Feds will Force Businesses to Give Hiring Priority to Felons

Discussion in 'This Cesspool We Live In' started by tricknologist, Feb 15, 2013.

  1. tricknologist menace to sobriety

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    3,717
    Location:
    Chocolate City, LA
    Reputation:
    24,951,400
    Ratings Received:
    +4,622 / 13 / -43
    Perform Criminal Background Checks at Your Peril

    A federal policy intended to help minorities is likely to have the opposite effect.

    By JAMES BOVARD

    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. Last April, the agency unveiled its "Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions," declaring that "criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin."

    Though blacks make up only 13% of the U.S. population, more blacks were arrested nationwide for robbery, murder and manslaughter in 2009 than whites, according to the FBI. The imprisonment rate for black men "was nearly 7 times higher than White men and almost 3 times higher than Hispanic men," notes the EEOC. These statistical disparities inspired the EEOC to rewrite the corporate hiring handbook to level the playing field between "protected groups" and the rest of the workforce.

    Most businesses perform criminal background checks on job applicants, but the EEOC guidance frowns on such checks and creates new legal tripwires that could spark federal lawsuits. One EEOC commissioner who opposed the new policy, Constance Barker, warned in April that "the only real impact the new Guidance will have will be to scare business owners from ever conducting criminal background checks. . . . The Guidance tells them that they are taking a tremendous risk if they do."

    If a background check discloses a criminal offense, the EEOC expects a company to do an intricate "individualized assessment" that will somehow prove that it has a "business necessity" not to hire the ex-offender (or that his offense disqualifies him for a specific job). Former EEOC General Counsel Donald Livingston, in testimony in December to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, warned that employers could be considered guilty of "race discrimination if they choose law abiding applicants over applicants with criminal convictions" unless they conduct a comprehensive analysis of the ex-offender's recent life history.

    It is difficult to overstate the EEOC's zealotry on this issue. The agency is demanding that one of Mr. Livingston's clients—the Freeman Companies, a convention and corporate events planner—pay compensation to rejected job applicants who lied about their criminal records.

    The biggest bombshell in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws that require employee background checks can still be targeted for EEOC lawsuits. This is a key issue in a case the EEOC commenced in 2010 against G4S Secure Solutions after the company refused to hire a twice-convicted Pennsylvania thief as a security guard.

    G4S provides guards for nuclear power plants, chemical plants, government buildings and other sensitive sites, and it is prohibited by state law from hiring people with felony convictions as security officers. But, as G4S counsel Julie Payne testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights this past December, the EEOC insists "that state and local laws are pre-empted by Title VII" and is pressuring the company "to defend the use of background checks in every hiring decision we have made over a period of decades."

    The EEOC's new regime leaves businesses in a Catch-22. As Todd McCracken of the National Small Business Association recently warned: "State and federal courts will allow potentially devastating tort lawsuits against businesses that hire felons who commit crimes at the workplace or in customers' homes. Yet the EEOC is threatening to launch lawsuits if they do not hire those same felons."

    At the same time that the EEOC is practically rewriting the law to add "criminal offender" to the list of protected groups under civil-rights statutes, the agency refuses to disclose whether it uses criminal background checks for its own hiring. When EEOC Assistant Legal Counsel Carol Miaskoff was challenged on this point in a recent federal case in Maryland, the agency insisted that revealing its hiring policies would violate the "governmental deliberative process privilege."

    The EEOC is confident that its guidance will boost minority hiring, but studies published in the University of Chicago Legal Forum and the Journal of Law and Economics have found that businesses are much less likely to hire minority applicants when background checks are banned. As the majority of black and Hispanic job applicants have clean legal records, the new EEOC mandate may harm the very groups it purports to help.

    Naturally, the EEOC will have no liability for any workplace trouble that results from its new hiring policy. But Americans can treat ex-offenders humanely without giving them legal advantages over similar individuals without criminal records. The EEOC's new regulatory regime is likely to chill hiring across the board and decrease opportunities for minority applicants.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Hawthorne Abendsen: 10,201 Points Feb 15, 2013
    Celt: 2,063 Points Feb 15, 2013
    rust: 8,541 Points Feb 15, 2013
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  2. Mrs. White Molon Labe

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Message Count:
    586
    Location:
    The South
    Reputation:
    2,777,561
    Ratings Received:
    +540 / 0 / -10
    This is more social justice...if so many niggers were not felons the government and liberals would not give a shit.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Celt: 2,063 Points Feb 15, 2013
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  3. Celt A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,947
    Reputation:
    -640,795
    Ratings Received:
    +1,845 / 18 / -27
    "Though blacks make up only 13% of the U.S. population, more blacks were arrested nationwide for robbery, murder and manslaughter in 2009 than whites, according to the FBI. The imprisonment rate for black men "was nearly 7 times higher than White men..."

