. Assume he has worked competently for 3 years at Infy. Now the lie is detected. If he was not a terror suspect, would he have been immediately fired?

Good point... yes he would be fired.. I know of instances where employees have spent over a decade...was at a senior management level...info received on faked higher educational qualifications beyond engineering...fired...

nothing comes in the way of integrity..

Let me give another example... Let's say employee has had two prior employees.. one a small time company...the immediate pervious one a Top 3 ... supposedly spent 2 years in small company ( faked) ... spent 2 years in Top3 (genuine).. will be fired, inspite of working in Top 3 and was genuine experience.. the immediate employer not having identified the faked resume does not come in the way of taking a decision

[prfsr]

Ravi,
First I completely agree with you that we do not know the facts. So all of this is hypothetical.

If it is the standard policy of Infosys to fire anyone with any discrepancy in the resume even after 3 years of service, then *there is no bias*.

My objections are
(a) to the possible scenario that they fired the guy on a technicality because he was a suspect and the fact that he was absolved did not matter
(b) many people here have prejudged him or assume that it is natural to (and therefore implicitly ok to) prejudge him.

Not sure if I am putting my point across well. Innocent until proven guilty has to be a deep belief, not a meaningless cliche that is repeated but not truly accepted. Otherwise, in kban's words, "And we wonder why we have people who feel alieniated in our society ?"  
 
 

[prfsr]

Ravi
The point is not whether the guy lied on his resume (from the point of view of the court case it is).

Let's consider this hypothetical scenario: say he lied and embellished about that company. Assume he has worked competently for 3 years at Infy. Now the lie is detected. If he was not a terror suspect, would he have been immediately fired?

Good point... yes he would be fired.. I know of instances where employees have spent over a decade...was at a senior management level...info received on faked higher educational qualifications beyond engineering...fired...

nothing comes in the way of integrity..

Let me give another example... Let's say employee has had two prior employees.. one a small time company...the immediate pervious one a Top 3 ... supposedly spent 2 years in small company ( faked) ... spent 2 years in Top3 (genuine).. will be fired, inspite of working in Top 3 and was genuine experience.. the immediate employer not having identified the faked resume does not come in the way of taking a decision

Ok, then he likely does not have much of a case (assuming the company cannot be "found"). Why would Infy settle out of court - just because of the Muslim issue?

[prfsr]

Ravi
Another question. Again hypothetical. Let's say a guy did not lie on his resume at all - in fact came out of college and joined Infosys (for example). He becomes a terror suspect and is released. What is the likelihood that the company will try to get rid of him as others have suggested on this thread?

[Libran]

Ravi
The point is not whether the guy lied on his resume (from the point of view of the court case it is).

Let's consider this hypothetical scenario: say he lied and embellished about that company. Assume he has worked competently for 3 years at Infy. Now the lie is detected. If he was not a terror suspect, would he have been immediately fired?

Good point... yes he would be fired.. I know of instances where employees have spent over a decade...was at a senior management level...info received on faked higher educational qualifications beyond engineering...fired...

nothing comes in the way of integrity..

Let me give another example... Let's say employee has had two prior employees.. one a small time company...the immediate pervious one a Top 3 ... supposedly spent 2 years in small company ( faked) ... spent 2 years in Top3 (genuine).. will be fired, inspite of working in Top 3 and was genuine experience.. the immediate employer not having identified the faked resume does not come in the way of taking a decision

Ok, then he likely does not have much of a case (assuming the company cannot be "found"). Why would Infy settle out of court - just because of the Muslim issue?

Infy will not... I was stating that he will probably try for an out of court settlement thinking that the company will not want to carry the burden of unwanted negative publicity...

Why did Infy settle their Sr Management personnel's sexual harrasment case...unwanted negative publicity

[Libran]

Ravi
Another question. Again hypothetical. Let's say a guy did not lie on his resume at all - in fact came out of college and joined Infosys (for example). He becomes a terror suspect and is released. What is the likelihood that the company will try to get rid of him as others have suggested on this thread?

They will not get rid of him...but, yes, his activities will be scrutinized, his mails may be tracked...
A sensitive organization will take him into confidence to ensure that he is not unduly victimized (utopian  )

[OldPal]

Here is one more:
Name on government watch list threatens pilot's career
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/08/22/pilot.watch.list/index.html

Scherfen is a convert to Islam. His wife emigrated from Pakistan when she was 17 and is now a U.S. citizen


Name on government watch list threatens pilot's career
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For Erich Scherfen, being on a government terror watch list isn't just a matter of inconvenience. It could end his career.
 
Erich Scherfen served 13 years in the military, including flying National Guard helicopters.

 1 of 3  Scherfen served in the U.S. military for 13 years, as an Army infantryman in the first Gulf War and then as a helicopter pilot in the National Guard. After receiving an honorable discharge, he was hired as a pilot by Colgan Air Inc., a regional airline operating in the Northeast and Texas.

In April, Colgan informed Scherfen that he was on a government list and would be suspended from his job. He was told he faced termination on September 1 unless he was able to clear his name.

But Scherfen, of Schuylkill Haven, Pennsylvania, has been unable to do so and said fears it could mean he has no future as a pilot.

"My entire career depends on me getting off this list," he told CNN. "I probably won't be able to get a job anywhere else in the world having this mark that I'm on this list."

Witold Walczak, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney representing Scherfen and his wife in a lawsuit, calls the government actions "unfair" and "unjust."

"It is quite clear when the government does something that takes away not just your job, but your occupation, your career, they have to provide you with some means to clear your name," Walczak said.

Don't Miss
Political author's name on terror watch list
CNN reporter on terror watch list
Former U.S. attorney's name on watch list
iReport.com: Are you on a government watch list?
The lawsuit, filed this week in federal court in Pennsylvania, asks the U.S. government to remove Scherfen and his wife, Rubina Tareen, from any watch lists or databases that inhibit their travel.

Scherfen is a convert to Islam. His wife emigrated from Pakistan when she was 17 and is now a U.S. citizen. She runs a small business selling books and DVDs about Islam, publications she describes as nonpolitical.  Watch the couple speculate on why they're listed »

Scherfen and Tareen have both been stopped when traveling and told by security personnel that they are on "a list." Scherfen calls it "embarrassing."

Tareen said she thinks they may be on a watch list because of their Muslim faith and her Pakistani heritage. The two said they are not terrorists and don't associate with people who are.

"I have no idea why I am on the list, and they're not telling officially that I'm even on the list," Scherfen said. iReport.com: Are you on the list?

In a statement, the U.S. Justice Department said it will not confirm or deny that the couple's names are on a watch list for national security and privacy reasons.

In May, Scherfen and his wife wrote to the Department of Homeland Security asking for help with their case. The department referred them to the Transportation Security Administration's Traveler Redress Inquiry Program. This week they received a number to track their case, but their complaint has not been addressed.

A TSA spokeswoman told CNN the agency is seeking "a meaningful resolution" to the couple's case but said there is no timetable for doing so.

Meanwhile, a federal judge has the case under review. He asked that Colgan move Scherfen's termination date to October 1. The airline has done so, allowing more time for a possible resolution.

"Unfortunately, it is a problem that is shared by countless individuals who have no connection to terrorism, have no connection to crime and don't belong on this list," said Walczak, the ACLU lawyer.

Walczak acknowledged the need for the government to protect the country from threats with a watch list but said, "The problem with what the government is doing is that they really don't care about innocent casualties."


Scherfen said the pain of his situation is accentuated by the fact that he spent 13 years in uniform protecting the country.

"We served honorably," he said. "We served in a war. And they're thumbing their noses at us, basically, and that makes me feel ... really