Will Cindy and George's Behavior Affect Their Employability?

[JusticeorJustUs]

...do you think CA, GA or LA are even employable at this point, much less have jobs waiting for them?

I find it hard to imagine anyone either keeping them on as employees or hiring them, given the outrageous behavior, lies, etc.


I can't help but think this is why the attempt to discredit TM and EquuSearch.

Deep down they know future employment is not a possibility, perhaps?

 

[tiredofthis]

Well, GA is working, so I don't see a problem there. CA is a nurse and nurses are in high demand so I'm sure she could find work somewhere if her company didn't allow her to come back. I can't picture her company firing her over this though, because I'm sure she would sue them.

 

[LeLe1953]

Well, GA is working, so I don't see a problem there. CA is a nurse and nurses are in high demand so I'm sure she could find work somewhere if her company didn't allow her to come back. I can't picture her company firing her over this though, because I'm sure she would sue them.

If either them get arrested & convicted they might not work in their choosen profession again. Each state has strict guidelines for keeping your license.

I would not hire her. Given what I have seen of her, she does not appear to be stable enough to render patient care. Maybe she is, but she has made herself look unstable.

I also would not hire her to manage a health care agency where she does the business end & isnt involved in direct patient care. She would have access to personal health info, SS numbers, insurance info & might even do billing & collect payments. Given the speculation around the funds donated to Caylee' s funds, & her own personal money mess, I probably would think twice. I haven't seen her use good judgement & have seen her only think her thoughts matter, the law be damned. Would she really respect the HIPPA laws??

I would not hire her to do private home health. Again for many of the reason stated above but also b/c most of those who need home health are easy picking s for those who are less than honest.

I ask myself, would I trust her enough to be alone in my home as a house keeper or pet sitter? NO, so why would I trust her with all my private info & health care needs.

 

[tiredofthis]

If either them get arrested & convicted they might not work in their choosen profession again. Each state has strict guidelines for keeping your license.

I would not hire her. Given what I have seen of her, she does not appear to be stable enough to render patient care. Maybe she is, but she has made herself look unstable.

I also would not hire her to manage a health care agency where she does the business end & isnt involved in direct patient care. She would have access to personal health info, SS numbers, insurance info & might even do billing & collect payments. Given the speculation around the funds donated to Caylee' s funds, & her own personal money mess, I probably would think twice. I haven't seen her use good judgement & have seen her only think her thoughts matter, the law be damned. Would she really respect the HIPPA laws??

I would not hire her to do private home health. Again for many of the reason stated above but also b/c most of those who need home health are easy picking s for those who are less than honest.

I ask myself, would I trust her enough to be alone in my home as a house keeper or pet sitter? NO, so why would I trust her with all my private info & health care needs.

True. If CA and GA are convicted down the road it might be an entirely different story.

 

[BeanE]

Well, GA is working, so I don't see a problem there. CA is a nurse and nurses are in high demand so I'm sure she could find work somewhere if her company didn't allow her to come back. I can't picture her company firing her over this though, because I'm sure she would sue them.

Where is George working now? Last I saw anything about him working was Cindy saying the company he was supposed to start working for, somewhere around July 15/16 when this case started, hadn't been been 'able to hold his job for him'.

That aside, for employability, I think any employer would be hesitant about what media-covered hysteria they might bring along with them, not to mention for Cindy especially, hysteria and lying just in the day to day work environment.

Even slinging french fries, an employer does think about impact to customers, and impact to other employees in terms of the ability of other employees to be productive.

I've done a lot of hiring. I wouldn't be able to hire any of them for any position.

- George - physical violence towards a little old lady (lol), extreme anger/temper

- Lee - lack of respect of other's property to the point of destroying it, lying (telling the dog protester woman that LE had said she'd have to leave), manipulative behavior (telling the dog protestor woman that the home owners assoc filing was just sitting on a desk awaiting imminent sign off and then no protestors would be allowed there)

- Cindy - chronic lying, unwillingness to acknowledge lying, lack of remorse about lying, hysteria, self preserving attitude to the point of total disregard of the needs and rights and well being of others, significant paranoia, inability to identify and act on what's best for those close to her... I could go on and on and on. I couldn't even put her in a position where she didn't interact with others because I would still not be able to count on her for basically anything. For her trained profession, nursing, there is no way in hell I'd entrust the care of somebody with so much as a splinter to her. Scary!

