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 ...
#communist #Facebook&taxbreaks
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.
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.
Anybody can to a background check. ss# 042-68-4425
It's running below the radar so I assume it has provision for background and mental health consideration.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
That’s a different situation entirely, dontya know?
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.
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.
>>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.
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.
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.
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!
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.