Skip to comments.Perform Criminal Background Checks at Your Peril
Posted on 02/15/2013 5:52:19 AM PST by TurboZamboni
Should it be a federal crime for businesses to refuse to hire ex-convicts? Yes, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which recently released 20,000 convoluted words of regulatory "guidance" to direct businesses to hire more felons and other ex-offenders.
In the late 1970s, the EEOC began stretching Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to sue businesses for practically any hiring practice that adversely affected minorities. In 1989, the agency sued Carolina Freight Carrier Corp. of Hollywood, Fla., for refusing to hire as a truck driver a Hispanic man who had multiple arrests and had served 18 months in prison for larceny. The EEOC argued that the only legitimate qualification for the job was the ability to operate a tractor trailer.
U.S. District Judge Jose Alejandro Gonzalez Jr., in ruling against the agency, said: "EEOC's position that minorities should be held to lower standards is an insult to millions of honest Hispanics. Obviously a rule refusing honest employment to convicted applicants is going to have a disparate impact upon thieves."
The EEOC ignored that judicial thrashing and pressed on.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Ok...I really want to see the EEOC tell me that. I own a firearms manufacturing business. I’m not allowed to hire felons and I wouldn’t in any case due to the risk level.
So, they can go pee up a rope for all I care.
“Should it be a federal crime for businesses to refuse to hire ex-convicts? Yes, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission...”
Can we make it a crime for ambulance chasers to destroy my business when one of my convicted & paroled murderers murders a customer? Most companies now are simply avoiding hiring them because of their legal exposure.
Of course not! The "ambulance chasers" are big donors to the liberals, so this supply of funds must be increased, not discouraged!
Therefore, if you want to hire a machinist and a convicted felon applies, you must hire them. If they get access to ammunition, it is your fault.
See? Liberalism is soooo easy to understand!
Oh, I know the game. Look at the reaction to Pope Benedict XVI banning “celibate” homosexuals from the seminary (probably the most significant achievement during his reign); while the media bemoans the sexual assaults on minors by the clergy, they refuse to concede that 99.9% of these were homosexual rapes. When the Pope heads them off at the pass, he is a villain.
The EEOC considering the only qualification is to operate a tractor trailer is absurd. But I have come to expect nothing less from government agencies.
I see. The EEOC will probably push for the hiring of Bernie Madoff, if he is ever let out of prison, to work in the securities industries or running a bank or some such financial business. Probably if one refuses to use his business I guess they would be sued by the EEOC for a hiring discrimination too??
Anyway we can get that asteroid heading by the planet today to land on The Mall in DC??
It used to be the case that you could lose your government security clearance to work with classified material for a single drunk-driving conviction.
Millions of people who work as government contractors need these clearances to keep their jobs.
If you have a felony conviction on your record, forget even getting one.
Are those rules out the window too?
I worked for a background screening company some years back. There were so many stories about violent offenders coming across their future victims through their line of work- some had actually gone in the homes of the victims to do business and would murder or rape them there at a later time.
And I heard the legal dept make phone calls to applicants to tell them that their murder conviction, from 20 years ago, would keep them out of the medical field as medical assistants or nurses.
I dare anyone to say that our life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness and ability to be safe from violent criminals is not being infringed upon- attacked, really- by this administration.
Do liberals ever consider unintended consequences? If I can't do a background check before hiring someone, I'll scrutinize the resume even more carefully and reject everyone with a significant gap in employment so I can avoid those with prison time (not that I'll say why I'm rejecting them, but that's what I would do). The problem is that long term unemployment will then become an even bigger black mark on the resume than it is now. And those who lie on their resume to cover up that prison time? I'll reject or fire them for lying, so they still don't get the job.
If a felon applies, you hire someone else and never tell the felon he was rejected because of his academic credentials (racist), his criminal history (racist), his poor interviewing skills (racist), because of his unprofessional attire (racist), his tattoos (racist), or because he pulled a knife and threatened your receptionist (racist). Having made the mistake of giving helpful advice once, early in my career, I never again gave an interviewee any feedback on how to improve the resume or their interviewing. It's not worth the risk. You don't even say that someone else was better qualified (that's racist too), just that a different person was chosen or even better that you decided not to fill that position.
“I dare anyone to say that our life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness and ability to be safe from violent criminals is not being infringed upon- attacked, really- by this administration.”
They need that atmosphere to keep Americans clinging to the skirts of their government. I don’t see that happening here in NJ, where thousands of cops have lost their jobs due to budget cuts; the “state” isn’t even pretending they can keep us safe here anymore. It is actually nice to see that bit of government downsizing (which was SO expensive - lots of NJ cops make over $100K annually); now people have to grow up and fend for themselves.
Within 6 years Hitler completely upset Germany. In 12 he totally destroyed it. We are almost at the half way point.
I do the hiring for a company that has many safety sensitive jobs. I do criminal background checks on each applicant we intend to interview. I never disclose the results to anyone and those with red flags simply get a letter saying thanks for your interest in our company but we’ve chosen someone else. No further explanations.
Ex-felons need jobs too. They have families and bills to pay. Many states won’t allow drug-related felons to get welfare. So... they have to get some sort of a job to live. If our goal in prison is to punish and rehabilitate, then after they’ve completed their time, there needs to be assistance in getting a job. If we don’t have legitimate jobs for ex-felons, we’re basically guaranteeing that they’ll resort to committing crime.
“It used to be the case that you could lose your government security clearance to work....Are those rules out the window too?”
That’s different. We have to be able to trust the government...
You are right most never change.
If they went to the pen for a violent crime they were violent when they got out.
The only thing that kept them in line was fear.
They knew if they started trouble on the job the entire crew would take care of the problem and give them an attitude adjustment.
I was in the room when a couple of the calls were made. I did not eavesdrop on the conversations, nor did I know to whom the calls were being made. Basically, it was a ‘the system worked’ moment.
The applicants were dealing with the background screening company separately from their future employer. The employers didn’t know anything about what was found on their records, if I remember correctly. It was a long time ago, thankfully, that I worked there. But, my eyes were opened to the evil that is lurking, just waiting for an unattended moment.
Then you hire them.
Then you hire them.