 

[Secretsolver]

GA works for Walt Disney World doing Security. It has been mentioned on the news here a few times.

 

[Elphaba]

As long as they are not charged with anything and hold no criminal record that points to their character being questionable: their lies and stories probably would not have any bearing on their getting employed. As long as they have kept their noses clean and have a good work history and can show excellent skills in regards of what they are applying for: they will be good to go.

 

[LeLe1953]

As long as they are not charged with anything and hold no criminal record that points to their character being questionable: their lies and stories probably would not have any bearing on their getting employed. As long as they have kept their noses clean and have a good work history and can show excellent skills in regards of what they are applying for: they will be good to go.

It would matter to me. If I had 2 people, equal qualifications, apply for the same job, I would not hire the Anthony. ESP in nursing.

 

[JBean]

Feel free to discuss their employability on an intelligent level.

But if this turns into a bashing thread, we already have plenty.
Thanks everyone.

 

[sunrise]

I am in nursing school and I wouldnt let that woman touch me. She is exact opposite of what nursing is about. It is actually scary to think she is a nurse. Oh my!

 

[Pink Panther]

I really don't believe that she was working as a practicing nurse for some time! I think her job at Gentiva is administrative???

 

[SeriouslySearching]

I think CA's job is admininstrative and I don't see it affecting further employment. However, what could affect it is the media attention this case has already warranted and it could be seen as a definite problem later down the line. The companies or employers may prefer not to invite that into their workplace.

As far as GA is concerned, I don't believe it will have any affect on him standing outside with a flashlight watching doors or watching security cameras from the inside. Unless his credibility is tanked during trial which would go towards this type of employment or again the media coverage is an issue for the employer...I think he can carry on employment as he seems to be doing.

 

[BeagleMom]

If CA current employer decided to let her go CA could attempt to sue but it would prove to be fruitless because FL is a right to work state. Her employer can let her go for any reason (other than current workers comp case). They don't have to have a reason to let her go.

In my previous life, I was responsible for hiring for my department. At this time, I wouldn't hire any of the A because of their obvious need to be available for LE, court, etc. I wouldn't even waste my time or theirs interviewing them. Once the trial is over, I doubt I would hire either GA or LA because of the negative impact all of this might bring to the workplace. I know I would not hire CA, in any capacity, to work for me. I would have trust issues with her. I would not be able to trust her perception of things.

In a nursing capacity, CA is a walking liability. I don't care how scarce nurses are throughout the country. If she encounters one patient that disagrees with her treatment and knows who she is, her employer is going to find themselves in court.

All of them are too big of a risk.

BeagleMom

 

[JusticeorJustUs]

If CA current employer decided to let her go CA could attempt to sue but it would prove to be fruitless because FL is a right to work state. Her employer can let her go for any reason (other than current workers comp case). They don't have to have a reason to let her go.

In my previous life, I was responsible for hiring for my department. At this time, I wouldn't hire any of the A because of their obvious need to be available for LE, court, etc. I wouldn't even waste my time or theirs interviewing them. Once the trial is over, I doubt I would hire either GA or LA because of the negative impact all of this might bring to the workplace. I know I would not hire CA, in any capacity, to work for me. I would have trust issues with her. I would not be able to trust her perception of things.

In a nursing capacity, CA is a walking liability. I don't care how scarce nurses are throughout the country. If she encounters one patient that disagrees with her treatment and knows who she is, her employer is going to find themselves in court.

All of them are too big of a risk.

BeagleMom

<<My bold>>

The trust issues are exactly what I was getting at.

But in my case I'm afraid it would apply to all three of them.

The entire lack of honesty and cover-up mentality, the inability to even recognize the truth, much less tell the truth would disqualify them in my book.

Security and nursing are two fields where honesty is really a priority.

 

[LI_Mom]

I think someone, somewhere will be willing to employ Cindy.

If Cindy continues to alienate people and show her very nasty side, the public may very well boycott any company that she's affiliated with... forcing an employer to show her the door.

Which would of course give her time to finally get off HER a$$ and go search for a "live Caylee" instead of complaining that nobody else is.

 

[JusticeorJustUs]

I think someone, somewhere will be willing to employ Cindy.
If Cindy continues to alienate people and show her very nasty side, the public may very well boycott any company that she's affiliated with... forcing an employer to show her the door.

Which would of course give her time to finally get off HER a$$ and go search for a "live Caylee" instead of complaining that nobody else is.

