Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Perform Criminal Background Checks at Your Peril
Wall Street Journal ^ | February 14, 2013 | James Bovard

Posted on 02/16/2013 3:38:58 PM PST by a5478

The EEOC ignored that judicial thrashing and pressed on. Last April, the agency unveiled its "Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions," declaring that "criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin."

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: backgroundchecks; bmw; business; communist; criminalrecord; criminals; dollargeneral; economy; eeoc; facebook; obama; obamasfault; racism; regulations; taxbreaks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
The Obama administration is building Catch-22's for business. In order for a business to succeed, it will have to break the law. It could get a pass, though, if the business will take certain specified actions that support the federal government. In other words, the only way to get ahead will be to break the law.

#communist #Facebook&taxbreaks

1 posted on 02/16/2013 3:39:08 PM PST by a5478
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: a5478

How about DON’T perform background checks on employee applicants at your real peril?

I’d take my chances with the court if need be.


2 posted on 02/16/2013 3:42:37 PM PST by shalom aleichem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a5478

If you unknowingly hire a criminal and he/she ends up killing someone on the job, who usually ends up having to pay out the absolutely insane court award? Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. America really sucks under the Kenyan’s rule.


3 posted on 02/16/2013 3:47:49 PM PST by FlingWingFlyer (Now Playing. Obama II - The Revenge of My Father.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a5478

Anybody can to a background check. ss# 042-68-4425


4 posted on 02/16/2013 3:49:04 PM PST by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/ ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a5478
I'd like to know whether that bill going through the Senate (Violence against women act) has any gun control measures like background checks.

It's running below the radar so I assume it has provision for background and mental health consideration.

5 posted on 02/16/2013 3:49:16 PM PST by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a5478

So lets guess the outcome of this idiocy.

Blacks and Hispanics unfortunately are a demographic with higher incidents of failed criminal activity. ie spent time in jail.

So a company now faces government harassment if they do criminal background checks and are taking a risk by not doing them. So the answer will be that human nature abhors bad policy, so less qualified black and Hispanics will make to through the hiring process so a company reducues it’s risks.


6 posted on 02/16/2013 3:50:29 PM PST by Fzob (In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress

You can but you have to give someone a second chance.

Do we want people to redeem themselves or we do want to keep them behind bars?

People need to be evaluated on a case by a case basis not on what’s on a sheet of paper.


7 posted on 02/16/2013 3:51:49 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: a5478

So, if it’s discriminatory to do criminal record checks before hiring an employee, based on the same logic, wouldn’t it also be discriminatory to do criminal record checks to prevent someone from exercising a right spelled out in the U.S. Constitution?


8 posted on 02/16/2013 3:54:16 PM PST by Real Cynic No More
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fzob

Yup.

From a conservative point of view do we want these people integrated into society, being responsible, getting married and obeying the law?

We’re never going to build enough jails to lock up every one and its expensive.

We should reserve scarce prison space for the worst of the worst: murderers, rapists, armed robbers and people who have assaulted people.

Other offenders should be made to pay restitution to their victims and kept out of prison. A decent society isn’t measured by the number of people we imprison; its measured by the number of people we keep from getting into serious trouble in the first place.


9 posted on 02/16/2013 3:58:34 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
You can, but you have to give someone a second chance.

Do we want people to redeem themselves or we do want to keep them behind bars?

People need to be evaluated on a case by a case basis not on what’s on a sheet of paper.

OK, so we give some (all ?) of them a 2nd chance.

Please share your penetrating insight with us so that we may predict which will likely resume their criminal activities and which won't?

What are the criteria of your "case by case" evaluation and how will they make us safe?

10 posted on 02/16/2013 4:03:38 PM PST by doc11355
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: a5478

I have an engineering degree and a heck of a resume including various security clearances and management positions. My headhunter put me in for a very high position at nearby company. They did a screening interview, then sent me for a 4 hour evaluation test by a psychiatrist. After the math, English and reading skills test I had to answer several hundred psychological questions. “I think it’s okay to steal from my employer if my pay is too low.” “I think it’s okay to give illegal drugs to a coworker providing no money changes hands.” “I think marihuana should be legal.” “It’s okay to do illegal drugs on the weekends if I’m not doing them at work.” “I think violence is okay provided the person I hit deserved it.” These questions were asked about 30 different ways. According to my headhunter, this company has cut its turnover by 50% since they began this testing. Apparently, a large percentage of people are idiots. I’m thinking if this test is that good, maybe background checks aren’t necessary. Provided you give all the employees the same test, it should be legal to screen this way. By-the-way, the math, English and reading skills went from grade school to college level. Requiring a twelfth-grade passing score might screen out most criminals.


