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.
As far as I am concerned I think a company should be able to disqualify based on criminal record. If I owned a company I would use background checks to weed out convicted criminals. Where I work now they ask if you have any convictions. If you lie and it turns up later, you are fired.
That is your choice. However, if it was you who committed a crime, and you went to prison, when you got out of prison, you would need a job in order to get your life back together. Would you rather someone turn you away for having a criminal record(and then you go back to criminal ways) or have someone give you a job so that you could make a return to society?
That is your choice. However, if it was you who committed a crime, and you went to prison, when you got out of prison, you would need a job in order to get your life back together. Would you rather someone turn you away for having a criminal record(and then you go back to criminal ways) or have someone give you a job so that you could make a return to society?
If only life were that perfect. Sadly it's not.
Don't apply for a cashier job if you have nine previous convictions for petty theft.
What is good public policy is one thing, but to what degree do interdict in the hiring process of private entities to achieve that public policy?
To what degree? I don't know. All I know is that if a person has done his/her time in prison and then gets released, said person needs a job in order to keep himself/herself from going back into crime. If not, then we might as well keep said criminals in prison for the rest of their lives. And consider this, keeping every criminal in prison for the rest of their lives will get expensive(even if you cut all of the good stuff in prison).
They can be - interviews and resumes can also be used in a discriminatory manner.
Poll taxes were constitutional until the 24th amendment was passed.
Literacy tests were never found unconstitutional, they were made illegal by federal legislation.
I'm a bit confused - the case the EEOC cites is from the 8th circuit, so how does it apply to South Carolina?
What is the purpose of the post?
The EEOC maintains and it uses case law to bolster its claim that in certain instances criminal background checks can be discriminatory and violate the law, if those guidelines are not followed.
This reality goes against your false contention that any criminal background check for any reason is viewed as discriminatory by the EEOC. That is not the EEOC's position as you are attempting to claim.
Also, I didn't write about the legality of poll taxes or literacy.
My point was that poll taxes and literacy tests are great examples of disparate impact.
Despite poll taxes and literacy tests not being explicitly racist against black Americans, those things still had a disparate and thus discriminatory impact on black voters.
Don't apply for a cashier job if you have nine previous convictions for petty theft.
I never said life was perfect. I said if a person is coming out of prison, said person will need a job. Telling said person "sorry, no ex-cons allowed", what does that ex-con do? I'm not making any excuses for criminals. My philosophy is simple. You do the crime, you do the time. However, when you are done doing the time, when your release date comes, you need to make a transition back to life out of prison, a life where you are free. Getting a job is one thing you need to do. Otherwise, you might as well stay in prison for the rest of your life.
This is the question: What do we do with the criminals who are going to be released back into society?
I never said life was perfect. I said if a person is coming out of prison, said person will need a job. Telling said person "sorry, no ex-cons allowed", what does that ex-con do? I'm not making any excuses for criminals. My philosophy is simple. You do the crime, you do the time. However, when you are done doing the time, when your release date comes, you need to make a transition back to life out of prison, a life where you are free. Getting a job is one thing you need to do. Otherwise, you might as well stay in prison for the rest of your life.
This is the question: What do we do with the criminals who are going to be released back into society?
Not every company refuses anyone with a conviction.
I posted earlier in this thread that each person has their own story in life to tell.
These decisions have to be made on a case by case basis.
And there are some jobs that require a clean record so those with records should not be applying thinking it doesn't apply to them.
A record is something you need to live with for the rest of your life and the best advice is to not get a record to begin with.
Not every company refuses anyone with a conviction.
I posted earlier in this thread that each person has their own story in life to tell.
These decisions have to be made on a case by case basis.
And there are some jobs that require a clean record so those with records should not be applying thinking it doesn't apply to them.
A record is something you need to live with for the rest of your life and the best advice is to not get a record to begin with.
If you are applying as a police officer or a teacher, I could understand.
I would say that it needs to be case by case. For other jobs, however, sometimes I don't see it as necessary to know one's criminal record.
I know one person who went to prison over drugs, not for its use, but for simply having them in his hand. His life was ruined by it. For a while he couldn't get a job. He eventually got back on his feet, but it was hard.
And then there are some cases where you can get accused of something you didn't do, and then end up in prison.
If you are applying as a police officer or a teacher, I could understand.
I would say that it needs to be case by case. For other jobs, however, sometimes I don't see it as necessary to know one's criminal record.
I know one person who went to prison over drugs, not for its use, but for simply having them in his hand. His life was ruined by it. For a while he couldn't get a job. He eventually got back on his feet, but it was hard.
And then there are some cases where you can get accused of something you didn't do, and then end up in prison.
That is your choice. However, if it was you who committed a crime, and you went to prison, when you got out of prison, you would need a job in order to get your life back together. Would you rather someone turn you away for having a criminal record(and then you go back to criminal ways) or have someone give you a job so that you could make a return to society?
That is a huge if. If I won a lottery I wouldn't need to work.
The convicted criminal did it the deed. Life sucks when it comes to consequences. There are plenty of low end jobs for those who felt at least at one time laws are for everyone else. I am more concerned about seeing honest people, non-convicts and non-criminals getting good jobs.
The criminal made their own bed.
The EEOC maintains and it uses case law to bolster its claim that in certain instances criminal background checks can be discriminatory and violate the law, if those guidelines are not followed.
This reality goes against your false contention that any criminal background check for any reason is viewed as discriminatory by the EEOC. That is not the EEOC's position as you are attempting to claim.
Also, I didn't write about the legality of poll taxes or literacy.
My point was that poll taxes and literacy tests are great examples of disparate impact.
Despite poll taxes and literacy tests not being explicitly racist against black Americans, those things still had a disparate and thus discriminatory impact on black voters.
Well, then you spoke poorly, and didn't use good examples when citing poll taxes and literacy tests.
It pretty much is, the EEOC is basing its decision on an arbitrary circuit court ruling that isn't even valid law in South Carolina. The 8th circuit court pretty much said we don't think a business should be that strict, and therefore we think it's discrimination if they are.
How many jobs really require a high school diploma? Education and criminal records aren't just about the direct link to job performance (retail job and larceny, delivery guy and sexual assaults, etc), it's also about maturity and whether or not people can make good decisions.
If I have two pretty much similar candidates, and one has a criminal history (of any sort), why not go with the better candidate?
For a policy to be discriminatory, there has to be an intent to discriminate - Saying that the pretext here is racism, and simply not wanting to hire people with a criminal record is hard for me to believe.
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.