    Readily believable, BUT remember it's all Whitey's fault because we've "held them back" for so long. Somehow, someway it's all due to racism on that we may all rest assured.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Fitz: -7,028 Points Dec 4, 2013
  4. Sam Crow Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    604
    Reputation:
    4,314,204
    Ratings Received:
    +775 / 2 / -18
    Hmm, State law here requires me to run a background check if a person is going to be working in peoples homes. How is that going to work ?
  5. Mrs. White Molon Labe

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Message Count:
    586
    Location:
    The South
    Reputation:
    2,777,561
    Ratings Received:
    +540 / 0 / -10
    In order to work for the state of MA you can't be a felon.......
    I wonder if local, state and federal governments will be exempt?
  6. tricknologist menace to sobriety

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    3,717
    Location:
    Chocolate City, LA
    Reputation:
    24,951,400
    Ratings Received:
    +4,622 / 13 / -43
    The biggest bombshell in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws that require employee background checks can still be targeted for EEOC lawsuits. This is a key issue in a case the EEOC commenced in 2010 against G4S Secure Solutions after the company refused to hire a twice-convicted Pennsylvania thief as a security guard.

    G4S provides guards for nuclear power plants, chemical plants, government buildings and other sensitive sites, and it is prohibited by state law from hiring people with felony convictions as security officers. But, as G4S counsel Julie Payne testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights this past December, the EEOC insists "that state and local laws are pre-empted by Title VII" and is pressuring the company "to defend the use of background checks in every hiring decision we have made over a period of decades."

    The EEOC's new regime leaves businesses in a Catch-22. As Todd McCracken of the National Small Business Association recently warned: "State and federal courts will allow potentially devastating tort lawsuits against businesses that hire felons who commit crimes at the workplace or in customers' homes. Yet the EEOC is threatening to launch lawsuits if they do not hire those same felons."
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Sam Crow: 2,941 Points (I should have read it better) Jun 12, 2013
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
  7. tricknologist menace to sobriety

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    3,717
    Location:
    Chocolate City, LA
    Reputation:
    24,951,400
    Ratings Received:
    +4,622 / 13 / -43
    Most likely, only the feds.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    rust: 8,527 Points (There will be some sort of clause; the feds will of course exempt themselves, but state and local gov't will be expected to bend over and take it.) Feb 15, 2013
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  8. rust inactive

    Member Since:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,414
    Reputation:
    16,608,348
    Ratings Received:
    +3,796 / 44 / -23
    This will be one likely consequence:
    Another possible result is that to the extent employers can get away with it (EEOC has a morass of regs on this too) they will be more careful how and in what venues and media they advertise job openings in.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    tricknologist: 7,170 Points Feb 15, 2013
  9. Mrs. White Molon Labe

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Message Count:
    586
    Location:
    The South
    Reputation:
    2,777,561
    Ratings Received:
    +540 / 0 / -10
    What about groups homes that are funded by the state. As of right now NO felon can work with the mentally disabled or mentally ill.
    You mean to say that felons will be allowed to work with our most vulnerable populations?

    I see this ending in disaster.
  10. Mrs. White Molon Labe

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Message Count:
    586
    Location:
    The South
    Reputation:
    2,777,561
    Ratings Received:
    +540 / 0 / -10
    I know some felonies are bullshit are they going to differentiate between some kid who screwed up at 19 and a violent felon?
  11. tricknologist menace to sobriety

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    3,717
    Location:
    Chocolate City, LA
    Reputation:
    24,951,400
    Ratings Received:
    +4,622 / 13 / -43
    Don't think that this is an "unintended consequence".

    Every black or spic that works for a living has the potential to stray off the liberal plantation, they have the ability to get by on their own and the Democrats are determined to break them of that habit. They want them to vote for a living and ONLY vote for a living.

    I predict that within five years having an honest job will be considered "acting white" in the black community, and those who actually work will be persecuted as "Uncle Toms".
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Edmonds Fitzgerald: 3,090 Points Feb 16, 2013
    Celt: 2,094 Points Feb 16, 2013
  12. tricknologist menace to sobriety

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    3,717
    Location:
    Chocolate City, LA
    Reputation:
    24,951,400
    Ratings Received:
    +4,622 / 13 / -43
    Not just allowed, but mandated under threat of law.

    Yes, and by design.

    No, they'll differentiate by race.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  13. Mrs. White Molon Labe

    Member Since:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Message Count:
    586
    Location:
    The South
    Reputation:
    2,777,561
    Ratings Received:
    +540 / 0 / -10
    THIS is sickening...........
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    tricknologist: 7,170 Points Feb 15, 2013
  14. MadScienceType Riding in style.

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Message Count:
    3,752
    Reputation:
    20,215,726
    Ratings Received:
    +4,457 / 9 / -33
    It's quite amazing to me just how fast the agenda to turn this country fully into a socialist shithole is proceeding and how the mask has literally slipped. Someone here I think said it that the reelection of Obama was like a starter's pistol signal to push the accelerator to the floor.

    Gun control
    Immigration
    Open faggots in military
    Women in combat

    Now this.

    As Trick said, this is by design and they know exactly what they're doing. It will cause blacks to be permanently unemployable and keep them pissed off and voting Democrat. It will also give the government another tool of leverage over small businesses because they can at any time be sued for not hiring niggers and now they'll have no excuse such as criminality to hide behind...basically another way for the govt to harass people they don't like.

