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 ...
From a conservative point of view, does the federal government prosecute employers for being selective regarding hiring practices?
Can an employer say they hire people with excellent work history and proven track records of success and dedication to a particular job?
Getting into trouble with the EEOC is even easier than that.
It makes an excellent tool for government blackmail to employers or businesses when the government needs a “spokesman” for a “shovel ready” project.
Wreaking havoc on private enterprise is the goal of the administration.
An ex-con is going to be more dependable in a rural situation than an urban one? An ex-con followed a path of crime because of “real world” pressures that are somehow less evident in a rural setting?
The above is your plan for saving taxpayer dollars? Have you calculated the cost of testing/evaluation, transportation, social services, recidivism and legal costs? It is cheaper to maintain a lock on the cell with a person getting 3 squares and a beautiful exercise room.
You said: “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.”
Actually, that won’t be the answer to bad policy. The article linked above states the following:
“The EEOC is confident that its guidance will boost minority hiring, but studies published in the University of Chicago Legal Forum and the Journal of Law and Economics have found that businesses are much less likely to hire minority applicants when background checks are banned. As the majority of black and Hispanic job applicants have clean legal records, the new EEOC mandate may harm the very groups it purports to help.”
Criminal background checks allow employers the opportunity to specifically remove a high-danger element from their workforce. Employers are most often liable for any criminal damage their employees are responsible for, and criminal activity in the workplace can be extremely costly in both monetary and non-financial terms.
The government on the other hand argues that due to the fact that the overwhelming majority of criminals are black and hispanic, criminal background checks have a disparate impact.
In effect, the businesses are saying “we don’t want criminals”, and the government is saying “but most criminals are minorities! You can’t discriminate against them because you’d be discriminating against minorities”. If the government prevents businesses from denying criminals employment opportunities, then businesses will be forced to use the next best measure of criminality available to them... the indirect and imprecise measure of ethnicity.
It’s really kind of laughable. The EEOC and the Civil Rights Commission can’t find any real white-on-minority racism in this nation, so they resort to measuring things that merely correlate with racial discrimination. The net result being to force businesses to stop using direct measures of criminality and instead just use racial discrimination to keep criminals from getting hired.
Yes, that is the wording.
One must wonder if they should also get a pass on background checks to buy a gun...
If you give a lot of money to Democratic candidates, they will surely see to it that you won’t be hassled by EEOC.
I think the confusion here is that this is not a prison. It is a low tech town for older, trustee-type ex-cons, with few modern amenities, including electronics or vehicles, outside of an emergency radio and vehicle kept by the small staff. Living there is not punishment, but a privilege for good behavior.
Since because of their original crime, and their age, they are pretty much unemployable in the rest of society, and have to live on a substantial dole of welfare, it would be a lot cheaper to provide them an inexpensive place in which they could just survive.
Already in the US we have what amounts to “geriatric” prisons that are in effect convict retirement homes with minimal guards, which works as long as they still have time to serve. But once out on the street, they can no longer function in society, often falling prey to drugs and alcohol, committing crime to survive.
If you consider several states kicking in *part* of the welfare that would have been paid directly to the ex-cons and social services like emergency rooms and Medicaid, to send them to the host state, several states save a bunch of money.
Bottom line....... never hire a black man lacking a college degree. He might be a criminal and discriminating between black criminals and non criminals is illegal. Taking the prudent course of not hiring a black man when there are minority approved Hispanics ia the safe course.
This is how its done in the Thugocracy. Craft the law so that everyone is lawbreaker. If they pay adequate tribute, they don’t get prosecuted. If they don’t toe the line, ruin them in court.
It’s going nuts. The EEOC did a “lunch and learn” recently for some staffing agencies and headhunters who routinely do background checks, the three take aways I noticed were:
1) don’t have absolutes written in your hiring policies (Never, No, etc., etc.)
2) certain religious designations trump others
3) certain sexual designation trump all
I agree with your comment, as long as the business plays with the actions of the government, the business will be given a pass. But if a business wants to hire the best possible person to help the business and person succeed, they are penalized.
I don’t know what you mean. Can you be more clear or do you have specifics with references?
“only one of them is a convicted felon”
Snoop Dogg: “Shortly after graduating from high school, he was arrested for possession of cocaine and for the following three years was frequently in and out of prison”
“In 1990, he was convicted of felony possession of drugs and possession for sale.”
The punk has a string of arrests and convictions.
Then that should be modified to a “federal” felony conviction.
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.