<<My bold>>

See, and I can't see that at all for the very reasons you stated in addition to the trust issues.

She's (they, actually have) shown their true character. The neurotic behavior and lack of trust would eliminate her immediately from any position that involved dealings with either money or confidential information. I certainly wouldn't subject patients to her or any possible outburst from her.

Maybe as telemarketers? Phone contact only and not dealing in any way with the public face to face so that I wouldn't lose the trust of the customers that would be supporting my business?

 

[faefrost]

I think someone, somewhere will be willing to employ Cindy.

If Cindy continues to alienate people and show her very nasty side, the public may very well boycott any company that she's affiliated with... forcing an employer to show her the door.

Which would of course give her time to finally get off HER a$$ and go search for a "live Caylee" instead of complaining that nobody else is.

Cindy will probably end up working through a temp type agency as a relief nurse. But it will be a long time before she has a regular full time employer. As others have said she is just too much of a liability on a day to day basis.

George may actually have enough sympathies out there that someone will employ him after it is all over, as long as CA is not attached at the hip.

I don't see LA having any real employment issues, especially if he has been gainfully employed for a number of years. Most employers will feel somewhat sypathetic for the horror of the family situation he finds himself in, and will probably not hold it against him until or unless it spills over into the workplace (ie protesters outside)

 

[LeLe1953]

If CA current employer decided to let her go CA could attempt to sue but it would prove to be fruitless because FL is a right to work state. Her employer can let her go for any reason (other than current workers comp case). They don't have to have a reason to let her go.

In my previous life, I was responsible for hiring for my department. At this time, I wouldn't hire any of the A because of their obvious need to be available for LE, court, etc. I wouldn't even waste my time or theirs interviewing them. Once the trial is over, I doubt I would hire either GA or LA because of the negative impact all of this might bring to the workplace. I know I would not hire CA, in any capacity, to work for me. I would have trust issues with her. I would not be able to trust her perception of things.

In a nursing capacity, CA is a walking liability. I don't care how scarce nurses are throughout the country. If she encounters one patient that disagrees with her treatment and knows who she is, her employer is going to find themselves in court.

All of them are too big of a risk.

BeagleMom

Cindy is not out on workers comp, she has no work injury. I believe she used the rest of her vacation, comp time & probably family leave act. Family leave is unpaid leave & has a limited amt of time the employee can be out. An employer has the right to expect an employee back in a reasonable amount of time. I am sure some are nicer than others about this. Sounds like her company has been very good to her.

If Fl is a "right to work" state as you stated,that means you can be fired without even being given a reason. Naturally if you think it's because of age, race, etc you do have the right to file with EEOC or other agencies as fitting but most of the time the court will find for the employer, telling the employee he/she is an "at will" employee. I live in NC & it is a righ to work state & that pretty much sucks a lot of the times.

Again, I think Cindy's company has been wonderful to allow her to have this much time off, esp if her family leave has run out. At some point they will expect her back in her position or fill it on a permenent basis.

As far as her job being an admin job so she isnt "really" nursing, that's not really true. She may not be hands on with patients but many nurses work in admin fields & an RN is required. Most hospitals & companies are even wanting Masters in nursing now. Remember she also has to keep up with CEU's. That helps keep her current in her field. In the end, it may just come down to how valuable she is to her company. She may have been wonderful in her job, used good judgement, sound business sense & kept current. If that's the case, I would expect they would keep her.

 

[LI_Mom]

<<My bold>>

See, and I can't see that at all for the very reasons you stated in addition to the trust issues.

She's (they, actually have) shown their true character. The neurotic behavior and lack of trust would eliminate her immediately from any position that involved dealings with either money or confidential information. I certainly wouldn't subject patients to her or any possible outburst from her.

Maybe as telemarketers? Phone contact only and not dealing in any way with the public face to face so that I wouldn't lose the trust of the customers that would be supporting my business?

I don't disagree with your line of thinking.

I'm merely supposing that some employer will feel sorry for her & decide to give her a chance. Not to mention, the legalities of refusing to hire a qualified person for certain 'social' reasons might work in Cindy's favor.

Personally speaking I would NEVER deal with any company that employed Casey or Cindy. Life is too short to deal with nasty people, isn't it?

 

[Janis396]

I don't think Cindy ever plans to work at another real job again. She'll come up with another way to bring money in.