    On all these issues, the Loyal Opposition GOP has pre-signaled its surrender.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    tricknologist: 7,249 Points Feb 16, 2013
    Celt: 2,094 Points Feb 16, 2013
    Mrs. White: 2,014 Points Feb 16, 2013
  15. SouthernStar Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Message Count:
    7,926
    Reputation:
    11,396,126
    Ratings Received:
    +4,067 / 83 / -120
    Well said, all. Basically, they're reqaeding criminal behaviour. I don't know about other parents here, but we've always taught our children the consequences of crime, one being you won't get a job, and the consequences thereof.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Celt: 2,094 Points (You try, you care ergo you are human.) Feb 16, 2013
    Mrs. White: 2,014 Points Feb 16, 2013
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  16. Celt A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Message Count:
    1,947
    Reputation:
    -640,795
    Ratings Received:
    +1,845 / 18 / -27
    You're a human woman who gives a damn about other human beings though, and therein lies the problem. You're a human parent attempting to teach your human offspring the difference between right, and wrong insofar as consequences thereof which is a great thing, and poses no problem of itself.

    Except you as well as your offspring are set against niggers, and whiggers (or various brainwashed sheeple) who are teaching as well as taught the exact opposite (or not taught anything at all) of what you've promulgated in your home. Same thing applies to the rest of us out here who are human parents trying to stave off the NWO insanity.

    Human beings are ALL fighting a uphill battle, and it's damn hard to fight off the influence of "our" governments, the general sheeple public opinions, the school systems, ETC.

    An MST, "On all these issues, the Loyal Opposition GOP has pre-signaled its surrender."

    I mean no offense, but imho "they" are not overly loyal to anyone these days.

    All I see any of 'em being is not so simple politicians selling us all out, or more to the point they sold us all out long ago. None of them up their on Capitol Hill are loyal to anyone other than themselves, and their equally nauseating political cohorts both Democrat, and Republican.

    They strive to destroy "us", "we the people" on a constant, daily, neverending basis.

    The onery cuss (who I labeled as such on his board) made a one line summarization in one of his posts in this thread.

    "Don't think that this is an "unintended consequence"."

    None of what we see is unintended it all has meaning, and purpose as the left powers up to finish off America along w/the rest of the formerly civilized world.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    MadScienceType: 6,097 Points (Yeah, I know...should have put "loyal" in sarcastic quote marks to begin with.) Feb 16, 2013
    Fitz: -7,028 Points Dec 4, 2013
  17. Aces High Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Message Count:
    3,536
    Reputation:
    -7,051,590
    Ratings Received:
    +5,110 / 60 / -180
    So if a person with a criminal record or an ex felon applies for a job with the CCA (corrections corporation of america) they will have to hire him or face a discrimination lawsuit.

    lol
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Mrs. White: 2,014 Points (lol I didn't think about that..) Feb 16, 2013
    Fitz: -9,791 Points Mar 21, 2014
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  18. tricknologist menace to sobriety

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    3,717
    Location:
    Chocolate City, LA
    Reputation:
    24,951,400
    Ratings Received:
    +4,622 / 13 / -43
    Depends on how much money the CCA has donated to Democrat candidates in the past, and how much the intend to donate in the future. I can see this being enforced on a strictly partisan basis.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Mrs. White: 2,014 Points (Ah ha! Good point) Feb 16, 2013
  19. tricknologist menace to sobriety

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    3,717
    Location:
    Chocolate City, LA
    Reputation:
    24,951,400
    Ratings Received:
    +4,622 / 13 / -43
    Seattle is doing their part to help this stupidity along:

    City Council approves crime-check hiring bill

    Posted by Lynn Thompson

    The Seattle City Council today unanimously approved a bill that would prohibit employers from asking about an applicant’s criminal history until after an initial screening. Employers could reject an applicant because of a criminal record, but only if there is a legitimate business reason to do so.

    The measure was strongly opposed by some business groups, including the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, which said they didn’t want the city second-guessing their hiring decisions. They also opposed a provision that will allow the city Office of Human Rights to investigate complaints by job applicants who believe they were turned down solely because of their criminal history.

    Advocates, including City Councilmember Bruce Harrell, who sponsored the bill, noted that 50 cities and 8 states have banned the check-off box on job applications that asks whether the applicant has ever been convicted of a crime.

    Harrell said the bill will remove barriers to jobs and create pathways to re-entry and success for ex-convicts.

    Under the Seattle measure, employers could ask about criminal history after an initial screening to eliminate unqualified candidates. Applicants would have two business days after being turned down to correct any misinformation on their record or explain the circumstances of a conviction.

    Advocates also argued that people who have served their criminal sentence should be given a second chance to rebuild their lives. They said that people with jobs were much less likely to commit new crimes.
    Latest Given Reputation Points:
    Celt: 5,999 Points (All part of new America, and what insanity.) Jun 12, 2013
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List

Share This Page