Should government force businesses to hire felons? Obama nominee Debo Adegbile says yes

Washington Examiner ^ | March 3, 2014 | Byron York

[don-o]

The Senate will soon vote on President Obama's nomination of former NAACP Legal Defense Fund official Debo Adegbile to head the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. There are a number of reasons many Republicans oppose the nomination, most prominent among them Adegbile's passionate and continued advocacy on behalf of Philadelphia cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal. But one objection to the nomination has received little public notice, and it involves a quiet but growing controversy over the issue of criminal background checks.

It's not unusual for businesses to conduct a check before hiring new employees. If the check uncovers that the applicant has, say, a felony conviction in his past — well, that can put a quick end to the application process.

But Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has ruled that the use of background checks in hiring is racially discriminatory. In 2012, the EEOC issued "guidance" to the nation's businesses, citing statistics showing blacks and Hispanics are convicted of crimes at significantly higher rates than whites. Therefore, the EEOC ruled, excluding job applicants based on their criminal records would have "a disparate impact based on race and national origin."

The EEOC did not say past felonies could never be considered in job applications. But the guidance made clear that an employer who chooses not to hire a felon could have to present a detailed defense to the EEOC. "The employer needs to ... effectively link specific criminal conduct, and its dangers, with the risks inherent in the duties of a particular position," the guidance said. Employers who cannot prove to the EEOC's satisfaction that excluding a felon from a particular job is a "business necessity" could be in trouble. And whatever the outcome, the company could have its hands full with a costly lawsuit from the government.

[maddog55]

If it starts with “Should government force ...” then the answer is NO.

[Diogenesis]

The DNC sees them as the logical regulators of banking and
ObamaCARE now.

In the future, they will develop the experience
to “handle” Elections, and dominate the judiciary,
as well as representing the DNC in Congress and on SCOTUS.

[yldstrk]

Look. It’s a problem. Just because someone has a felony conviction, does not mean they did it. I have seen really shitty work by attorneys pleading clients to things they didn’t do just to get a quick pay off. I have seen prosecutors overcharge, fail to release evidence and threaten long sentences in their pathetic quests to make a name for themselves politically and get to be a judge.

Secondly, if a felon never has a job because of his felony conviction, how do you expect him to support himself, become a productive part of society?

Third, if the economy weren’t so bad, due to obama’s ridiculous influence, felons would not even be an issue. Felons would be hired on merit, not background check elimination, because they would be needed. If they screwed up, they would get fired or arrested.

[Sacajaweau]

Felons, fags, perverts, rapists, prostitutes....Yes!!

Christians....not so much...

[jsanders2001]

You want me to hire someone who is more likely to steal from me, incite workplace violence, sexually assault someone, or engage in activities that could invite a lawsuit?! Are you insane?!!

This president has absolutely no common sense and no business running a country. He is merely a puppet that was put into place by darker forces for sinister purposes.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

This unequal view of Obama is why I’ve voted against him twice. When he finishes two terms in office, he will have perverted our entire legal system. When a person has committed a serious felony, why does it matter what his background is?

[grobdriver]

Should the government force businesses to hire blacks.
Should the government force businesses to hire women.
Should the government force businesses to hire seniors.
Should the government force businesses to hire muslims.
Should the government force businesses to hire homosexuals.
Should the government force businesses to hire convicted criminals.

They put it all in the pot and stir it up and say, "It's all the same!"

[jsanders2001]

> Felons would be hired on merit, not background check elimination, because they would be needed. If they screwed up, they would get fired or arrested.

The problem is that one screwup might cost you your business or harm someone unnecessarily. You were kidding, right?

[ken5050]

Although you state it somewhat inelegantly, there's some merit in your points. However, there should be several caveats:

There are different types , and gradations of felonies..it shouldn't be a blanket exemption. Violent crimes, especially drug related, are different from so-called white collar, non-violent crimes. OTOH, if a person working, say, in a convenience store, was convicted of stealing from the place, do we really expect him/her to get another job in retail?

And right now, since, as you point out, there are no jobs, if we don't let employers exclude felons, then we'e actually discriminating AGAINST honest citizens.

