Skip to comments.Will new fed guidelines force companies to hire more employees with criminal pasts?
Posted on 02/24/2013 6:02:21 PM PST by Red in Blue PA
Employers could be pressured to hire more workers with a criminal background under recent guidelines issued by the federal government. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions guidelines warn businesses about rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommend they eliminate policies that exclude people from employment based on a criminal record. The EEOC says civil rights laws already prohibit different treatment for job applicants who are of a different ethnic background but have identical criminal histories. The update was issued out of concern that employers might disproportionally exclude minorities from getting hired because more African Americans and Hispanics are getting arrested and going to prison, according to the guideline report.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Mysteriouslyunless not the least bit mysteriouslythe average convicted felon’s criminal history is more readily comprehensible than President You Didn’t Build That’s.
The new federal laws mandate hiring democrats.
I watched Atlas Shrugged 2 last night. Reading these headlines day after day with this corrupt and tyrannical administration is like living in an Ayn Rand novel.
One would think, inasmuch as the messiah was calling for a national police force, these ex-cons will be recruited for Homeland Security jobs. Wow! Are we upside down or what!
Notice it says minorities. Guess the white ex-con is screwed.
People who choose to prey on the innocent have obstacles to overcome. That process should not be done for them. And that crap about how they 'paid their debt' to society by sitting in a prison, doing drugs, watching cable TV, and being fed on the taxpayers dime is crap.
This horrible idea is a perverse incentive that will encourage crime. Wait, you'll see... Or look to Detroit where it's already happening and ask yourself if that's how you want your country to look..
Hey Newbie, what do you think of this law?
Does that mean Jon Corzine can steal billions...I mean, find work again?
This will do wonders for the unemployment rate....
Wana hire some one? naa.. we’ll do with out.
How will you know if they send an ex con to your home I bet that information will not and can not be provided to the customer.
Well I don’t see anything wrong with sending a serial killer/intern to work for let’s say any democrats offices.
I swear every day I get closer and closer to just moving myself and my company out of the US. We’ll see...
Obama voters voted specifically for this. Do not let them off the hook. They voted for Benghazi, they voted for The Iranian bomb, they voted for the North Korean ICBM, and they voted for this. Remind them of it.
>>Well I dont see anything wrong with sending a serial killer/intern to work for lets say any democrats offices.<<
Let’s start by level in the party. I mean, there is no risk so no problem.
The trial lawyers have got to be doing the “happy dance” over this. The lawsuits are going to be rolling in.
So I take it now that our esteemed betters in Washington will hire ex-cons for their interns?
LOL - they usually exempt themselves from the laws they pass... but in this case they already might have more than enough crooks in their ranks to satisfy any 'quota'. If this law passes companies that don't have enough ex-cons will have to pass over the qualified honest people in order to hire the losers. Wouldn't that be a great message to send to an honest hard working young person? "You didn't get the job because an ax murderer had the edge... and we have a quota to fill..."
Either a person has value to a business or he doesn't. The market will sort out the rest. Unfortunately, the government provides no guarantee that a criminal has served his time. It is sort of shame that the EEOC is pushing their weight around when money spent on the EEOC could be spent of making criminals go straight and someday contribute to society. It would be good for the ex-con as well as society, and a hell of a lot cheaper.
If they served their time. Then it shouldn’t matter.
So, where to put all these new employee/crooks? The Diversity positions are already filled. Perhaps these ex-cons can be assistant Diversity czars.
“If they served their time. Then it shouldnt matter.”
Cool. YOU hire them to guard YOUR home, take care of YOUR child, safeguard YOUR company’s finances. Don’t force ME to hire them!
Also it should really depend on the severity of the crime. IE. RAPE/MURDER/Pedophilia/THEFT.
But still, down your time. I don’t think you should be continually punished.
But forcing companies to hire these people over other people is completely ridiculous.
You really are a knee jerk liberal, aren't you.
You favor the government forcing me to hire smokers and now criminals. Is there any form of discrimination that you would allow an employer to engage in? Or should the government just pick and choose who I should hire?
I do believe that you are not a long time lurker looking for new FRiends, but just a Liberty hating troll.
BTW have you decided whether or not you are going to sue the employer for not hiring you because you smoke?
The next thing you will be advocating is the government prohibiting employers from discriminating against disgruntled employees who have sued their prior employers.
Am I right?
Should I forced to overlook the fact that you sued some other employer for some silly feel-good liberty robbing labor law violation?
Why should ex-criminals, EVEN petty criminals be denied employment after their time is served. I don’t know if you know this or not but a LOT of people that get out of jail want to do better with themselves, once they find out they can’t. They go back to crime to survive.
