Posted on 06/20/2016 5:49:07 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Ban the box policies forbid employers from asking about a criminal record on a job application. Ban the box policies don’t forbid employers from running criminal background checks they only forbid employers from asking about criminal history at the application/interview stage. The policies are supposed to give people with a criminal background a better shot at a job. Since blacks are more likely to have a criminal history than whites, the policies are supposed to especially increase black employment.
One potential problem with these laws is that employers may adjust their behavior in response. In particular, since blacks are more likely than whites to have a criminal history, a simple, even if imperfect, substitute for not interviewing people who have a criminal history is to not interview blacks. Employers can’t ask about race on a job application but black and white names are distinctive enough so that based on name alone, one can guess with a high probability of being correct whether an applicant is black or white. In an important and impressive new paper, Amanda Agan and Sonja Starr examine how employers respond to ban the box.
Agan and Starr sent out approximately 15,000 fake job applications to employers in New York and New Jersey. Otherwise identical applications were randomized across distinctively black and white (male) names. Half the applications were sent just before and another half sent just after ban the box policies took effect. Not all firms used the box even when legal so Agan and Starr use a powerful triple-difference strategy to estimate causal effects (the black-white difference in callback rates between stores that did and did not use the box before and after the law).
Agan and Starr find that banning the box significantly increases racial discrimination in callbacks.
(Excerpt) Read more at marginalrevolution.com ...
no skills
criminal record
ideal employee
prudence requires knowing the background of an individual...
its the same stupid mentality as OPEN BORDERS
except its imposed on private business
more stalinist libtard NONSENSE
lawyers use companies for unsafe workplace
uncle sap requires hiring without background check
in the box,,,,, close the lid
NO WIN SCENARIO
just like commies like it
lawyers use companies for unsafe workplace
s/b SUE
The box is a moot point. Companies now have a box that states that they will do a background check.
Though I can't think of a better word, Stalinists would just kill the object of their disaffection.
Other useful questions would be “under what other names are you known” and “are you registered under any other social security number(s) than the one provided?”
If they lie on the application and are found out after hiring they are subject to termination for the lie.
Other Social Security numbers.... Obama?
Which most harms non-criminal blacks with parents who liked to make up "African" sounding names. Jim Smith gets a pass.
OOOH! Asking about HIS would be RAYCISS!
The box to ban is the one asking about ethnicity.
Employers claim they are compelled to ask by the feds and you are free to decline to answer - wink wink, nudge nudge - but if everyone did so the mindless quota system so beloved by ‘diverse’ companies and fascist EEOC types would collapse.
Simple then: Don’t hire anyone of any demographic that may be of higher problematic status, including liberals.
Simple then: Don’t hire anyone of any demographic that may be of higher problematic status, including liberals.
The first position when something goes wrong is that the employee is an agent of the employer. Did the employer exercise due care in selecting the employee? This makes due care far more difficult, because the employer isn't even allowed to ask about past criminal activity in the interview. Instead, the employer has to run a background check and I expect that will be banned in the future as discriminatory because of "disparate impact."
Yes. Like most things, it’s none of the government’s business. The government is just opening a new front in is war against employment. “Background check” services and leftist lawyers should thrive. Once job applicants have their foot in the door, a certain percentage of those rejected will file claims for discrimination.
And what if I desire to hire ex-cons for my debt collections business? I can’t ask?
The “box” is simply one means of weeding out people that are unacceptable for employment.
Doing a background check fixes that. Failure to consent to a background check means automatic rejection of the application. Having them do a drug test is another means. You don’t have to ASK anything - just let the facts speak for themselves.
This is nothing more than a lot of hot air being expended for no particular reason.
The whole concept of forbidding employers from asking about convictions is about as illogical as it gets.
The “logic” is:
1. For some mysterious reason, blacks commit more crimes and thus get convicted more than their percentage in the population would suggest
2. Thus, asking about criminal background has a “disparate impact” on blacks.
Okay, let’s just take it to the next step:
1. Blacks commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
2. Thus, prison for blacks must be outlawed as it works a disparate impact on blacks.
Marxist thought at its finest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.