I’m with you, Youngin’. It’s a hard one. On the one hand, I think employers should be able to set their hiring guidelines to include exclusion of criminals. And I think they should be able to do this on a periodic basis, as long as it is disclosed. However, I do not think if you hire someone you should be able to retroactively fire them for an offense that occurred prior to their initial hiring. That does seem discriminitory. If BMW had that policy, they should have enforced it under the prior contractor as well as the new contractor.
I struggle because, on the one hand, it seems like employers should be able to choose not to hire people with a criminal record if they see fit. On the other hand, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world (per Wikipedia), and a good chunk of recorded crimes are for things like drug possession (thanks, War on Drugs!). It is certainly true that some crimes are worse than others, and in this country the bar is set pretty low as to what constitutes a crime. I don’t care for the EEOC approach, what with their “disparate impact on minorities” argument. It’s the same reasoning put forth by consumer advocates who seek to limit or ban credit scoring.
I understand the companies don’t want to go to all the trouble of hiring and training someone who won’t work out (for whatever reason). Not all criminals are bad employees. Where do you draw the line? I don’t have any answers. Just many more questions.
Understood. I know some people that have made mistakes in their past that are preventing them from being productive citizens today. Especially if it is a felony. You can’t get a job, so you can’t work, so you can’t support your family, so you become a burden on society. I applaud employers that try to help those that have been rehabilitated get a fresh start in life. Many times these mistakes were made when someone is very, very young. Lord knows I did some stupid stuff when I was!
I agree, Libby, and if I employed hundreds or thousands of people, I might take that into consideration. But for the EEOC to go after good companies because they DON’T take that approach makes no sense to me. Private corporations need not be on the forefront of social justice movements. These two are trying to make cars or sell mdse. at a profit. The EEOC has for years been an anti-business branch of government, and under this administration, they have become almost a taxpayer-funded right arm of the NAACP.
Although I agree that some people do turn their lives around I do not see it as discrimination against a race of people to have a policy that does not hire people with convictions. I am sorry that the black population has a high level of convictions but that is not the employers issue that is societies concern. In the case of Dollar General it would appear that the company did mess up but do not see this as race, just lack of common sense.
Just love how the fed try’s to pass societies issues off to private corporations, I wonder if this has any impact on corporations leaving America? Just a thought.
Regardless of who, what, when or why a crime was created, an employer has the right to establish or revamp their hiring practices. At no time should should the government come in and impose its criteria. Haven’t we let the government regulate enough of our banking, insurance, manufacturing, corporate and energy industries? So now you’re on the fence as to whether whether they should regulate hiring practices of private corporations! Wake up! It’s not about whether something’s right or wrong…it’s about letting your government make that determination for you and then telling you how to run your business. Oh what…so, now I don’t have the right to turn down a person with a past criminal record? All under the guise of racism…pity…rehabilitation. Take heed my friend…this is yet another guise by this government to ensnare its unwitting prey!
Reader.. right back at ya’… You realize that not eveything has a conspiracy associated with it don’t you? Now go put your aluminum hat back on and listen to the police radio..
The employees should sue. Not the government. Don’t take this so personally. Trust me, that’s what the government want you to do. They want you to believe that they know better than you do. (don’t worry…you’re not alone..there’s a lot of prey out there)
I’m sure the woman whose $8/hour job offer from Dollar General got rescinded has tens of thousands of dollars available to put toward a lawsuit against a multimillion dollar corporation.
Booga.
June 15, 2013 at 2:41 pm
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m neither offended nor did I take your post personally. I believe this case is the result of an EEOC complaint; therefore, the EEOC has the responsibility of suing. That doesn’t bother me.
Does this make me prey? I don’t think so. I don’t think the government is always right because it is created and run by politicians. I have no faith in politicians. They may occasionally get something right, but that is more the exception than the rule.
June 14, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I was thinking this very same thing.
Erudite, yet with Reader’s post carriers a hint of “off my meds” paranoia.
Reader – We all agree that companies should be able to set their own hiring criteria. That is not what this article is about. It is about hiring someone 10 years ago that has been a good employee and firing them because you found out he had a criminal conviction PRIOR TO THE TIME YOU HIRED HIM. If their policy was to not hire someone with a conviction, they should have stuck to it. But they didn’t and the person has been a good employee for 10 years. The other case was one where the person disclosed the conviction, was still offered the job and then fired for it. Those two instances, IMHO, are wrong.
