Posted on 08/06/2012 12:26:03 PM PDT by MichCapCon
U.S. Congressman Hansen Clarke of Detroit has introduced a “ban the box” bill that would prevent employers from asking employees about criminal convictions on job applications until they made a conditional job offer.
Applications often have a box that asks applicants if they have been convicted of a crime.
The exception to asking about a criminal conviction in H.R. 6220 is when hiring the person may "involve an unreasonable risk to the safety of specific individuals or to the general public.”
(Excerpt) Read more at michigancapitolconfidential.com ...
No ban necessary. Being a convicted felon is a resume enhancement for Donkeys.
Around 40% of black males aged 20-29 in Detroit are in prison, awaiting trial, on parole, or on parole, a much higher percentage than for women, other age groups, or other racial groups. Any guesses what employers being unable to ask about a criminal record will do to hiring for the law-abiding black males in Detroit?
Will this bill apply to Obama’s second term? Doesn’t a background check include the production of a valid birth certificate?
Whatza problem? Criminal background checks considered racist in Detroit?
sarc/
With that said where is forgiveness and how do we let people turn their lives around by getting a good job, if they have truly changed?
Freepers of Faith, Freeper Legal Eagles and Freeper Employers please respond, this is key IMHO on turning the country around we are all not saints, but some may have errored more than others, how do we give them a chance without being a doormat as well?
>> Ive got mixed feeling on this one.
No mixed feelings here. Employment should be a completely voluntary, free market decision, period.
Employers should (if they dare) be free to ask ANY QUESTION they please, and hire and fire on ANY basis whatsoever — including race — or on no basis at all. They should pay whatever amount they can hire talent at — no minimum wage whatsoever.
Conversely, employees should be free — as they are now — to ask any question of their potential employer, and to make their job acceptance decision on any criteria they wish, or no criteria at all. As they are now.
Please observe that right now the vetting process is tilted in favor of employees, who unlike employers can ask ANYTHING and make their decision on ANY BASIS THEY CHOOSE.
As to your comment on ex-cons loading baggage — you’re right, there’s no inherent reason why an ex con ought to be automatically excluded from that job, or any other.
Let the market decide.
Note that if hiring decisions were freed of all the regulations they’re encumbered with, more people would be hired everywhere — old white guys, blacks, teens, EVERYONE would benefit. The economy would grow. And when it did grow, employment would increase, wages would have to increase, and more ex-cons (and black teenagers) would be hired — out of market NECESSITY.
What’s more, as cliche as it sounds, people ARE any business’s most precious asset. A company that regularly abused its human resouces relative to its competitors would be at a disadvantage in the marketplace, and eventually go out of business. Punished by the market, not by the government.
So its OK to hire illegals who can’t be tracked despite they might be 6 months out of GITMO?
>> With that said where is forgiveness and how do we let people turn their lives around by getting a good job, if they have truly changed?
Forgiveness for one’s actions, and enduring the consequences of one’s actions, are different concepts.
Just pass a bill making it illegal to hire Whitey.
>> So its OK to hire illegals who can’t be tracked despite they might be 6 months out of GITMO?
No, of course not, and sorry, I should have made that clear.
It’s not acceptable to break laws during the hiring process — for either employer or employee.
Sure. After they’ve paid their debts, wipe their histories. But know that sentences for real crimes will be harsher (theft, murder, robbery, etc.).
WH: DOJ will work on background checks for guns until Congress passes gun laws
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2915253/posts
When I was a factory foreman, my crew was about 80% parolees from a halfway house and as far as I’m concerned they were the best crew in the shop. I also had a few semi retired people and mentally retarded adults. The thing was that my parolees were all non violent offenders and pretty decent folks.
I don’t have issues with back ground checks so much as jobs that are restricted by law. Obviously you wouldn’t hire a child molester for child care but I fail to see a problem with hiring a former drunk driver to load luggage. Its just plain stupid.
My point is simply that we need some common sense. I really don’t have issues with the background check itself so much as I have problems with laws restricting any “felon” from certain jobs no matter what the job is or what his crime was.
I have to say that background checks should be banned. As a business owner, one of my employee is an ex-felon and he is my best worker in the service area. I don’t ask about criminal past.
So everyone will waste their time interviewing and extending conditional offers to people who turn out to have nine priors. Brilliant!
I have to ask because I know someone in exactly that situation.
Yeah, that thinking will make things better for everyone.
>> I have problems with laws restricting any “felon” from certain jobs no matter what the job is or what his crime was.
As a free-market enthusiast, I too would have problems with such a law.
I’m not aware of such a law, though. Is there a law like that in Michigan?
There are lots of jobs with federal restrictions like that. Jobs in transportation are notorious for federal restrictions. A good many jobs in the defense industry as well. In both its becoming easier to hire an illegal than a dangerous criminal who wrote a bad check or drove drunk.
You have centered the problem. What if the applicant is a rapist? Thief? Embezzler? Extortionist? Acts out violently? Uses drugs? Sells drugs? Obviously, other than minor traffic offenses, most things that create a criminal record make someone a major liability as an employee. This idiotic Congressman would be the first to hold a company accountable for a “hostile work environment” or some sort of incident at work. This is another part of the Democrats War on Employment — they’ll do anything to make jobs the last thing a potential employer can afford to create.
>> So “enduring the consequence” of bad credit from losing a home because you lost your job and couldn’t get a new one, part age and part bad economy, is to remain jobless and become destitute and dependent on government?
You’re putting words in my mouth; that’s not what I said.
I said that forgiveness and evading the consequences of one’s actions are different **concepts** — and they are. Forgiveness doesn’t automatically lead to “no penalty”. If you murder my loved one, I may forgive you — but I still want you to do your sentence.
But to address your implicit question, which is, “do I think the consequences you describe are fair”:
No. I think they suck for the individual you describe.
However, I don’t think the answer is government enforcement of an information blackout. If the individual is truly deserving and truly a victim of unfortunate circumstances, and not bad judgment, then they ought to be able to convince an employer of that.
Freedom => free markets, not government assurance of outcomes.
I would be just as “not in favor” of a rule or law that went the OTHER way, that is, precluded employment only because of someone’s bad credit rating or criminal record.
What about that Sex Offender Registry? Get rid of that too?
Bonding will be a problem once you hire a felon if a bond is necessary.
There are so many pratfalls with this stupidity.
There is a problem that a lot of the ex-cons in the US are aging, but unable to get even minimum wage jobs. One possible solution for this is for states to create poor farms specifically for ex-cons to do minor labor, mostly to support themselves, but in exchange for room and board.
As such, it would serve several purposes, the most important of which is to keep costs down by keeping them out of prison, off most welfare, out of the emergency rooms for health problems, and away from drugs and alcohol.
So, they sleep in barracks, grow some of their own food, make some of their own clothing, and do some jobs that will give them a small income.
The bottom line is that this is not being done for them, but for the taxpayers. If they benefit from it, great.
I think the problem may partially lie with the overwhelming desire of the self righteous to punish someone.
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.