Hire Ex-Cons Or Get Sued

A

azmastablasta

New member
Simply amazing. Heck the Senate and House, the Whitehouse and administration are full of criminals why should American companies be any different?

Obama’s EEOC: We’ll Sue You If You Don’t Hire Criminals
Friday, 15 Feb 2013 10:52 AM
By Jim Meyers

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.”

Most businesses perform background checks on potential employees, but the EEOC frowns on these checks and “creates legal tripwires that could spark federal lawsuits,” Bovard observes.

An EEOC commissioner who opposed the new policy, Constance Baker, said in April that the new guidelines will scare businesses from conducting background checks.

Reason: If a check does disclose a criminal offense, the EEOC expects a firm to do an “individual assessment” that will have to prove that the company has a “business necessity” not to hire the ex-convict. If the firm does not do the intricate assessment, it could be found guilty of “race discrimination” if it hires a law-abiding applicant over one with convictions.

Bovard points out that the “biggest bombshell” in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws requiring background checks can still be sued by the EEOC.

That came to light when the EEOC took action against G4S Secure Solutions, which provides guards for nuclear power plants and other sensitive sites, for refusing to hire a twice-convicted thief as a security guard — even though Pennsylvania state law forbids hiring people with felony convictions as security officers.

Bovard quotes Todd McCracken of the National Small Business Association: “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.”

Bovard concludes: “Americans can treat ex-offenders humanely without giving them legal advantages over similar individuals without criminal records.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/eeoc-fe...1#ixzz2L2nA2nuS
 
Spoken like a true liberal! One who doesn't own his own business.

While there are certain professions where this theorum may be plausible, to suggest this is a one size fits all program is absolutely ludicrous. There are many many professions where I would not want anyone who has ever committed a felony offense in the position, PERIOD. And, then there are those seemingly inoccuous positions, that pose serious repercussions.

Do we honestly want to deny background checks for child molesters applying for janitorial or security jobs in day care centers and kindergartens?? To even remotely suggest a yes answer here suggests you are too stupid to breathe without assistance.

Do we honestly want to deny background checks to those companies we entrust to protect our Life Savings? They have to be licensed and bonded; if you were writing the policy on the bond, would you or would you not feel a higher rate would be required for someone hiring known repeat offenders to guard someone's life savings?

Do you honestly believe that we should hire convicted drug addicts to stock shelves and do after hours cleaning in the local pharmacy.

Do we really want someone that has expressed violent tendencies toward society as a whole working in a bottling plant, processing plant, or bakery where it would be easy to tamper with products?

There is far more to recidivsm than being picked on because you made one little itty bitty mistake, once in your life. To suggest otherwise defies reason. When 60% of all convicted felons are known repeat offenders, it's probably because they want to be, not because they applied for work everywhere they do backgroud checks.
 
Pure BS to have to hire, or be forced to keep on any employee for any reason, especially when it's in the nature of being a felon.

I have had businesses with 10 to twenty people and another with over 150, and I always said one thing I will still maintain. I never felt any need to justify why I wanted to fire any employee, you want a reason it could be because I don't like your face or it could be because I don't like you. I have fired people over things like not being capable of the quality work I needed them to do, I might tell them that and when they get pushy I've simply said I do not need any reason to fire you, I don't want you here any more. When labor board would call and say they told them I didn't give them a reason I'd tell them it was because they weren't capable of the quality work I needed, they'd ask if I gave them a chance to improve and I simply said I couldn't afford to have poor quality work going out the door, so no they either can do it or they can't.

I gave a convicted felon a chance in our bird food packaging plant with a supervisory position against my partner's feelings on the issue. I ended up firing him because he wanted to do his own way on things I was specifically telling him to do different. He was shocked I would fire him without giving him a chance, I laughed in his face and told him he'd had the chance to do things my way and chose to disregard that, no more chances in my book. I showed up at the packaging plant 300 miles away from the Sacramento office unexpected like to see if he'd done what I told him to, he hadn't but I knew that, I handed him his check made out through the end of the day and told him to clear out.

It seems like companies get themselves into trouble trying to be too definitive about why they terminate someone, you don't need a reason as a small business, it gets different with bigger businesses.
 
Hmm so criminals who say embezzled funds from a company, after serving their sentence can they be hired into another firm to a position of financial responsibility? Yeah that'll work...Bernie Madoff as Sec of Treasury or CFO of IBM...hahahaha..who thinks this chit up?

Does not compute one iota.

T2G
 
Last edited:
The average person would be shocked to learn how hard a person has to try to actually end up in prison. There is usually a long history of plea bargains, diversion programs, probation and many 2nd chances. In many cases, they should have been locked up 4 convictions ago. We are seldom talking about a guy who made one mistake, paid his debt and deserves a shot.
 
Originally Posted By: woodguruPure BS to have to hire, or be forced to keep on any employee for any reason, especially when it's in the nature of being a felon.


I gave a convicted felon a chance in our bird food packaging plant with a supervisory position against my partner's feelings on the issue. I ended up firing him because he wanted to do his own way on things I was specifically telling him to do different. He was shocked I would fire him without giving him a chance, I laughed in his face and told him he'd had the chance to do things my way and chose to disregard that, no more chances in my book. I showed up at the packaging plant 300 miles away from the Sacramento office unexpected like to see if he'd done what I told him to, he hadn't but I knew that, I handed him his check made out through the end of the day and told him to clear out.

It seems like companies get themselves into trouble trying to be too definitive about why they terminate someone, you don't need a reason as a small business, it gets different with bigger businesses.

So the felon was the one that stole all of the wire for you that made your stereo buis take off? And after that when he learned He was working for "Chicken Feed" "Bird food" He got upset? Please tell us more.
 
Originally Posted By: azmastablastaSimply amazing. Heck the Senate and House, the Whitehouse and administration are full of criminals why should American companies be any different?

Obama’s EEOC: We’ll Sue You If You Don’t Hire Criminals
Friday, 15 Feb 2013 10:52 AM
By Jim Meyers

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.”

Most businesses perform background checks on potential employees, but the EEOC frowns on these checks and “creates legal tripwires that could spark federal lawsuits,” Bovard observes.

An EEOC commissioner who opposed the new policy, Constance Baker, said in April that the new guidelines will scare businesses from conducting background checks.

Reason: If a check does disclose a criminal offense, the EEOC expects a firm to do an “individual assessment” that will have to prove that the company has a “business necessity” not to hire the ex-convict. If the firm does not do the intricate assessment, it could be found guilty of “race discrimination” if it hires a law-abiding applicant over one with convictions.

Bovard points out that the “biggest bombshell” in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws requiring background checks can still be sued by the EEOC.

That came to light when the EEOC took action against G4S Secure Solutions, which provides guards for nuclear power plants and other sensitive sites, for refusing to hire a twice-convicted thief as a security guard — even though Pennsylvania state law forbids hiring people with felony convictions as security officers.

Bovard quotes Todd McCracken of the National Small Business Association: “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.”

Bovard concludes: “Americans can treat ex-offenders humanely without giving them legal advantages over similar individuals without criminal records.”

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/eeoc-fe...1#ixzz2L2nA2nuS






Well O has a whole administration full of them, why should he expect anyone else not to comply?
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top