And no-one’s talking about government regulation of hiring practices. These are lawsuits filed by the EEOC on behalf of these employees.
The whole article pertains to the goverment. Read the first sentance. Note: “warn employers” The commission says “it wants”. The people who supposed to be serving it’s people is warning us..telling us what THEY want.
Do you know how many lawsuits this government has filed against its own citizens? “Private” means owned by citizens. The article was clearly titled “U.S. Sues BMW”. EEOC is a government agency.
Forget it. I had a reply about how companies created this problem by only hiring people who meet their ideal sex/age/race/religious affiliated person. Unfortunately, I doubt you would get it.
The EEOC is the government. It doesn’t have to be a senator or gongressman or president or VP or… to be considered government.
So, you feel if people can’t afford to sue a private business, they should go to the government? let their grievances known and set the government out to settle such grievances?
Do you know a government agency IS the US Government? Do you know the US Government is suing its own citizens? Do you know the US Government is using those same citizens’ tax dollars for such suit?
Don’t you get it…you do not want the government suing its own people.
THIS IS A TOUGH MATTER. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SET STANDARDS THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH, BECAUSE IT’S THEIR MONEY AND REPUTATION AT STAKE. ON THE OTHER HAND, SOMETIMES WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT NOT EVERYONE THAT COMMITTS A CRIME IS A PROBLEM ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS, UNLESS THE TREND CONTINUES. I’D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE FEDS DO INSOFAR AS THEIR HIRING PRACTICES ARE CONCERNED WITH SUCH AGENCIES AS THE FBI, SECRET SERVICE, IRS, TREASURY, ETC. AS IT RELATES TO THIS SUBJECT MATTER. IF I WERE A BANK AS AN EXAMPLE, I WOULDN’T HIRE SOMEONE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED FOR A BANK ROBBERY. HOW DOES COMMON SENSE PLAY OUT IN EVERYTHING?
It’s not about the criimninal record. It’s not about how you feel about persons with a criminal record. It’s about determining your own hiring crieria…it’s about your right as a priviate enterprise to make your own business decisions…it’s about this governmnent over-reaching more…more…and more.
No. That’s not what this is about. It’s about setting a policy, breaking it, and then retroactively inforcing it. Wrong. Plain and simple. As Jack said above, having a policy and not enforcing is just as bad as having no policy. I happen to think it’s worse than having no policy in place.
A new contractor came in. New policies, etc.
So, basically, what you’re saying it’s okay for the government to come in and impose hiring criteria on the private sector.
Don’t get me wrong. THIS ISN”T PERSONAL. The individuals surely have a right to sue. But once you bring in the government, a precedent is set and regualtions are imposed.
A new contractor was hired, but a new policy was not put in place. Again, READ THE ARTICLE. The policy had been in place since the plant opened in 1994. I’m sorry, but when you hire someone with warts it’s not right to turn around after 10 years and say I changed my mind and don’t like warts anymore. That’s just not doing the right thing.
June 14, 2013 at 2:36 pm
MeIsEinstein says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Oh sure, you did drugs five years ago? No problem! You stole from another employer three years ago? No problem! You have a short temper and battered one of your ex co-workers one year ago? No problem! You are hired! And here is your signing bonus! Only the government…
Uh, bike? Public transportation? Carpool with another coworker? Walk? Not everybody drives to work. And, he’s not driving FOR his employer when he is on his way to and from work, so it shouldn’t matter if he is driving to and from work.
One could argue that this was a very bad choice made by this individual with no regard for his safety or the safety of others around him. Do you want him or her in your factory on a line where his/her choice could cause serious injury to himself/herself or others? This is screaming for more facts. So now you need to add caveats to your rules. Statistically men are charged more often with DUI than women. So if you do not hire a man in this particular instance after all facts have been brought to light, is it gender discrimination?
My point is, where do you draw the line? A blanket policy to not hire convicted criminals may exclude the person who is a perfect fit for the job. However, as stated earlier, if it’s not a blanket policy, then you’ll still be sued for discrimination.
