Bosses could be forced to hire more workers with criminal records under new equality guidelines

Daily Mail UK ^ | February 24, 2013 | Staff

[COUNTrecount]

Employers in the U.S. may soon have to hire more workers with criminal backgrounds under new equality guidelines issued by the federal government.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s guidelines warn companies against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a felony or other offense, recommending that those companies eliminate policies which ‘exclude people from employment based on a criminal record.’

According to the EEOC, civil rights laws already prohibit employers from selectively hiring job applicants who are of different ethnic backgrounds but have matching criminal histories.

The latest update from the EEOC was issued out of concern that employers might disproportionally decline applicants from minorities since a greater number of African Americans and Hispanics are getting arrested for crimes, according to the guideline report.

‘There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records,’ the EEOC’s website states.

However, using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way.’

The agency's commissioners approved the report in a 4-1 vote in April 2012.

[cripplecreek]

If you aren’t man enough to go back and read my original comment, you may as well crawl right back into God’s front pocket and feel smug about yourself.

You may go now.

[COUNTrecount]

Depending on the job I would have no problem hiring non violent offenders but it needs to be left up to the employer.

When I was a paint room foreman my crew was almost entirely made up of parolees working out of a halfway house and they were the best crew in the shop.

So your employer hired parolees without understanding his liability and neither did you? Got it.

[monocle]

Another reason to send jobs overseas.

[cripplecreek]

Here’s a clue, go back and read my original comment if you can screw up the courage to do it.

You never know when the guy who wrote a bad check is going to go on a killing spree. LOL

[COUNTrecount]

Ex cons also pose a danger to your customers and if a crime is committed by them you are responsible.

We do a fingerprint check before we hire anyone.

[COUNTrecount]

I read your original comment.

Did you?

[Navy Patriot]

Let's see if I can read a little farther between the lines here.

The state wants to force employers to hire convicted criminals, because they need them hired.

For why?

The state plans on a huge increase in convicted criminals in the population and wants them generating tax revenue, rather than sucking it.

Convicted criminals allowed out in society on a state leash are much easier to control than sovereign citizens.

The state has no power over an honest man, (Reference Ayn Rand)

With monetary transfer "crimes", process "crimes", "hate crimes" and gun possession "crimes" et cetera, the state intends to eliminate the "honest man" for the purpose of citizen control.

We can't have him not working and not producing tax revenue, now, can we? Or voting for other than Rats?

Just yank the leash.

[dfwgator]

Recruiter: Have you ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor? That’s robbery, rape, car theft, that sort of thing.
John Winger: Convicted? No.
Russell Ziskey: Never convicted.

[Navy Patriot]

Will the fedgov follow its own rules?

The Federal government is required by Constitutional Law to do so, and has never obeyed that law since 1789.

[dsrtsage]

My friend is a manager in a assay lab. Because of tax breaks they hire quite a lot of parolees. The jobs do not require dealing with customers and such. Some of them are good workers, but there is always risks. Bad stuff does go down occasionally.