In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Making Criminals a 'Protected Class'?
kissgoodnight
Member Posts: 4,063 ✭✭✭
States attorneys now opposing fed's opposition to criminal background checks for new hires
Attorneys general across the country are fighting back against new Obama administration guidelines on businesses using criminal background checks for job applicants and two federal lawsuits that followed, calling both "a quintessential example of gross federal overreach."
The nine attorneys general sent the letter Wednesday to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which in April 2012 voted in favor of the new guidelines that warn such checks can discriminate against African-Americans because they being are arrested at a disproportionate rate compared to the rest of the U.S. population.
Fifteen months after issuing the guidelines -- which included the recommendation that businesses eliminate such policies -- the commission filed lawsuits against discount retailer Dollar General and a BMW facility in South Carolina for alleged civil rights violations.
"We believe that these lawsuits and your application of the law, as articulated through your enforcement guidance, are misguided and a quintessential example of gross federal overreach," the attorneys general wrote in a nine-page letter to EEOC Chairman Jacqueline Berrien and the agency's four commissioners.
The June 11 suits allege Dollar General violated the civil rights of two applicants. In the one case, the applicant alleged she was denied employment even though a felony conviction was incorrectly attributed to her.
In the BMW case, the EEOC alleges that when the company required contract employees at the South Carolina plant to reapply for their jobs in 2008 a disproportionate percentage of those terminated were black, including some who had already worked for company contractors.
The suit also alleges BMW's policy doesn't consider the nature of the crimes or how long ago they were committed.
All of the claimants are black, and both cases are filed in federal court, according to the EEOC.
The commission said upon updating the policy that civil rights laws already prohibit different treatment for job applicants with different ethnic backgrounds but identical criminal histories.
However, the updates were issued out of concern that employers might disproportionately exclude minorities from getting hired because more African Americans and Hispanics are getting arrested and going to prison, according to the guideline report.
While the percentage of working-age Americans with a criminal record has increased significantly over the past 20 years, African Americans and Hispanics are arrested two to three times as much compared with the rest of the U.S. population, according to a commission report at the time of the vote.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/27/states-attorneys-now-opposing-feds-opposition-to-criminal-background-checks-for/#ixzz2aIi9h2eI
Attorneys general across the country are fighting back against new Obama administration guidelines on businesses using criminal background checks for job applicants and two federal lawsuits that followed, calling both "a quintessential example of gross federal overreach."
The nine attorneys general sent the letter Wednesday to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which in April 2012 voted in favor of the new guidelines that warn such checks can discriminate against African-Americans because they being are arrested at a disproportionate rate compared to the rest of the U.S. population.
Fifteen months after issuing the guidelines -- which included the recommendation that businesses eliminate such policies -- the commission filed lawsuits against discount retailer Dollar General and a BMW facility in South Carolina for alleged civil rights violations.
"We believe that these lawsuits and your application of the law, as articulated through your enforcement guidance, are misguided and a quintessential example of gross federal overreach," the attorneys general wrote in a nine-page letter to EEOC Chairman Jacqueline Berrien and the agency's four commissioners.
The June 11 suits allege Dollar General violated the civil rights of two applicants. In the one case, the applicant alleged she was denied employment even though a felony conviction was incorrectly attributed to her.
In the BMW case, the EEOC alleges that when the company required contract employees at the South Carolina plant to reapply for their jobs in 2008 a disproportionate percentage of those terminated were black, including some who had already worked for company contractors.
The suit also alleges BMW's policy doesn't consider the nature of the crimes or how long ago they were committed.
All of the claimants are black, and both cases are filed in federal court, according to the EEOC.
The commission said upon updating the policy that civil rights laws already prohibit different treatment for job applicants with different ethnic backgrounds but identical criminal histories.
However, the updates were issued out of concern that employers might disproportionately exclude minorities from getting hired because more African Americans and Hispanics are getting arrested and going to prison, according to the guideline report.
While the percentage of working-age Americans with a criminal record has increased significantly over the past 20 years, African Americans and Hispanics are arrested two to three times as much compared with the rest of the U.S. population, according to a commission report at the time of the vote.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/27/states-attorneys-now-opposing-feds-opposition-to-criminal-background-checks-for/#ixzz2aIi9h2eI
Comments
quote: African Americans and Hispanics are arrested two to three times as much compared with the rest of the U.S. population, according to a commission report at the time of the vote.
If a person is convicted, does their time, gets out, and doesn't re-offend, then why should they be prevented from trying to get a job just because of a mistake they made and paid for in full?
Don't get out and about much, do ya?
Do you know the recidivism rate in America?
Margaret Thatcher
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
Very bad!
If a person is convicted, does their time, gets out, and doesn't re-offend, then why should they be prevented from trying to get a job just because of a mistake they made and paid for in full?
A business owner has the right to know who they are bringing into thei facility.
We have knowingly hired ex-felons, and all but one have worked out. We will again if that person can convince me that they have turned a corner in their life. An owner has a lot to lose if forced to make decisions in a vacuum.
It is not discrimination if you check everyone so as to make an informed decision.
Brad Steele
Background checks did little for Snowden's former employer.
Which has nothing to do with an employer's right not to hire a convicted thief to work their cash register.
Nor are background checks infallible. When I worked for Intel their security contractor screwed up my background check something awful. Delayed my start date a month.
If a person is convicted, does their time, gets out, and doesn't re-offend, then why should they be prevented from trying to get a job just because of a mistake they made and paid for in full?
Because businesses are private and should be able to hire who they want.
From a politicians perspective it make sense since so many are perverts and crooks anyway.
Just to show how hypocritical these people are, you can be certain they will allow exemptions of this law for all government jobs.
In the BMW case.....these people had already been working there for some time without problems.....BMW insisted on back ground checks and then fired them....that just aint right. If they stole or something...ya I could agree, but they didnt..