I don’t have any answers. I am VERY happy to be at the bottom of the food chain: I don’t have to have answers to these questions.
If it IS a blanket policy, you may be sued. They don’t want you to have a blanket policy, they want you to do more investigation into the crime to be sure you are not arbitrarily excluding people that may otherwise be qualified. I’m sorry, but I think some people do deserve a second chance and how are you going to identify those that do from those that don’t if you don’t probe further? We need these type of people to become responsible, tax-paying citizens instead of thwarting their every chance to do something with their life.
Now, thumb me down and ridicule me, people.
June 17, 2013 at 12:10 pm
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I agree that not every criminal is irredeemable. I’ve met more than one convict who became an excellent employee. If I knew how to fix this, I would. There are so many societal stigmas that cause discrimination and it’s a shame. I hope I live long enough to see these problems resolved.
June 15, 2013 at 2:55 pm
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I forgot to answer your question. Yes, that would create a gender discrimination suit.
I understand this web is hopelessly tangled and we’re drowning in PC regulations. I guess I’m part of the problem since I’m not helping with the solution.
That’s not what they were saying at all. Einstein gave specific crimes that any employer should be able to take into account. The part of this article that I found most troubling was that the EEOC was suing for backpay for a person the company didn’t hire based on their previous criminal history. I understand people make mistakes when they are young, I sure did. But this is attempting to penalize a company for hiring practices. If I start a company and don’t want to hire someone who was convicted of larceny, that should be my right as the employer.
Ron, I was replying to jw’s question. And the article is about violating civil rights unless I read the second paragraph wrong “In both cases, the agency claims the practice discriminates against African-Americans, who have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.” Statistics are always going to divide a group. Twisting an innate number into a discrimination claim is insane.
I was replying to jw’s as well. I concur with your statement.
June 17, 2013 at 9:38 am
Nebraskan says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’m not sure if this will help the situation at all but felons are not a protected class. Meaning, you can choose to not hire someone because of a previous felony and there isn’t any law to protect the applicant.
Where I found this article lacking was it didn’t state if the employees were convicted felons or if they were just misdemeanors.
Your example question isn’t the best either. If the applicant has no means of transportation to get to work every day as scheduled, that can be a valid reason not to hire said applicant. It doesn’t really matter if it’s because of a DUI or not. I could work somewhere for 10 years and get a DUI and lose my license. My employer would probably not have a problem with it UNLESS I was unable to get to work because of it.
(The reason I say this is a bad example is because alcoholics ARE a protected class…I will let your mind wander down lawsuit lane to figure out how well firing someone for a DUI would go over even though alcoholics off the wagon are not protected.)
They’re getting around the “felons are not a protected class” by saying statistically blacks have more criminal history and therefore this is race discrimination. I think that is a far reach, but I do thing what these companies did is wrong. The one person had worked there for 10 years and been a good employee. They were in violation of their own policy for letting him be hired in the first place. So maybe they should have looked at revising the policy instead of firing him for something that was disclosed when he was hired. They really brought this upon themselves for not acting responsibly in the first place and then reacting with a knee jerk.
I got ya, Libby, just wanted to throw that out there. I completely agree with you though.
June 17, 2013 at 12:47 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
You are one of very few, Nebraskan…
June 14, 2013 at 2:45 pm
brokie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Victimless crimes: fishing without a license. Graffiti. No, it really is. Yeah yeah, a bit of property damage but it’s usually a young person with a creative itch that needed to be scratched.
So I’m an employer who hires someone that I know has a criminal record. That person hurts a third party, who sues me. If I don’t hire that person, the government sues me. Exactly why do I want to own a business?
Because this is a great country, full of opportunities. And we all have the opportunity to vote out these buffoon politicians who allow these desecrations to occur. We need to change the climate or the weather isn’t going to get any better!
Jack; Well put, and thank you. There is one other thing that is really bothering me about this story. If I don’t want to hire someone with a criminal record, I am not only wrong and mis-guided, I am a racist. I am a pariah of society regardless of my intent.