I would gladly hire an ex con to guard my home, or take care of my child, or safeguard my companies finances. They’ve paid their debt to society. Maybe they made one mistake. It shouldn’t haunt them for the rest of their lives.
“The update was issued out of concern that employers might disproportionally exclude minorities from getting hired because more African Americans and Hispanics are getting arrested and going to prison.”
IOW blacks & Hispanics disproportionally commit crimes.
That's insane. It's their business, and employers should be able to sort prospective employees into classes: (1) unqualified, (2) fully qualified, (3) best qualified.
And they should be able to use criteria important to their business. If your smoking is going to cost that employee thousands more in health and lost time costs, then that employer has good reason to pick someone other than you who might even be slightly less qualified.
If it's right for the government to tell me how to run my business or there will be consequences, then it's also right for the government to tell you to quit smoking or there will be consequences. In other words, you are advocating big government controlling our personal and professional lives.
As a newbie you probably don't realize that long-time conservative Freepers protect this site from those who come across right away as liberal trolls. You have definitely walked that line wanting to sue over smoking and wanting to force companies to hire ex-convicts.
Thinking that a longtime Freeper is going to get zotted for calling you on this stuff is a pipe dream. It won't happen.
However....actual liberal trolls....they have a good shot at meeting the Viking Kitties.
IBTZ, DU troll.
If someone proves themselves reliable then of course they should be hired. And there are people who turn their lives around. But it's also time to get real - most of these losers will stay the way they are or get worse. And it has nothing to do with someone 'giving' them anything. Or not 'giving' them something. It has to do with their choices. Most of them chose the 'easy unethical' way because they're lazy, stupid and mean. That's also why no one wants to hire them.
What's being offered is a new quota system. Let me explain because it's not being advertised as another quota system, but it is one...
Two people apply for a job - one is hard working, honest and has a great referencesfrom his previous job. The other person is a lowlife who has spent his life stealing, lying, and manipulating anyone he comes in contact with... He was arrested for stealing from his last boss and beating up his girlfriend and her illegitimate child... He's never worked a 'hard' month in his life because he's too good for hard work. You know the type Freedom - long on self-pity and excuses - short on truth and a work ethic...
Let's say the assh*les in Washington have passed the new quota law - and the company MUST hire the criminals. And not just one - not just one incompetent - not just one mean lowlife, but hundreds of them... Why hundreds? Because the company has to make up for all the years they've been hiring honest decent people...
So the honest hard working person doesn't get the job - and the criminal does... That's a reward. And an incentive. And a very perverse one at that...
There are ways to assist criminals without making a life of crime MORE profitable....
And who are you to judge? Do you own a business? Have you ever owned a business where you had to deal with employees?
Whether or not things should be used in job consideration is nobody's business except the owner of the business. You advocate laws which prohibit owners of businesses from picking and choosing employees based on their own individual criteria and instead you favor using THE POWER OF THE STATE to force that employer to overlook certain character flaws in potential employees, such as being stupid enough to smoke cigarettes or being stupid enough and evil enough to get convicted of a crime.
Youre obviously a paid shill.
And who is paying me to shill? What, do you think I'm being paid by the tobacco lobby (which managed to get the law on the books prohibiting employers from discriminating on the basis that a person smokes)?
Demeaning other conservatives with your closed-mindedness.
Ah Ha! You think because I am advocating for the liberty of employers and for Constitutional limited government that I am closed minded and that you, who are here advocating nanny state laws designed to give special employment rights to smokers and drug dealers and embezzelers and other morally bankrupt job applicants, are somehow an open minded "CONSERVATIVE"?
Since you have been on this forum you have advocated for laws that restrict an individual from exercising whatever discretion they want in picking and choosing whom they will put on their payroll. You have yet to post even one post on this forum where you advocate anything other than a Nanny State agenda.
I dont advocate government control of anything, yet if it HAS TO BE THAT WAY, you still have to follow the law.
And when they pass a law taking away your Liberty instead of granting you someone else's liberty are you going to obey the law?
When they come to take away your guns are you going to comply with the law?
When they force you to take wedding pictures at a gay wedding, are you going to comply with the law?
When they tell you that in order to work at a hospital, you have to be certified as an abortionist, are you going to comply with that law?
You have not established your conservative credentials on this forum yet. So far you have established only that you are a whiny knee jerk Nanny Stater who advocates for laws restricting the rights of employers to hire or fire who they want for whatever reason they want.
I suspect you would also advocate for safer guns and safer bullets, higher minimum wage laws, forced health coverage for employees; prohibitions against discriminating against gays, atheists, people with tattoos on their faces, people with rings in the noses, cross dressers, pathological liars, people with criminal records, people who file lawsuits against their prior employers.... the list goes on.
And you call yourself a conservative?
Tell me what single conservative position have you espoused since you signed up for Free Republic.