11 posted on 02/16/2013 4:05:51 PM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Real Cynic No More

That’s a different situation entirely, dontya know?


12 posted on 02/16/2013 4:07:05 PM PST by Gabz (Democrats for Voldemort.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: a5478

What will be interesting is those jobs where the state mandates a background check. Jobs such as working with children, aged and mentally ill.

I suppose the feds will go after the states now and force them to change their policies as well.


13 posted on 02/16/2013 4:08:37 PM PST by teacherwoes ("I saw under the sun in the place of judgment wickedness, and in the place of justice iniquity.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyedigress

Mr. Harrison Bounell!!(sp)


14 posted on 02/16/2013 4:08:56 PM PST by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: doc11355

One has to look at how an ex-con did his time in prison, how long was the offense, whether he has an stable ties in the community, who his friends and associates are and so forth.

Every person has to be judged on their own merits because every set of facts and circumstances are different. An employer just can’t look at your record and say, sorry we don’t hire ex-cons. He has to show there is reason you will re-offend again in the future.

For people discharged from prison, rebuilding their lives is a Catch-22.


15 posted on 02/16/2013 4:14:55 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

>>Provided you give all the employees the same test, it should be legal to screen this way.

Actually, I don’t believe that is so. I think you can get in EEOC trouble if a test you use has disparate racial impact.


16 posted on 02/16/2013 4:18:45 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I wholeheartedly agree. The criminalization of youthful bad judgement or bad situations is having a terrible impact on people. Someone that made a mistake 10 years ago can pay for it their whole life. Many companies automatically disqualify you if you have a record no mater what the circumstances.

I wonder how many men have have criminal records because of a whacked out ex wife or girlfriend. Or for not paying child support when nearly broke or jobless? Or how many people have records for minor drug offenses?

Yet truly bad guys routinely get released because jails are overcrowded with people that simply made a stupid mistake.


17 posted on 02/16/2013 4:18:51 PM PST by Fzob (In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: a5478
"criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin."


18 posted on 02/16/2013 4:20:47 PM PST by donna (Pray for revival.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a5478

It’s the ‘white privilege’ thing again. No criminals have a positive attitude toward rule of law and success within societal norms. Instead of fixing attitudes, Obama says take them as they are. No.


19 posted on 02/16/2013 4:22:52 PM PST by pacpam (action=consequence and applies in all cases - friend of victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a5478

I started working at the elementary school in our town. I had to be fingerprinted and background checked to be a bus driver. Then, had to do it all over again to get my substitute teacher certification. Are schools liable for not hiring someone who has been imprisoned for child rape? Oh, geez. That might actually happen some day!


20 posted on 02/16/2013 4:24:59 PM PST by stansblugrassgrl (PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION!!! YEEEEEHAW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I’ve employed felons. Even those involved with murder. I do accept help on a case by case nature.


21 posted on 02/16/2013 4:25:10 PM PST by eyedigress ((zOld storm chaser from the west)/ ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

If we give them a second chance, if they screw up again it should be automatic, instant execution!


22 posted on 02/16/2013 4:28:56 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: a5478; navymom1; Pat4ever; RIghtwardHo; Reaganite Republican; Clintons Are White Trash; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

23 posted on 02/16/2013 4:32:40 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a5478; navymom1; Pat4ever; RIghtwardHo; Reaganite Republican; Clintons Are White Trash; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

24 posted on 02/16/2013 4:33:00 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a5478; navymom1; Pat4ever; RIghtwardHo; Reaganite Republican; Clintons Are White Trash; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

25 posted on 02/16/2013 4:33:59 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

maybe so but given the high unemployment rate and number of people looking for a job, it seems that businesses don’t need to take a chance on an ex-criminal.