Listen up everyone. The government, via the EEOC, is not saying you can not use criminal background as a valid reason to disqualify someone from hire. They are saying a BLANKET policy tends to be discriminatory just because of the statistics of demographics (not saying I agree or disagree, just that that is the way it is.) They would like the employers to do a more in-depth investigation of the circumstances of the crime, the severity of the crime, and the length of time since the crime was committed. Granted, that puts a greater burden on the employer. I understand that. We don’t have to fly off the deep end here with Big Brother Is Trying to Control Private Business. It could be onerous on the employer when it’s just easier to have a blanket statement – but sometimes doing the right thing is not doing the easy thing.
After reading your posts, you obviously are not an employer and don’t have to deal with higher and higher overhead due to employee theft, lawsuits due to employee actions, and now add in EEOC lawsuits all of which also cause insurance premium hikes for all businesses. Your tax dollars will fund the lawsuit (rather than them hiring a lawyer and the lawyer’s fees from the settlement) The employer’s cost go up and you get to pay more when you go shopping. We’re on path of no return.
EEOC lawsuits have been around alot longer than just these two. Again, I’m not saying I agree or disagree (actually, I said I was torn,) only that we don’t have to blow everything out of proportion and get all hysterical that the Government is trying to control our business. They are attempting to do their job, which in ensuring equal opportunities for employment in this country. That includes all citizens, even if they have a criminal record. Just do your due diligence, weed out the bad ones, document your file and you should be good to go.
What are the hiring practices of the EEOC when it comes to criminal records?? Maybe they are more than happy to hire them and take the chance?? I seriously doubt that. Does anyone know??
The point being missed? Why are the employers being accused of discrimination. Of the 88 employees that the government convicted giving them criminal records over 85% were black. Looks like the discrimination started with the government.
Libby, just read what you wrote. You are endorsing a “screening” quota. If we apply that to juries, an attorney could exclude only so many biased people and then would have to live with whomever is left. Goodness! I am guessing you don’t care that the NSA is intercepting everyone’s phone and e:mail communications. After all, we can’t “discriminate”!
What I’m suggesting is doing what they suggest in their guideline. Ask more questions about the criminal offense, ie. circumstances, severity of crime, length of time since crime. Document your file that because of blah, blah, blah you do not think this person is a viable candidate. If you can’t state the blah, blah, blah then you’d better have another good reason not to hire them. Onerous? Yes. Worthy of hysteria? Hardly. We all take classes on what we can ask and what we can’t, etc. etc. This is nothing new. Just do the right thing. Who knows? You might give a worthy person a chance and they turn out to the best, most loyal employee you ever had because of it. A little empathy folks.
Well, I think it’s the right thing to do. You do whatever you want to with your employees. Then we WILL have another regulation because people can’t be trusted to the right thing on their own.
Another over-reach by the EEOC. Companies should be allowed to conduct their business as they so chose within the parameters of the law. To allow discrimination lawsuits based on criminal history of an employee or perspective employee is nuts.Another Obama minefield. What next? Gyun carry permits for ex violent felons?
Gee, is South Carolina the same state the NLRB would not allow Boeing to set up a plant? Amazing how Obama like to go after Right to Work States! Dangerous!!!!!
I do think convicted criminals deserve a chance to work, but the government should stay our of this. There are companies more likely to hire a higher IQ felon than a lower IQ applicant with a stellar record. Companies should be able to determine how they want to hire.
Not sure which side of this I’m on.
I’m with you, Youngin’. It’s a hard one. On the one hand, I think employers should be able to set their hiring guidelines to include exclusion of criminals. And I think they should be able to do this on a periodic basis, as long as it is disclosed. However, I do not think if you hire someone you should be able to retroactively fire them for an offense that occurred prior to their initial hiring. That does seem discriminitory. If BMW had that policy, they should have enforced it under the prior contractor as well as the new contractor.
I struggle because, on the one hand, it seems like employers should be able to choose not to hire people with a criminal record if they see fit. On the other hand, the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world (per Wikipedia), and a good chunk of recorded crimes are for things like drug possession (thanks, War on Drugs!). It is certainly true that some crimes are worse than others, and in this country the bar is set pretty low as to what constitutes a crime. I don’t care for the EEOC approach, what with their “disparate impact on minorities” argument. It’s the same reasoning put forth by consumer advocates who seek to limit or ban credit scoring.