Ok, that, my FRiend is the clear and unequivocal statement of a died in the wool nanny state liberal.
And FWIW, died in the wool nanny state liberals shouldn't be allowed to pretend to be conservatives on Free Republic.
You will find that the owners of this site are very discriminating. Out yourself as a liberal troll and out you go.
I smell Ozone in the air.
Are there any Viking Kitties in the area?
Well said by the both of you.
If the newbie claimed to be a long time lurker before signing up and posting these clearly lib views either s/he didn’t learn anything from lurking or they’re not being honest.
Liberal troll seems to fit pretty well at this point.
Tell me this before you keep calling me a liberal troll.
Fired because www.freerepublic.com was on your web history.
Fired because company finds out you own guns.
Fired because you are a registered republican.
Fired because you were trained in the military, and they don’t want dangerous people around.
Fired because you had a drink at a bar after work.
Do you becoming angry, or write them a letter telling them how great it is that they preserve Liberty?
I am not a troll, and you did not post the rest of quote.
I came here to learn, and you shun me away. I came here on no ones accord but my own, and am a frequent visitor of the site.
The way it stands is not fair.
All you have to do is look at this ridiculous law forcing employers to hire convicts, to see my point.
Cannot discriminate against gays. But can discriminate against smokers.
I’m just angry because I have been looking for work for a long time, eating macaroni and cheese and top ramen for months, I would have had a job, but NO because I’m a smoker. It didn’t have anything to do with insurance purposes or anything like that. I even told them I would not smoke on the job during breaks or lunches, or come to work smelling like cigarettes. Nope, I still smoke cigarettes. Made me very very angry, and I’m very stressed.
I don’t want pity, I also don’t want to be labelled a Liberal troll, I might vomit.
Look, I don't know why you can't seem to find a job. I don't know how old you are, what your professional qualifications are or why you are currently unemployed. From your postings here you seem to be a very confused person who claims to believe in Liberty and yet who is convinced that someone else's private exercise of Liberty in discriminating against you because you smoke is somehow taking away your liberty to smoke.
No, my FRiend, you are still allowed to smoke in this nanny state and people who don't like it are pretty much at liberty to avoid hanging around you or liking you or thinking that you are a damn fool for continuing in a habit that will someday result in your either dying of cancer or drowning in your own mucous in a hopsice because your lungs are so filled with scar tissue that you can't cough it out.
You came on this thread announcing to the Freepers that you didn't think an employer has the right to discriminate against anyone. Those were your words. You seem to have backtracked from those words which means to me that you have a tendency to speak or type before you engage your brain. My guess is that this is probably the reason why you haven't been able to get employment. Either that or you are not qualified for the position for which you are applying. Probably both.
I gave you a word of advice early on. I suggested that you write the company that didn't hire you and tell them you understand their reluctance to hire someone who smoked and to thank then for having standards and that if you ever were able to stop smoking that you would consider it an honor to work for them.
You ignored my advice and suggested that maybe you would sue the employer. I advised you that that would be the worst career move of your life. I don't see that you have taken that advice.
You might want to go back in your own employment history and see whether or not there is some stain on your record that you managed to get posted somewhere. Perhaps you filed a labor lawsuit against a prior employer before. Perhaps you filed an injury claim for some bogus injury, hired an attorney and cost one of your employers an arm and a leg more than they ever paid you. These lawsuits are public records and any prospective employer can look them up and then come up with some other reason not to hire you.
My advice is to stop complaining about the people that won't hire you and come up with some really good reasons why someone in the position to hire you should hire you. If they suspect that you are going to be trouble, they are not going to hire you. If they think they can make a lot of money by putting you on the payroll, then you would already have a job by now.
Stop looking for laws that will force an employer to hire you. Start looking for solid economic reasons why an employer will profit from hiring you and if you can convince them of that, they will overlook the little flaws such as your compulsion to kill yourself or waste time and money injesting polluted air.
Sorry, that should be up to the employer looking for new hires whether it matters, not the government.
No I have never been injured on the job or filed a lawsuit. There were many other things that they could have stopped the interview at. But they chose the smoking......this is what I don’t understand.
No I’m not going to SUE anyone.
“Why should ex-criminals, EVEN petty criminals be denied employment after their time is served. I dont know if you know this or not but a LOT of people that get out of jail want to do better with themselves, once they find out they cant. They go back to crime to survive.
I would gladly hire an ex con to guard my home, or take care of my child, or safeguard my companies finances. Theyve paid their debt to society. Maybe they made one mistake. It shouldnt haunt them for the rest of their lives.”
It’s also MY choice; I WON’T hire that person.
You probably are in favor of taking my power to choose away from me, but, so far, it’s still a free country!
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.