Posted on 02/15/2013 9:29:37 AM PST by Olog-hai
The Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it should be a federal crime to refuse to hire ex-convicts — and threatens to sue businesses that don’t employ criminals.
In April, the EEOC unveiled its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records,” which declares that “criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin.”
The impetus for this “guidance” is that black men are nearly seven times more likely than white men to serve time in prison, and therefore refusals to hire convicts disproportionally impact blacks, according to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by James Bovard, a libertarian author and lecturer whose books include “Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
You know, until recently I’d sit back at something like this, chuckle and wait for the inevitable a$$kicking to be administered by the Supreme Court.
But now they’ll just fine ... er ... tax business that fail to comply and it’ll pass the Court in a 5/4 decision with Roberts writing for the majority.
LOL
This really isn’t any different than his government and party enacting severely draconian laws that infringe on the rights of abortion clinic protesters. They also protect and avenge any harm that comes to their prolific butchers (aka Abortionists).
Here’s a clue for employers. ALWAYS review resumes and applications in private without having the prospective candidate present. DO NOT CALL anyone in without having had this review. If you are ever caught in a situation where you interview someone who mentions their incarceration, immediately check to see if that was entered on the application. Your applications should REQUIRE that ALL periods of unemployment be accounted for and LISTED as a separate entry....if their incarceration isn’t listed, end the interview for lying on the application.
“Translation: Politicians need jobs after they retire....”
LOL! No truer words were ever spoken.
Next step.....
You want qualifications? Disparate impact.
You want dependability? Disparate impact.
You want references? Disparate impact.
I OWE YOU AN APOLOGY. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, and I AM WRONG in Post 34..
Presidential pardons are only for federal offenses (not impeachment).
Glad my lawyer walked by my desk ;)
Yes. Certain jobs however require, or at least suggest a strong need for, a clean record.
As for myself, about 3 years ago I interviewed a guy who owned up a conviction for drug possession in his past. He was regretful, paid his penalty, and had put that foolish mistake behind him. Today... he’s my best employee.
and jobs that require a bond or key man insurance make convicted felons uninsurable. (also those with misdemenors involving fraud)
It’s going to be funny when some liberal walks into a small business and the thug clerk cheats him. He’ll complain and the clerk will scream “You just accusin’ me ‘cause I’m a convict.”
Or some liberal business owner in San Francisco hires a thug and the cash register comes up short every day. He’ll say “I’m going to have the raise the prices and probably have to pay more taxes.”
Again, I can’t for the life me understand how anyone could still vote for obama
that may be it.
all these criminal convicted congress members are unemployable by banks or any financial institution.
Choices have consequences. Unemployment is one of them........
>>Next step.....
>>You want qualifications? Disparate impact.
>>You want dependability? Disparate impact.
Already reality in the U.K. where businesses may not ask for ‘reliable’ workers because it discriminates against the ‘unreliable’.
Obviously a policy formulated by people who have never managed a staff nor felt any responsibility for their safety.
I’m waiting for some information I didn’t already have.
The way the EEOC works is truly Orwellian.
If, for example, you have an employment test and you have a question on it that is completely race-neutral - say 1+1=? - and blacks get the question wrong significantly more than others, the question is de facto discriminatory.
A company hires a rapist to work in the wharehouse. Later the boss tells this liberal obama lovin’ woman to go to the back of the wharehouse to check some inventory. She says “I don’t want to go back there.”
The boss says “Why not?”
“’Cause that guy’s a rapist.”
“Votes have consequences. Now get back there or you’re fired.”
“Do you have a gun I can take with me?”
“Sorry, obama took all my guns. You’re on your own. Now go do your job or I’ll replace you with a criminal!”
Great! You own a bank, you must hire convicted felon bank robbers. You are Commander in Chief of this country, you MUST HIRE convited murders who hate blacks. Fair is fair.
bttt
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.