I understand the companies don’t want to go to all the trouble of hiring and training someone who won’t work out (for whatever reason). Not all criminals are bad employees. Where do you draw the line? I don’t have any answers. Just many more questions.
Understood. I know some people that have made mistakes in their past that are preventing them from being productive citizens today. Especially if it is a felony. You can’t get a job, so you can’t work, so you can’t support your family, so you become a burden on society. I applaud employers that try to help those that have been rehabilitated get a fresh start in life. Many times these mistakes were made when someone is very, very young. Lord knows I did some stupid stuff when I was!
I agree, Libby, and if I employed hundreds or thousands of people, I might take that into consideration. But for the EEOC to go after good companies because they DON’T take that approach makes no sense to me. Private corporations need not be on the forefront of social justice movements. These two are trying to make cars or sell mdse. at a profit. The EEOC has for years been an anti-business branch of government, and under this administration, they have become almost a taxpayer-funded right arm of the NAACP.
Exactly. “There, but for the grace of God, go I.”
Exactly!
Although I agree that some people do turn their lives around I do not see it as discrimination against a race of people to have a policy that does not hire people with convictions. I am sorry that the black population has a high level of convictions but that is not the employers issue that is societies concern. In the case of Dollar General it would appear that the company did mess up but do not see this as race, just lack of common sense.
Just love how the fed try’s to pass societies issues off to private corporations, I wonder if this has any impact on corporations leaving America? Just a thought.
Making a blanket company policy on the subject doesn’t make any sense but not having a specified policy will get you sued. It’s a catch 22.
Regardless of who, what, when or why a crime was created, an employer has the right to establish or revamp their hiring practices. At no time should should the government come in and impose its criteria. Haven’t we let the government regulate enough of our banking, insurance, manufacturing, corporate and energy industries? So now you’re on the fence as to whether whether they should regulate hiring practices of private corporations! Wake up! It’s not about whether something’s right or wrong…it’s about letting your government make that determination for you and then telling you how to run your business. Oh what…so, now I don’t have the right to turn down a person with a past criminal record? All under the guise of racism…pity…rehabilitation. Take heed my friend…this is yet another guise by this government to ensnare its unwitting prey!
Very well said Reader!!!!
Rarely do you see such strong grammar, spelling and punctuation combined with such ignorant, inane commentary.
Wake up. Smell the coffee. Open your eyes. Be informed. Otherwise, be quiet.
You open your eyes and READ THE ARTICLE. Not everything is a government conspiracy.
Hiring practices are already heavily regulated.
Reader.. right back at ya’… You realize that not eveything has a conspiracy associated with it don’t you? Now go put your aluminum hat back on and listen to the police radio..
Except, I wouldn’t say crimes are “created”. Found a couple of whethers strung together, too. However, I agree that Reader did better than most.
Oh, Reader, it’s not about letting the government ensnare us. It’s about doing the right thing. Whatever that may be.
The employees should sue. Not the government. Don’t take this so personally. Trust me, that’s what the government want you to do. They want you to believe that they know better than you do. (don’t worry…you’re not alone..there’s a lot of prey out there)
committed. whether.
oops! wants.
I’m sure the woman whose $8/hour job offer from Dollar General got rescinded has tens of thousands of dollars available to put toward a lawsuit against a multimillion dollar corporation.
Booga.
I’m neither offended nor did I take your post personally. I believe this case is the result of an EEOC complaint; therefore, the EEOC has the responsibility of suing. That doesn’t bother me.
Does this make me prey? I don’t think so. I don’t think the government is always right because it is created and run by politicians. I have no faith in politicians. They may occasionally get something right, but that is more the exception than the rule.
I was thinking this very same thing.
Erudite, yet with Reader’s post carriers a hint of “off my meds” paranoia.
Reader – We all agree that companies should be able to set their own hiring criteria. That is not what this article is about. It is about hiring someone 10 years ago that has been a good employee and firing them because you found out he had a criminal conviction PRIOR TO THE TIME YOU HIRED HIM. If their policy was to not hire someone with a conviction, they should have stuck to it. But they didn’t and the person has been a good employee for 10 years. The other case was one where the person disclosed the conviction, was still offered the job and then fired for it. Those two instances, IMHO, are wrong.