26 posted on 02/16/2013 4:42:10 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

My dad had such tests administered to potential employees seeking to work at a nuclear plant he managed.

He actually blocked the employment of two individuals who came highly recommended, all because both men tested were highly functioning psycopaths.


27 posted on 02/16/2013 4:47:40 PM PST by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

sometimes consequences are permanent. there should be jobs they can’t hold based on what they themselves did. hell, some people that don’t have records still can’t qualify for many, many jobs.


28 posted on 02/16/2013 4:48:57 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

yes but this country only works with moral people exercising their own self control, that’s why we have so many more criminals today than before. plus they executed far more troublemakers a lot quicker after sentencing so they couldn’ t continue to plague and terrorize the rest of society.


29 posted on 02/16/2013 4:51:33 PM PST by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fzob
The problem with your logic, like the mental condition on gun ownership, is that the bureaucratic definition will likely put murder/rapist on the same level as busted with a baggie.

I'm related to a guy who can't own a gun and can't vote, he's a nice kid, wouldn't hurt a fly or steal a pencil, but his logic and ability to shift responsibility haven't improved from 25 years ago.

PS: Is it racist to dump an employee who can't be bonded?

30 posted on 02/16/2013 5:01:32 PM PST by norton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: a5478
Ex-cons can be rated on their threat, and once this is done, there are some that are unemployable. But there is a possible solution of states teaming up to create an "ex-con reservation", in a rural part of a host state, for a price.

In essence, a low technology town where they can work to support themselves, and instead of getting individual handouts, they get them as a group, to save money.

The town government are what amounts to ombudsmen, to keep things flowing smoothly. And membership is based on good behavior. If you misbehave you get sent home. Most of what they do is to farm much of their own food.

But they are away from crime, alcohol and drugs, without the intense pressure of the "real world". In particular, a lot of convicts are getting out when they are older or elderly, so this also works as a semi-retirement home for them. But again, the bottom line is not for them, but to save taxpayer money.


31 posted on 02/16/2013 5:01:59 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stansblugrassgrl

Our country is just too big for its own britches...


32 posted on 02/16/2013 5:05:53 PM PST by lyby ("Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." ~ Galileo Galilei)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: a5478

I could be wrong, but I thought that when I was a child criminals had a record for 10 years and if they were clean during that time it was expunged from public records.


33 posted on 02/16/2013 5:32:51 PM PST by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a5478

Aren’t credit score checks on prospective employees illegal now too?


34 posted on 02/16/2013 5:37:41 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

The testing seems a good idea, until some lawyers decide to take the employer to court because the test will have a disparate impact on some disadvantaged group. It adversely effects the stupid, or people that didn’t study or some minority, etc.


35 posted on 02/16/2013 5:44:26 PM PST by cyberstoic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: a5478
lets face it, the mutt in the white hut could NEVER pass a security clearance...
36 posted on 02/16/2013 6:01:02 PM PST by Chode (Stand UP and Be Counted, or line up and be numbered - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: norton

Well, expecting logic or reason from a bureaucracy was not my expectation, so any attempt at a rational outcome regarding criminalizing real criminal actions is just a pipe dream.


37 posted on 02/16/2013 6:14:34 PM PST by Fzob (In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

This will reek havoc on your liability insurance. I wonder if someone in this administration is getting paid off because of this reason. I know Obama likes to go after business, but the reality is he only goes after those who are small or not part of the club, i.e. bribing, hmmm... I mean campaign donations.


38 posted on 02/16/2013 6:39:27 PM PST by DarkWaters ("Deception is a state of mind --- and the mind of the state" --- James Jesus Angleton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fzob; a5478

There is some truth to this, though the solution is less welfare, ending teen pregnancy and encouraging marriage.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/12/pettit_on_the_p.html


39 posted on 02/16/2013 7:23:48 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Some communities have been more crime-prone since before welfare and the breakdown of the family.


40 posted on 02/16/2013 8:03:07 PM PST by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

From a conservative point of view, does the federal government prosecute employers for being selective regarding hiring practices?