[Iron Munro]

If crooks, tax cheats, terrorists and unidicted felons are good enough for Obama’s cabinet and bureaucracies why wouldn’t they be good enough for jobs as pickle packers or Obamcare navigators?

[yldstrk]

I thought I stated it elegantly.

How would you have put it?

[celmak]

I can see it now, a federal judge will come out and make this decision from a case involving a business not hiring a felon:

Just because felons may have more of a proclivity to re-do what they were incarcerated for (like robbery, murder, rape, pedophilia, etc.) does not mean you shall not hire them. Since you are obviously rich to have a business, hiring these ex-felons (really, they are just poor souls who have had bad luck in there lives) is the least you can do. In fact, you shall - as a business in our social construct - be forced to put these poor, unfortunate souls who have made a "mistake" into your household for shelter rent free until the felon feels his compensation warrants him to pay rent.

It's coming!

.

[Dead Corpse]

Agreed.

Government needs to be severely disabused of this notion it keeps coming up with.

Specific and limited powers. Other than that, CUT OFF THEIR NOSES.

[yldstrk]

You do realize it is almost common to hire a former hacker to a computer company? Thieves to security companies?

[jsanders2001]

> When a person has committed a serious felony, why does it matter what his background is?

Past behavior predicts future behavior. Its a standard that proves itself true over and over again. I say that having conducted thousands of background checks. You can almost do the same with the sons and their fathers. Quite often I’ll run a criminal history on a person that is a Jr or III and find the same type of criminal history on both the son and the father especially when it comes to substance abuse or crimes pertaining to violence. Just something I’ve noticed over the years. Also noticed that people with certain names are more prone to have criminal history too.

[The_Reader_David]

If it starts with “Should government force ...” then the answer is NO.

Quite right.

Although there is a problem they are trying to address. It is perhaps, hardly surprising that with our society rapidly de-Christianizing, the notion of repentance is out of vogue, and vast swaths of our society seem to think Javert, with his once a criminal, always a criminal view of human nature was the hero of Les Misérables. The idea of "having paid one's debt to society" by serving one's sentence for a crime is out of vogue and thanks to criminal background checks, a single crime can condemn a person to a life of unemployment and at best dependency on the state, at worst, fulfillment of the Javert-emulators' prophecies.

[BenLurkin]

Insanity.

[Liz]

Primary reason why Obama and Holder get constipated at the thought of US laws being enforced. It is an article of faith in Holder/Obama's "hood" that all US rules, regs, laws, are discriminatory---enacted and structured by evil white men in power---to subjugate the underclass, the ne'er do wells, "the underserved" (to use Obama's fave word).

============================================

Now 2014 looms and Demons are in big trouble----they want (and desperately need) felon votes b/c: (1) the majority would likely vote for Demo'Rats, (2) vote-crazed 'Rats need new voting blocs - legal or illegal.

===================================================

It is rather interesting that some slavishly liberal Dems are holding back support----seems the jerkoffs learned a hard lesson from the O/Care debacle (snix).

When the Demons uniformly marched together for O/Care, Americans had not seen such lock-stepping party loyalty, and obeisance to their party's leader, since 1930-40s era Europe.

==================================================

REFERENCE Holder's call to let ex-felons vote divides Senate Democrats
The Hill | March 1, 2014 | Alexander Bolton / FR Posted by Clintonfatigued

Attorney General Eric Holder’s call to restore voting rights to felons after they’ve served their time in prison has split Senate Democrats. Liberal Democrats who are not facing tough re-elections this year say it’s the right thing to do, but vulnerable incumbents are steering clear of the proposal. Holder has become increasingly outspoken recently.

This week Holder declared that state attorneys general are not obligated to defend laws that are discriminatory. Political experts say barring ex-felons from voting impacts African Americans disproportionately. (Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...

[ilovesarah2012]

http://themadjewess.com/2013/06/12/obama-admin-sues-bmw-plant-for-not-employing-black-felons/

Obama Admin Sues BMW Plant For Not Employing Black FELONS