Plus, once again, if a person paid for their crimes when they were 21, and then goes through life without any other crimes and at age 50 applies for a job with a background check....that really isnt fair either....they clearly are not the same dumb kid that did stupid things....but they are still being punished like one....thats wrong.
Doesnt the book say that if criminals can be trusted in society then they should be killed? If they did their time, and the the crime had nothing to do with the job in question, or the crime was long ago...
Plus, just how the hell is a person supposed to get by in life if they are never given the chance to prove they changed for the better??
I see both sides of the issue, and I dont see a one size fits all answer.
Well, if a person served their time, paid their fines and debt to society, it really isnt all that fair that they still pay for by being denied a job, however.....it should depend on what they did....and what job they are going for. If the offence was fraud, then working at a bank or any job handling cash is out, but if they are going for a meat packing job....then it wouldnt really matter.
In the BMW case.....these people had already been working there for some time without problems.....BMW insisted on back ground checks and then fired them....that just aint right. If they stole or something...ya I could agree, but they didnt..
Plus, once again, if a person paid for their crimes when they were 21, and then goes through life without any other crimes and at age 50 applies for a job with a background check....that really isnt fair either....they clearly are not the same dumb kid that did stupid things....but they are still being punished like one....thats wrong.
Doesnt the book say that if criminals can be trusted in society then they should be killed? If they did their time, and the the crime had nothing to do with the job in question, or the crime was long ago...
Plus, just how the hell is a person supposed to get by in life if they are never given the chance to prove they changed for the better??
I see both sides of the issue, and I dont see a one size fits all answer.
I can go along with that.
As for government trying to regulate corporate use of criminal background checks, it is the corporations that forced this to be necessary. They went too far, need to be pulled back in.
It would be overreach by government only if a complete ban is imposed. A balance is needed to thwart the abusive and overzealous behaviors coming from corporations and government alike.
My friend, Will (some will remember that he is the one living with me until he gets back on his feet), has a felony theft conviction on his record from about 20 years ago, and has an active arrest warrant for missing child support payments.
Will has been unemployed since his divorce over 18 months ago, and before that he was self-employed (running a computer repair business) and in compliance with the court-ordered child support.
Since he moved in with us in May, he has applied for dozens of jobs, and has interviewed for about 3 or 4 of them.
The whole time, his child support case worker has been telling him that he needs to be in compliance in order to get rid of the warrant.
Now how exactly is a person in that position supposed to get a job to pay his child support when no one will hire him because of his criminal background from 20 years ago plus the outstanding warrant because he has been unable to pay his child support?
It's the worst real-world Catch-22 I've ever seen. He was finally hired at Taco Bell last week and has been working 8 hour days, all because one manager decided to give someone with a poor background a chance.
quote:Originally posted by Zulu7
To put things in perspective:
My friend, Will (some will remember that he is the one living with me until he gets back on his feet), has a felony theft conviction on his record from about 20 years ago, and has an active arrest warrant for missing child support payments.
Will has been unemployed since his divorce over 18 months ago, and before that he was self-employed (running a computer repair business) and in compliance with the court-ordered child support.
Since he moved in with us in May, he has applied for dozens of jobs, and has interviewed for about 3 or 4 of them.
The whole time, his child support case worker has been telling him that he needs to be in compliance in order to get rid of the warrant.
Now how exactly is a person in that position supposed to get a job to pay his child support when no one will hire him because of his criminal background from 20 years ago plus the outstanding warrant because he has been unable to pay his child support?
It's the worst real-world Catch-22 I've ever seen. He was finally hired at Taco Bell last week and has been working 8 hour days, all because one manager decided to give someone with a poor background a chance.
Why didn't he apply at Taco Bell 15 or 16 months ago. Is he drawing unemployment and if so is he putting any of that towards his back child support?
He never drew unemployment. His divorce took him into a basket case, and he developed a very severe anxiety disorder.
So how would more government intrution into private business have helped your friend?
It would have prevented a lot of places from not even inviting him in for an interview just because of his criminal record.
quote:Originally posted by austin20
quote:Originally posted by Zulu7
To put things in perspective:
My friend, Will (some will remember that he is the one living with me until he gets back on his feet), has a felony theft conviction on his record from about 20 years ago, and has an active arrest warrant for missing child support payments.
Will has been unemployed since his divorce over 18 months ago, and before that he was self-employed (running a computer repair business) and in compliance with the court-ordered child support.
Since he moved in with us in May, he has applied for dozens of jobs, and has interviewed for about 3 or 4 of them.
The whole time, his child support case worker has been telling him that he needs to be in compliance in order to get rid of the warrant.
Now how exactly is a person in that position supposed to get a job to pay his child support when no one will hire him because of his criminal background from 20 years ago plus the outstanding warrant because he has been unable to pay his child support?
It's the worst real-world Catch-22 I've ever seen. He was finally hired at Taco Bell last week and has been working 8 hour days, all because one manager decided to give someone with a poor background a chance.
Why didn't he apply at Taco Bell 15 or 16 months ago. Is he drawing unemployment and if so is he putting any of that towards his back child support?
He never drew unemployment. His divorce took him into a basket case, and he developed a very severe anxiety disorder.
How has he eaten and had room and board? Sounds like a case of black * to me. Don
If a person is convicted, does their time, gets out, and doesn't re-offend, then why should they be prevented from trying to get a job just because of a mistake they made and paid for in full?
All that is to be considered, but an employer has a right to know what their offense was. If you have business with kids accessible, you don't want to hire a pedophile. Likewise if you are a pharmacy or a medical facility, you don't want to hire a person convicted of drug related charges. It is the right of employer to know background of who they hire. Look what we got for a pres. not being able to check him out.