Skip to comments.Bosses could be forced to hire more workers with criminal records under new equality guidelines
Posted on 02/24/2013 6:40:36 AM PST by COUNTrecount
Employers in the U.S. may soon have to hire more workers with criminal backgrounds under new equality guidelines issued by the federal government.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions guidelines warn companies against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a felony or other offense, recommending that those companies eliminate policies which exclude people from employment based on a criminal record.
According to the EEOC, civil rights laws already prohibit employers from selectively hiring job applicants who are of different ethnic backgrounds but have matching criminal histories.
The latest update from the EEOC was issued out of concern that employers might disproportionally decline applicants from minorities since a greater number of African Americans and Hispanics are getting arrested for crimes, according to the guideline report.
There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records, the EEOCs website states.
However, using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way.
The agency's commissioners approved the report in a 4-1 vote in April 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Warning: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidelines warn companies against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a felony or other offense.
Could it be that they commit a greater number of crimes in proportion to their percentage of the general population? Naahh.
For those who have been convicted of a crime...what is the recidivism rate ?
Under the enterprise corruption laws in place, if I were to hire a drug dealer, and they began selling drugs at my establishment without my knowledge, I could open my business to seizure under those statutes.
Is the stigma of being convicted of a crime one the reasons not to commit a crime ?
Wow, this isn’t even satire.
Depending on the job I would have no problem hiring non violent offenders but it needs to be left up to the employer.
When I was a paint room foreman my crew was almost entirely made up of parolees working out of a halfway house and they were the best crew in the shop.
Liberalism is a mental disorder. That’s the only explanation.
Employers can refuse a person if they smoke, but they can’t refuse a person with a criminal record?
How equal is that?
How equal is that?
Smoke within 15 feet of a building entrance, get a criminal record for it, get turned down for a job, sue the bas*****'s! The new American Dream
As a home owner and business owner I would have liked to be told that the painting crew was made up of parolees.
I would choose to not have them on my premises, looking at my personal/business possessions, seeing what kind of security I had.
We do not hire anyone without doing a complete background check, including fingerprinting.
IIRC, DoJ also wanted mentally ill people to be hired as lawyers or something, but I may be mis-remembering it.
As should be your choice but it would have also been your loss.
Why, only parolees can do a good job painting?
Recidivists sprung through politically correct treatment from the justice system commit the majority of the gun crimes in our country. But that’s not the script. The script is to go after white, law-abiding sportsmen.
Its really sad when FReepers fall to using childish little democrat style strawmen.
Here’s my strawman for you. You apparently don’t want it to be anyone’s choice to hire who they wish. Bet you’re pleased with the fact that a guy who wrote a bad check can’t load luggage on an airliner but an illegal alien with no history can.
It should be employer choice but that’s apparently not enough for you. Now go wave your genitalia at someone else because its not nearly as impressive as you think it is.
and there it is... felons are now a Protected Group...
As an employer I am liable for the acts of my employees and I am negligent if I do not do a background check.After the results I decide if I will hire the candidate
Your attitude is confusing, your comments indicate that you have no idea that you know what you are talking about.
If one of your parolees came back to rob your customer YOU would be held responsible.
Remember Elizabeth Smart and who kidnapped her?
Do you have a genitalia issue and how is that comment pertinent to this discussion?
An Employer’s Liability for Employee’s Acts
Negligent Hiring or Retention
Negligent hiring or retention liability, unlike job related misconduct, arises from acts performed by an employee outside the scope of his or her employment. The most common example of this is to hold an employer liable for the criminal conduct of an employee, which is obviously outside the scope of employment. The basis for liability is that the employer acted carelessly in hiring a criminal for a job that the employer should have expected would expose others to harm. Here are a few examples:
¦Example 1: An ice cream sales company hires a man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor to drive its ice cream truck and sell ice cream to children. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a man known to have assaulted minors, and then giving him access to those minors as customers.
¦Example 2: An elder care facility hires a woman convicted of fraud and identity theft against elderly people to look after and care for the facilities patients. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring a woman who was already convicted of scamming the elderly and giving her access to potential victims.
¦Example 3: A cable company hires a man without a background check and directs him to go to customer’s houses and install cable equipment. It turns out he’s been convicted twice of rape, and while at a customer’s house to install equipment, he rapes the occupant. The business is likely liable because it was negligent in hiring someone who has access to private houses without a background check, as well as being liable for hiring someone with a history of rape to meet privately with customers in their home.
The key to most negligent hiring and retention cases is providing employees with access to potential victims without doing the necessary examination of the employees’. Accordingly, to avoid liability for negligent hiring, an employer should always run a background check on an employee, and be especially careful if the employee has contact with the public. If you as an employer become aware of something after the fact, then handle the matter immediately to avoid negligent retention liability.
Will the fedgov follow its own rules?
How will the bureaucrats enjoy working alongside pedophiles, rapists, and murderers?
I used to hire ex cons, until I realized the danger that they posed to my other employees.
Employers have a duty to prevent workplace violence. How can this not be a consideration?