EEOC will make you hire felons ?

[xgsound]

Link to article that says the EEOC requires Security firm to hire felons even though it is illegal in PA or they sue! http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323701904578276491630786614.html#articleTabs=article The suit was started in 2010 according to the article. It's hard to believe it's true. How can a company do right here? How can we change this? link works in chrome.
Edit: Article and Newsmax link also at http://poorrichardsnews.com/

Jim

 

[waggy]

won't work.

 

[techs]

This does not belong in OT.

However, just to clarify this in the Wall Street Journal, a Rupert Murdoch rag that wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face.

The fact is the law requires you to not just dismiss anyone with a felony from employment. You must look at the crime and need to show that its nature would affect the persons performance of their duties.

In other words you can deny an embezzler a bookeeping job. You can't deny him a truck driving job.

Oh, and the OP posted some nonsense about something in PA that is incromprehensible. Just saying.

 

[xgsound]

What forum does it belong in? Great thread about Scifi people. In PA it is against the law to hire a felon to be a security guard and EEOC sued G4S Security to make them hire anyway.

Jim

 

[Uppsala9496]

Doesn't phase me at all. In my industry everyone is licensed and you can't get a license if you have a felony.

 

[techs]

What forum does it belong in? Great thread about Scifi people. In PA it is against the law to hire a felon to be a security guard and EEOC sued G4S Security to make them hire anyway.

Jim

P&N

Now I understand what you mean by PA law.

However, in the article you cite the job in question was a truck driving job in Florida, not a security guard job in PA.

Since most felony convictions would be directly related to being a security guard I don't see any problem with a conflict between PA and Federal law.

 

[xgsound]

The G4S Security case is in the second half of the article and the EEOC wants them to hire felons as security guards. I went through the whole 8 pages of that Scifi thread last night. That's why I'm up now and half delirious.

The P&N forum makes sense now that you mention it but I usually stay out of there.

Jim

 

[techs]

The G4S Security case is in the second half of the article and the EEOC wants them to hire felons as security guards. I went through the whole 8 pages of that Scifi thread last night. That's why I'm up now and half delirious.

The P&N forum makes sense now that you mention it but I usually stay out of there.

Jim

Are you talking about the link that quotes Newsmax?
You can really have some fun finding out about Newsmax. It was started by the guy who led the internet "investigation" into how Hilary Clinton murdered Vincent Foster. And how the death of Ron Brown, the Commerce Secretary, was really another conspiracy.

In other words, Newsmax takes regular news stories and adds their own paranoid, right wing twist. Its not a viable source for any discussion.

The real issue is that the government is faced with about 6.5 percent of the population having a felony conviction. Turns out thats a huge problem for America. So, basically saying you can't just say a felony conviction bars anyone from a job, that the employer must at least look at the felony and relate it in some way to the job. A security guard would pretty much bar anyone. Though would you bar someone who tried to save their house by lying on a refinance statement 30 years ago, and has led an exemplary life since from being a security guard at a Walmart?

 

[jpiniero]

Though would you bar someone who tried to save their house by lying on a refinance statement 30 years ago, and has led an exemplary life since from being a security guard at a Walmart

If you had read the article, they mention a guy who the EEOC wanted them to hire who had multiple arrests including larceny. This was back in the 80s though, so you can imagine what it must the EEOC must be like now that the White House is run by hardcore liberals.

 

[monovillage]

Why focus on a small and idiotic ruling by the EEOC when the real problem is the EEOC itself. Shut off funding, close them down, fire all their employees and managers. Problem solved.

 

[Theb]

~50 years of operation and only one troubling example. I have a hard time believing they're that good, but without any other examples I guess that's what I'll have to assume for now.

 

[xgsound]

I'm rested now. I thought you misunderstood the articles. If quotes from WSJ and Newsmax don't count, I'm curious why you bothered to read them at all. I don't particularly want to convince you or others. I think you should find your own facts and decide for yourself.

I take it you think EEOC action is right. I think it is often ridiculous and thought others might be interested.

Jim