Posted on 04/27/2012 10:41:08 AM PDT by Jay Santos CP
WASHINGTON -- Is an arrest in a barroom brawl 20 years ago a job disqualifier? Not necessarily, the government said Wednesday in new guidelines on how employers can avoid running afoul of laws prohibiting job discrimination.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's updated policy on criminal background checks is part of an effort to rein in practices that can limit job opportunities for minorities that have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.
But some employers say the new policy -- approved in a 4-1 vote -- could make it more cumbersome and expensive to conduct background checks. Companies see the checks as a way to keep workers and customers safe, weed out unsavory workers and prevent negligent hiring claims. The new standard urges employers to give applicants a chance to explain a report of past criminal misconduct before they are rejected outright. An applicant might say the report is inaccurate or point out that the conviction was expunged. It may be completely unrelated to the job, or an ex-con may show he's been fully rehabilitated. The EEOC also recommends that employers stop asking about past convictions on job applications. And it says an arrest without a conviction is not generally an acceptable reason to deny employment. While the guidance does not have the force of regulations, it sets a higher bar in explaining how businesses can avoid violating the law.
(Excerpt) Read more at jobs.aol.com ...
Nice of AP to start the article off with a supportive argument.
Seems appropriate given that the Bam never had to submit any background info for his job.
In my professional career, I have run over 10,000 criminal background checks on prospective employees. The myth of "expungement" persists, thanks to unscrupulous lawyers (pardon the redundancy).
Rarely will applicants dispute the record; they more frequently use the expungement card. There are plenty lawyers willing to take some moron's money to file for an expungement. But in most cases, an expungement is really a pardon. If the person actually committed the crime, it's never going to be expunged.
They are invariably disappointed when I tell them their burglary conviction is there for posterity.
Of the convictions that have been reported, I can count the errors on one hand. The Obama admin doesn't get it: if an employer has the choice of a candidate with a clean record and one with a conviction, the convict loses. Every time.
That is for the prospective employer to decide.
Before:
I have 2 equal candidates (1 minority, 1 not).
I run a background checks
I hire the one with the better record.
After:
I have 2 equal candidates (1 minority, 1 not).
EEOC says no background check
EEOC says the minority is more likely to have a criminal record
Going by the EEOC’s percentages I don’t hire the minority
It is impossible to overstate what a really, really bad idea this is.
Want some sick criminal babysitting YOUR kids or working in YOUR home?
So now another reason for companies not to hire....why take a chance on hiring somebody you can’t get enough information about? Better to just dump more work on your current employees.
This is very easy to get around. Just require all employees must be bonded. You can’t get a bond with a criminal record. You can hire with out the criminal check but if they can’t get bonded they can’t start.
But.....but.....that would be...Racist!
The 0bama regime merely wants to see that Felonious Punk is not denied a job that others are more qualified for!
The purpose of this is to make more employers into “lawbreakers” by hiring the best applicants. Then the “lawbreakers” come under government control and “punishment.”
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.