Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The EEOC states that only blacks can be discriminated against regarding criminal records and disparate treatment. The EEOC considers it discirmination even if an all black company does not hire a black person based on a criminal record. The EEOC tallies hiring across the country and makes it a disparate impact issue, not jsut the individual company, so basically, the EEOC has authorized its self to pursue any claim of not hiring blacks with a criminal record, even if there was no disparate impact at that particular company. This is per an EEOC briefing to members of my company, including me. If yoou are white, forget it, even if there is disparate impact at the particular company.
When a person challenged the EEOC lawyer with "does this not violate Title VII?", the answer was NO, with no explanation given on how the government can give preferential treatment of one group over another.
The EEOC is a great commission, and provides an avenue for employees with claims against their companies. However, the EEOC also has a clas sof people working there that has a political agenda, and in my opinion abuses their position. Some in the EEOC or more concerned with equal outcome than they are equal opportunity. There are some in the EEOC, and some towns/cities across the US, who are actually trying to get people with a cirminal record declared a protected class.
If the black people would stop carrying MJ with them when they commit another crime or stop their curb-side dealing services, those numbers would fall. Do you think that cops are letting whites go and arresting blacks? I bet you DO think that.
Again, you are raising a different irrelevant point. Black Americans and white Americans use marijuana at the same rate.
The higher arrest rates for marijuana usage for black Americans doesn't represent higher levels of breaking the marijuana usage laws, but represents that black Americans are overly sampled by the police which then leads to higher arrests for marijuana usage.
This is a problem. Again, if the police no matter the group targets one group more and over samples that group, de facto they will arrest more of that group regardless of the level of criminality of that group because that group is being overly sampled. So the arrest records get distorted because of that oversampling.
Again take the marijuana example if you just looked at arrest records you'd think that black Americans use marijuana at much higher rates then white Americans, but that is not the case, what those distorted stats represent is that black Americans are over sampled by the police which then leads to higher arrests for marijuana. In other words, based on the arrests we get a distorted view of marijuana usage.
This is really what the EEOC is trying to combat with the lawsuits. The EEOC in a sense is saying look black Americans are over sampled by the police for law breaking, which then leads to black Americans being overly arrested, which then leads to black Americans having records.
Just before the obvious is pointed out, this observation isn't disputed by saying that black Americans break the law more, because it still holds if the police over sample a particular population de-facto the police are going to arrest more of those people than other groups regardless of rates of criminality.
This represents a huge problem because it is factually true.
I think it is racial discrimination, but I don't know if the EEOC going about it through employers on the backend is going to address it, but it is a bold legal move.
A criminal record is only a government produced item; so if there is any problem, this is a gov issue, not an issue for the private market to sort out.
Perhaps the EEOC should be addressing their concerns to the government (that was stated to the EEOC lawyer in my EEOC meeting).
Again, you are raising a different irrelevant point. Black Americans and white Americans use marijuana at the same rate.
The higher arrest rates for marijuana usage for black Americans doesn't represent higher levels of breaking the marijuana usage laws, but represents that black Americans are overly sampled by the police which then leads to higher arrests for marijuana usage.
This is a problem. Again, if the police no matter the group targets one group more and over samples that group, de facto they will arrest more of that group regardless of the level of criminality of that group because that group is being overly sampled. So the arrest records get distorted because of that oversampling.
Again take the marijuana example if you just looked at arrest records you'd think that black Americans use marijuana at much higher rates then white Americans, but that is not the case, what those distorted stats represent is that black Americans are over sampled by the police which then leads to higher arrests for marijuana. In other, based on the arrests we get a distorted view of marijuana usage.
This is a huge problem.
Ok, this is just a simple stat. What are the circumstances surrounding the arrests? Were blacks more liekly to smoke weed out in public than whites? Have possession of weed in commission of another crime? The stat does not mention any circumstances surrounding the arrests.
Anyway, it is not businesses problem the gov has issues with who they arrest and convict. If the gov has a problem with it, perhaps they should solve it since they are the cause of it.
it seems to me that a person's criminal history should be a valid criteria for hiring/not hiring
I can't see firing current employees because they just got around to doing a criminal background check on them, being at all fair. On another not, I believe the article is misleading because of omissions...it doesn't say how many non-black employees were fired. If the only employees that were fired were black, then that's clearly discriminatory but, I seriously doubt that's the case.
I believe background checks should not be permitted unless there is some direct relationship between a particular job and a particular offense (i.e. banks should screen out embezzlers, day care centers should not employ child molesters, etc.) The alternative is to maintain a more or less permanent socially immobile underclass as we have currently. That's bad for the country.
But, but, but.....the government only goes after bad people....like the Tea Party!
Welcome to tyranny.
Obama is not a typical Democrat. He doesn’t want to redistribute wealth, or achieve social justice, or simply expand government. He wants to fundamentally realign America.
A criminal record is only a government produced item; so if there is any problem, this is a gov issue, not an issue for the private market to sort out.
Perhaps the EEOC should be addressing their concerns to the government (that was stated to the EEOC lawyer in my EEOC meeting).
I think that is a legit point to make, but I also think the EEOC has a great point as well which is government actions are hurting black Americans and the EEOC believes that this leads to racial discrimination against black Americans when seeking employment.
I can't see firing current employees because they just got around to doing a criminal background check on them, being at all fair. On another not, I believe the article is misleading because of omissions...it doesn't say how many non-black employees were fired. If the only employees that were fired were black, then that's clearly discriminatory but, I seriously doubt that's the case.
That would be disparate treatment, which is a different issue than what the EEOC is addressing. Everyone of course should be treated the same; but the EEOC is making a claim for only one group (blacks) based on disparate impact aggregated across the country, not at a single company.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