And no-one’s talking about government regulation of hiring practices. These are lawsuits filed by the EEOC on behalf of these employees.
The whole article pertains to the goverment. Read the first sentance. Note: “warn employers” The commission says “it wants”. The people who supposed to be serving it’s people is warning us..telling us what THEY want.
Do you know how many lawsuits this government has filed against its own citizens? “Private” means owned by citizens. The article was clearly titled “U.S. Sues BMW”. EEOC is a government agency.
Forget it. I had a reply about how companies created this problem by only hiring people who meet their ideal sex/age/race/religious affiliated person. Unfortunately, I doubt you would get it.
The EEOC is the government. It doesn’t have to be a senator or gongressman or president or VP or… to be considered government.
So, you feel if people can’t afford to sue a private business, they should go to the government? let their grievances known and set the government out to settle such grievances?
Do you know a government agency IS the US Government? Do you know the US Government is suing its own citizens? Do you know the US Government is using those same citizens’ tax dollars for such suit?
Don’t you get it…you do not want the government suing its own people.
Why shouldn’t the government sue it’s own people?
THIS IS A TOUGH MATTER. PRIVATE ENTERPRISE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SET STANDARDS THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH, BECAUSE IT’S THEIR MONEY AND REPUTATION AT STAKE. ON THE OTHER HAND, SOMETIMES WE NEED TO REALIZE THAT NOT EVERYONE THAT COMMITTS A CRIME IS A PROBLEM ON A GOING FORWARD BASIS, UNLESS THE TREND CONTINUES. I’D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE FEDS DO INSOFAR AS THEIR HIRING PRACTICES ARE CONCERNED WITH SUCH AGENCIES AS THE FBI, SECRET SERVICE, IRS, TREASURY, ETC. AS IT RELATES TO THIS SUBJECT MATTER. IF I WERE A BANK AS AN EXAMPLE, I WOULDN’T HIRE SOMEONE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED FOR A BANK ROBBERY. HOW DOES COMMON SENSE PLAY OUT IN EVERYTHING?
It’s not about the criimninal record. It’s not about how you feel about persons with a criminal record. It’s about determining your own hiring crieria…it’s about your right as a priviate enterprise to make your own business decisions…it’s about this governmnent over-reaching more…more…and more.
No. That’s not what this is about. It’s about setting a policy, breaking it, and then retroactively inforcing it. Wrong. Plain and simple. As Jack said above, having a policy and not enforcing is just as bad as having no policy. I happen to think it’s worse than having no policy in place.
A new contractor came in. New policies, etc.
So, basically, what you’re saying it’s okay for the government to come in and impose hiring criteria on the private sector.
Don’t get me wrong. THIS ISN”T PERSONAL. The individuals surely have a right to sue. But once you bring in the government, a precedent is set and regualtions are imposed.
A new contractor was hired, but a new policy was not put in place. Again, READ THE ARTICLE. The policy had been in place since the plant opened in 1994. I’m sorry, but when you hire someone with warts it’s not right to turn around after 10 years and say I changed my mind and don’t like warts anymore. That’s just not doing the right thing.
Oh sure, you did drugs five years ago? No problem! You stole from another employer three years ago? No problem! You have a short temper and battered one of your ex co-workers one year ago? No problem! You are hired! And here is your signing bonus! Only the government…
A crime is a crime is a crime, eh, Einstein?
Well, if I had committed any of the aforementioned “activities” would you hire me and trust me?
I don’t trust you now after those comments.
Oh, so now you want to let the government decide when a crime is a crime? Eh, Einstein’s protege? (did I spell that right).
So, a person applying for a factory job, who will not drive as part of his job, and who has a past DUI shouldn’t be considered?
Well, how will the person drive to work? Will you as an employer offer a shuttle service as part of the employment package?
Uh, bike? Public transportation? Carpool with another coworker? Walk? Not everybody drives to work. And, he’s not driving FOR his employer when he is on his way to and from work, so it shouldn’t matter if he is driving to and from work.
One could argue that this was a very bad choice made by this individual with no regard for his safety or the safety of others around him. Do you want him or her in your factory on a line where his/her choice could cause serious injury to himself/herself or others? This is screaming for more facts. So now you need to add caveats to your rules. Statistically men are charged more often with DUI than women. So if you do not hire a man in this particular instance after all facts have been brought to light, is it gender discrimination?
