Posted on 01/13/2012 6:53:19 AM PST by detective
Pepsi Beverages Co. has agreed to pay $3.1 million to settle federal charges of race discrimination for using criminal background checks to screen out job applicants even if they weren't convicted of a crime.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is working to crackdown on hiring policies that can hurt blacks and Hispanics, said Wednesday that the company's policy of not hiring workers with arrest records disproportionately excluded more than 300 black applicants. The policy barred applicants with arrest records even if they had never been convicted of a crime, and denied employment to those arrested or convicted of minor offenses.
(Excerpt) Read more at newser.com ...
Wouldn't you move production overseas to not have to deal with things like this?
Having worked for Pepsi, I am surprised the EEOC did this. They have gone out of their way over the past five years to hire only blacks and hispanics—many of whom were not qualified for their jobs.
They are very liberal at the Pepsico level even going so far as a fly the rainbow banner in the lobby to ‘celebrate pride’ month.
Wonder why Obama went after them and not another company?
Two things I noticed.
1.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is working to crackdown on hiring policies that can hurt blacks and Hispanics
They don’t give a shyt about whites.
2.the company’s policy of not hiring workers with arrest records disproportionately excluded more than 300 black applicants.
Again they don’t give a shyt about whites.
Shouldn’t a company have a right not to hire people with a criminal background? The lack of a conviction does not always mean a crime was not committed.
This administration led by blacks for blacks is an abomination.
Chump change, Bambi/Holder wouldn’t go hard after Pepsi, their CEO Indra Nooyi is one of them.
Nooyi is not liked within the company. She aint no Roger Enrico, that’s for sure.
Man, I have to disagree.
I’m not sure where you are from, but in the NE and around here, getting arrested doesn’t mean a damn thing. So yes, it is a huge difference between a conviction.
Police are some of the worst types of human beings, and they abuse power disproportionately, consistently around here. See, our officers aren’t part of our communities like in the Mid-West. They are a$$es from surrounding towns, halfway down the state or/and cities who are often driven by envy, jealousy, or simply just doing the job cause they are a “police family” tied in with the usual Italian or Irish blooded cabal (my European roots go back to Italy, though I could care less).
I watch them blow lines of cocaine in bars on their time off, then arrest people for the very same thing later that week. I watch them drink and drive, then end people’s entire lives for arresting them doing the same thing later that week.
If it hasn’t gotten through yet I’m not big on the pig.
Police are a class of the worst type, with a possible and important exception for NYPD special ops, whom are hardly “police” in the traditional sense.
Back to the point- this policy on the part of Pepsi is wrong and moronic, however I don’t see what business it is of the government.
Pepsi will be the one to miss out on talent for following such a stupid practice. In fact, Pepsi sucks- and so do all their junky products, that’s why they will always be a distant no.2, and falling further behind.
Cocoa Cola 4 life!!!
I agree that arrest records, without convictions should not be held against a prospective employee. Anyone could be arrested for something he/she was innocent of. In many cases, it probably does screen out bad people, but it really isn’t fair to the truly innocent ones, IMO.
That said, the idea that this discriminates against blacks and hispanics is absurd. It discriminates against people of any ethnic background who have been arrested but never convicted, period.
I also wonder how the EEOC and other such groups would react if Pepsi or some other company hired a white person arrested for, widely believed to be guilty of, but not convicted of some sort of “hate crime”, for a high profile positon? There is certainly a downside to tieing the hands of employers, in their hiring practices, even in what is a largely reasonable way.
More burning tires around the necks of American businesses. Also heard it will discriminatory not to hire if the applicant doesnot have a high school diploma.
Actually the EEOC is saying it is illegal to make a HS Diploma or GED a requirement for a job and put it in an ad.
Bad move Pepsi.
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.