EEOC Issues Job Guidelines That Limit Background Checks

Afro ^ | 5/9/12 | George E. Curry

[YourAdHere]

Not to misuse? You mean like, respect them?

[GeronL]

We know where this is headed

[NonValueAdded]

So they commit the crimes, the justice system finds them guilty and passes sentence, but it is the employer who is at fault if they choose not to hire someone with a criminal background. So much for judging by the content of ones' character, the color of their skin trumps all.

IF YOU CAN'T DO THE TIME, DON'T DO THE CRIME

[SuzyQue]

‘Cause it’s already half there?

[CPOSharky]

We know where this is headed

If the applicant claims at least 1/32 minority, no background check will be allowed?

[Maceman]

"QUIT BREAKING THE LAW A**HOLE!!"

[Clara Lou]

What happened to encouraging people (black, white, white Hispanic, black Hispanic, Asian, etc.) to keep their records clean?
It is illogical to expect employers not to use all of the information available to them, both for their own sake and the sakes of their customers.

[dennisw]

What a bunch of BS....We are living in BRA ..... Look it up. America run (and run into the ground) for the benefit of minorities. By the way the DC Federal government is heavily black, way past any affirmative action guidelines. It also swarming with gays...they love those pointless Federale jobs. It’s a bastion of lesbianism too. They love it!!

Just keep paying your taxes suckers!!!!

[GeronL]

bump

[GeronL]

bump

[rottndog]

"Arrest and incarceration rates are particularly high for African-American and Hispanic men,” the EEOC report stated. “African Americans and Hispanics are arrested at a rate that is 2 to 3 times their proportion of the general population..."

Maybe because they commit crimes 2 to 3 times their proportion of the general population???

Of course not...it has to be because of their skin color...

[Big Mack]

When I saw the title. my first thought was the semi truth/semi satire. Then I looked for the source and asked when did the Onion change their name?

[Explorer89]

OK, after reading the entire article, I have to say I agree. Employers should be looking for a conviction, not just an arrest. Remember Romney’s arrest for putting his boat in the water? I think the conviction should matter.....what happens when we get arrested under the new rules for protesting too close to the President? Even if no charges or conviction follows, that would not be on the records they are searching.

[SamuraiScot]

Is this actually intended to be bad PR for black job applicants, implying that they are criminals, to discourage employers from even considering them?

I don't actually think these organizations have a plan, they just have a psychological need to be quoted saying something stupid and crazy. For tenure-track professors at elite colleges, it's "Publish or perish." For the NAACP, it's "Hold a press conference or no sucker's gonna write a check this week."

[adorno]

That law could work, only if the EEOC takes responsibility for any crimes which are then committed by those with records which employers were supposed to ignore or never saw.

So, if a criminal were to, say, steal from a company, and the employer had been required to ignore that crime record, then the EEOC should become liable for the theft and the inconvenience which is caused the company/employer. Also, if a criminal were to pull out a weapon and murder of few of his fellow co-workers, the law should allow the EEOC to be named as the co-conspirator in the commission of that crime.

[Nervous Tick]

>> We know where this is headed

Yep, towards hiring only family, friends, and direct referrals with no job postings whatsoever to attract EEOC attention.

If they *really* want to screw blacks and hispanics, employment-wise, in addition to this nonsense they should raise the minimum wage again.

[traditional1]

"“Arrest and incarceration rates are particularly high for African-American"

No S##$ Sherlock?

It couldn't be because they commit a dis-proportionate number of crimes, and we STILL are not allowed to suspect them of wrong-doing, even though they a 4x more likely to be up to no good?

Oh yeah.....that's "Racial Profiling", as opposed to what is ACTUALLY Probable Cause.

[Feckless]

Makes about as much sense as saying we shouldn’t track and arrest illegal aliens because so many will be hispanic (or whatever the word of the day is for Guacamolean).

[KittenClaws]

OK, after reading the entire article, I have to say I agree. Employers should be looking for a conviction, not just an arrest. Remember Romney’s arrest for putting his boat in the water? I think the conviction should matter.....what happens when we get arrested under the new rules for protesting too close to the President? Even if no charges or conviction follows, that would not be on the records they are searching.

__________________________________________

Background checks are usually not conducted without the consent and knowledge of the potential employee.

Knowing this, if an applicant has had some sort of “misunderstanding” with law enforcement in his or her past, it would be in their best interest to divulge it in the initial interview. An innocent person would have no qualms about doing so.

[YourAdHere]

Agreed.