Ok, so a ‘what if’ scenario isn’t going to work.
My point is, where do you draw the line? A blanket policy to not hire convicted criminals may exclude the person who is a perfect fit for the job. However, as stated earlier, if it’s not a blanket policy, then you’ll still be sued for discrimination.
I don’t have any answers. I am VERY happy to be at the bottom of the food chain: I don’t have to have answers to these questions.
If it IS a blanket policy, you may be sued. They don’t want you to have a blanket policy, they want you to do more investigation into the crime to be sure you are not arbitrarily excluding people that may otherwise be qualified. I’m sorry, but I think some people do deserve a second chance and how are you going to identify those that do from those that don’t if you don’t probe further? We need these type of people to become responsible, tax-paying citizens instead of thwarting their every chance to do something with their life.
Now, thumb me down and ridicule me, people.
I agree that not every criminal is irredeemable. I’ve met more than one convict who became an excellent employee. If I knew how to fix this, I would. There are so many societal stigmas that cause discrimination and it’s a shame. I hope I live long enough to see these problems resolved.
I forgot to answer your question. Yes, that would create a gender discrimination suit.
I understand this web is hopelessly tangled and we’re drowning in PC regulations. I guess I’m part of the problem since I’m not helping with the solution.
That’s not what they were saying at all. Einstein gave specific crimes that any employer should be able to take into account. The part of this article that I found most troubling was that the EEOC was suing for backpay for a person the company didn’t hire based on their previous criminal history. I understand people make mistakes when they are young, I sure did. But this is attempting to penalize a company for hiring practices. If I start a company and don’t want to hire someone who was convicted of larceny, that should be my right as the employer.
Ron, I was replying to jw’s question. And the article is about violating civil rights unless I read the second paragraph wrong “In both cases, the agency claims the practice discriminates against African-Americans, who have higher arrest and conviction rates than whites.” Statistics are always going to divide a group. Twisting an innate number into a discrimination claim is insane.
I was replying to jw’s as well. I concur with your statement.
I’m not sure if this will help the situation at all but felons are not a protected class. Meaning, you can choose to not hire someone because of a previous felony and there isn’t any law to protect the applicant.
Where I found this article lacking was it didn’t state if the employees were convicted felons or if they were just misdemeanors.
Your example question isn’t the best either. If the applicant has no means of transportation to get to work every day as scheduled, that can be a valid reason not to hire said applicant. It doesn’t really matter if it’s because of a DUI or not. I could work somewhere for 10 years and get a DUI and lose my license. My employer would probably not have a problem with it UNLESS I was unable to get to work because of it.
(The reason I say this is a bad example is because alcoholics ARE a protected class…I will let your mind wander down lawsuit lane to figure out how well firing someone for a DUI would go over even though alcoholics off the wagon are not protected.)
They’re getting around the “felons are not a protected class” by saying statistically blacks have more criminal history and therefore this is race discrimination. I think that is a far reach, but I do thing what these companies did is wrong. The one person had worked there for 10 years and been a good employee. They were in violation of their own policy for letting him be hired in the first place. So maybe they should have looked at revising the policy instead of firing him for something that was disclosed when he was hired. They really brought this upon themselves for not acting responsibly in the first place and then reacting with a knee jerk.
I got ya, Libby, just wanted to throw that out there. I completely agree with you though.
You are one of very few, Nebraskan…
Victimless crimes: fishing without a license. Graffiti. No, it really is. Yeah yeah, a bit of property damage but it’s usually a young person with a creative itch that needed to be scratched.
FINAL COMMENT:
God help us. How many more have fallen prey?
What? Are private grievances now to be brought forth to our government for impostiion of penance or retribution? Surfdom?
serfdom
That may not be your final comment!
So I’m an employer who hires someone that I know has a criminal record. That person hurts a third party, who sues me. If I don’t hire that person, the government sues me. Exactly why do I want to own a business?
Because this is a great country, full of opportunities. And we all have the opportunity to vote out these buffoon politicians who allow these desecrations to occur. We need to change the climate or the weather isn’t going to get any better!
