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 Commission’s 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 ...
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 shouldn’t 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.
Troll Alert!
IBTZ
“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.
yeah, right.
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.
You’re 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"?
LOL!
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 don’t 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.
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.