41 posted on 02/16/2013 8:54:23 PM PST by a5478 (a5478)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Can an employer say they hire people with excellent work history and proven track records of success and dedication to a particular job?


42 posted on 02/16/2013 8:58:38 PM PST by a5478 (a5478)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Getting into trouble with the EEOC is even easier than that.

It makes an excellent tool for government blackmail to employers or businesses when the government needs a “spokesman” for a “shovel ready” project.


43 posted on 02/16/2013 9:00:41 PM PST by a5478 (a5478)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DarkWaters

Wreaking havoc on private enterprise is the goal of the administration.


44 posted on 02/16/2013 9:03:14 PM PST by a5478 (a5478)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

An ex-con is going to be more dependable in a rural situation than an urban one? An ex-con followed a path of crime because of “real world” pressures that are somehow less evident in a rural setting?

The above is your plan for saving taxpayer dollars? Have you calculated the cost of testing/evaluation, transportation, social services, recidivism and legal costs? It is cheaper to maintain a lock on the cell with a person getting 3 squares and a beautiful exercise room.


45 posted on 02/16/2013 9:10:55 PM PST by a5478 (a5478)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Fzob

You said: “So a company now faces government harassment if they do criminal background checks and are taking a risk by not doing them. So the answer will be that human nature abhors bad policy, so less qualified black and Hispanics will make to through the hiring process so a company reducues it’s risks.”

Actually, that won’t be the answer to bad policy. The article linked above states the following:
“The EEOC is confident that its guidance will boost minority hiring, but studies published in the University of Chicago Legal Forum and the Journal of Law and Economics have found that businesses are much less likely to hire minority applicants when background checks are banned. As the majority of black and Hispanic job applicants have clean legal records, the new EEOC mandate may harm the very groups it purports to help.”

Criminal background checks allow employers the opportunity to specifically remove a high-danger element from their workforce. Employers are most often liable for any criminal damage their employees are responsible for, and criminal activity in the workplace can be extremely costly in both monetary and non-financial terms.

The government on the other hand argues that due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of criminals are black and hispanic, criminal background checks have a disparate impact.

In effect, the businesses are saying “we don’t want criminals”, and the government is saying “but most criminals are minorities! You can’t discriminate against them because you’d be discriminating against minorities”. If the government prevents businesses from denying criminals employment opportunities, then businesses will be forced to use the next best measure of criminality available to them... the indirect and imprecise measure of ethnicity.

It’s really kind of laughable. The EEOC and the Civil Rights Commission can’t find any real white-on-minority racism in this nation, so they resort to measuring things that merely correlate with racial discrimination. The net result being to force businesses to stop using direct measures of criminality and instead just use racial discrimination to keep criminals from getting hired.


46 posted on 02/16/2013 9:11:28 PM PST by jameslalor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: donna

Yes, that is the wording.


47 posted on 02/16/2013 9:14:26 PM PST by a5478 (a5478)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: a5478

One must wonder if they should also get a pass on background checks to buy a gun...


48 posted on 02/17/2013 4:34:51 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a5478

If you give a lot of money to Democratic candidates, they will surely see to it that you won’t be hassled by EEOC.


49 posted on 02/17/2013 5:07:03 AM PST by Rocky (Obama is pure evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a5478

I think the confusion here is that this is not a prison. It is a low tech town for older, trustee-type ex-cons, with few modern amenities, including electronics or vehicles, outside of an emergency radio and vehicle kept by the small staff. Living there is not punishment, but a privilege for good behavior.

Since because of their original crime, and their age, they are pretty much unemployable in the rest of society, and have to live on a substantial dole of welfare, it would be a lot cheaper to provide them an inexpensive place in which they could just survive.

Already in the US we have what amounts to “geriatric” prisons that are in effect convict retirement homes with minimal guards, which works as long as they still have time to serve. But once out on the street, they can no longer function in society, often falling prey to drugs and alcohol, committing crime to survive.

If you consider several states kicking in *part* of the welfare that would have been paid directly to the ex-cons and social services like emergency rooms and Medicaid, to send them to the host state, several states save a bunch of money.


50 posted on 02/17/2013 5:38:58 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy (Best WoT news at rantburg.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson