EEOC Threatens Employers Who Conduct Criminal Background Checks: Approve or Disapprove?
Fef
2012/05/08 07:18:30
|
|
|||||
|
11 votes
|
|
19% | |||
|
46 votes
|
|
81% | |||
American government bureaucrats have quietly created more regulations that will force employers to look for employees outside of America.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) passed the “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” by a 4-1 vote. This guideline allows government to punish employers who perform criminal background checks.
This will result in a negative impact on minorities -- the exact "protected groups" that the EEOC wanted to help in its E-R-A-C-E (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment) initiative.
If the EEOC says that blacks and Hispanics have disproportionate criminal histories, then employers who cannot perform background checks will avoid hiring or interviewing blacks and Hispanics.
Once again, the government has proven its inability to see past its nose. The bureaucrats in this administration have not worked in the private sector . They have no idea how companies make hiring decisions. They pass rules like this with singular intentions and cannot comprehend the ramifications of their naivete. Expect higher unemployment among minorities because of this guideline.
The EEOC has brought forth another excuse to punish employers: Conducting a criminal background check of job applicants could trigger charges of race discrimination... According to said document, individuals in “protected groups” (i.e., African Americans and Hispanics) are convicted of crimes at a rate disproportionately greater than their representation in the population. Consequently, background checks disproportionately screen out minority applicants. Such “adverse impact” is illegal unless an employer can prove a “business necessity.” The racial balance of a company’s workforce is no defense.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) passed the “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964” by a 4-1 vote. This guideline allows government to punish employers who perform criminal background checks.
This will result in a negative impact on minorities -- the exact "protected groups" that the EEOC wanted to help in its E-R-A-C-E (Eradicating Racism and Colorism from Employment) initiative.
If the EEOC says that blacks and Hispanics have disproportionate criminal histories, then employers who cannot perform background checks will avoid hiring or interviewing blacks and Hispanics.
Once again, the government has proven its inability to see past its nose. The bureaucrats in this administration have not worked in the private sector . They have no idea how companies make hiring decisions. They pass rules like this with singular intentions and cannot comprehend the ramifications of their naivete. Expect higher unemployment among minorities because of this guideline.
Read More: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/03/tales-of-the-r...
Top Opinion
-
compufreek 2012/05/08 14:48:53Disapprove
+10I think an employer has a right to perform criminal background checks. It's needed for certain forms of work, I.E. a security guard or childcare worker. It is when they want to see my facebook or run a credit check that gives me pause.
It is perfectly sane for a potential employer to conduct a check to see whether a candidate is a risk to the members of staff or customers, such as children.
If they turn out to be a nonce, they could always get a job with the TSA.
Employer - "Do you like to fondle little boys and girls?"
Applicant - "Hell Yeah."
Employer - "See you Monday."
http://news.carrentals.co.uk/...
Some jobs,you need to TRUST the poeple
On the other hand, criminal background checks keep sexual predators out of schools and things of that nature.
It's a tricky subject.
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/do...
An individual is a member of a targeted group if he or she is a:
Qualified recipient of assistance under title IV of the Social Security Act
Qualified veteran
Qualified ex-felon
Designated community resident
Vocational rehabilitation referral
Qualified summer youth employee
Qualified recipient of supplemental nutrition assistance program benefits
Qualified SSI recipient
Long-term family assistance recipient
Unemployed veteran (hired in 2009 or 2010)
Disconnected youth (hired in 2009 or 2010)
http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq/0...
Examples of both state and federal level credits, as a manager at major retailer I was told to give prefference to ex- felons and minorities for this reason.
The state and government ones I listed do not refer to welfare program go arounds but lists felony convictions directly. The list is copied and pasted from the site.http://www.irs.gov/faqs/...
If you commit more crimes you'll get convicted more, simple math.
that is on her record. She was likely fired for lying on the application which is generally grounds for termination, and is also on most applications as such. Minor things like this you can get expunged from your record, and after doing so are under no obligation to reveal it. I also have to wonder what prompted them to do a background check after five years of employment. I'm not saying she did anything wrong, only that I don't think we have the entire story here. I know it is a bit of a semantics game as to whether she was fired for the shoplifting 40 years prior or lying on her application, but it is also an important distinction.
As to the "other" option, I totally agree, and think it should be there as a default.
As to statutes of limitation, those are for being caught and charged. Convictions generally are NOT removed from your record, no matter how minor the offense, unless you move to have them removed. I had to get my no contest conviction for receiving stolen property expunged and my probation vacated so I could join the Marine Corps. It still shows up on government security checks though.
What the EEOC is doing is like placing a band-aid on the elbow as a fix for the leg being smashed!
Some absurd logic is used in this post with "Expect higher unemployment among minorities because of this guideline." If anything more minorities will be hired not less. Heritage is a conservative business propaganda outfit. They are also for social media outing by future employees. What's next your employer reading your mail?
Let us be real here. Criminals have made choices, some really bad ones. Those choices have consequences. One of the consequences is that they may find it more difficult to earn peoples trust. Dont let the liberals remove all consequences for making bad choices, it will only serve to give more incentive for criminal behavior.
It's the drug screening and the credit checks i find inappropriate.