Best not to bring up climate change here, even if you are doing so metaphorically. Conversations here are derailed easily enough as it is.
Jack; Well put, and thank you. There is one other thing that is really bothering me about this story. If I don’t want to hire someone with a criminal record, I am not only wrong and mis-guided, I am a racist. I am a pariah of society regardless of my intent.
Listen up everyone. The government, via the EEOC, is not saying you can not use criminal background as a valid reason to disqualify someone from hire. They are saying a BLANKET policy tends to be discriminatory just because of the statistics of demographics (not saying I agree or disagree, just that that is the way it is.) They would like the employers to do a more in-depth investigation of the circumstances of the crime, the severity of the crime, and the length of time since the crime was committed. Granted, that puts a greater burden on the employer. I understand that. We don’t have to fly off the deep end here with Big Brother Is Trying to Control Private Business. It could be onerous on the employer when it’s just easier to have a blanket statement – but sometimes doing the right thing is not doing the easy thing.
Libby; I respect your point, but if I don’t have a policy then I can be accused of being arbitrary. I am damned either way.
EXACTLY!
After reading your posts, you obviously are not an employer and don’t have to deal with higher and higher overhead due to employee theft, lawsuits due to employee actions, and now add in EEOC lawsuits all of which also cause insurance premium hikes for all businesses. Your tax dollars will fund the lawsuit (rather than them hiring a lawyer and the lawyer’s fees from the settlement) The employer’s cost go up and you get to pay more when you go shopping. We’re on path of no return.
EEOC lawsuits have been around alot longer than just these two. Again, I’m not saying I agree or disagree (actually, I said I was torn,) only that we don’t have to blow everything out of proportion and get all hysterical that the Government is trying to control our business. They are attempting to do their job, which in ensuring equal opportunities for employment in this country. That includes all citizens, even if they have a criminal record. Just do your due diligence, weed out the bad ones, document your file and you should be good to go.
What are the hiring practices of the EEOC when it comes to criminal records?? Maybe they are more than happy to hire them and take the chance?? I seriously doubt that. Does anyone know??
The point being missed? Why are the employers being accused of discrimination. Of the 88 employees that the government convicted giving them criminal records over 85% were black. Looks like the discrimination started with the government.
Libby, just read what you wrote. You are endorsing a “screening” quota. If we apply that to juries, an attorney could exclude only so many biased people and then would have to live with whomever is left. Goodness! I am guessing you don’t care that the NSA is intercepting everyone’s phone and e:mail communications. After all, we can’t “discriminate”!
What I’m suggesting is doing what they suggest in their guideline. Ask more questions about the criminal offense, ie. circumstances, severity of crime, length of time since crime. Document your file that because of blah, blah, blah you do not think this person is a viable candidate. If you can’t state the blah, blah, blah then you’d better have another good reason not to hire them. Onerous? Yes. Worthy of hysteria? Hardly. We all take classes on what we can ask and what we can’t, etc. etc. This is nothing new. Just do the right thing. Who knows? You might give a worthy person a chance and they turn out to the best, most loyal employee you ever had because of it. A little empathy folks.
Doing what they suggest in their guidelines. In other words “do what they say”. Get your head out of the sand, Libby.
Well, I think it’s the right thing to do. You do whatever you want to with your employees. Then we WILL have another regulation because people can’t be trusted to the right thing on their own.
Libby. How appropriate. ‘shouldn’t haven’t even bothered to respond. Easy prey.
I agree. You shouldn’t have bothered to respond.
Libby says:
What I’m suggesting is doing what they suggest in their guideline.
I don’t suppose you know what a guideline turns into…a regulation. Get you head out of the sand, Libby!
Another over-reach by the EEOC. Companies should be allowed to conduct their business as they so chose within the parameters of the law. To allow discrimination lawsuits based on criminal history of an employee or perspective employee is nuts.Another Obama minefield. What next? Gyun carry permits for ex violent felons?
Gee, is South Carolina the same state the NLRB would not allow Boeing to set up a plant? Amazing how Obama like to go after Right to Work States! Dangerous!!!!!
I do think convicted criminals deserve a chance to work, but the government should stay our of this. There are companies more likely to hire a higher IQ felon than a lower IQ applicant with a stellar record. Companies should be able to determine how they want to hire.