Will I be forced to hire an employee with a criminal past?

[boomerang]

Will new fed guidelines force companies to hire more employees with criminal pasts?

I own a gym. My members are on contract and one of the clauses is that I can terminate a membership at any time with no reason given. As an example, if I were to discover that a member had a record as a sex offender, I could terminate that member. This would be pretty much a necessity because my members have 24/7/365 access but we are not staffed all those hours. That's how I can deal with my members. Potential employee's, well that's different.

The EEOC has suggested guidelines that would eliminate policies that "exclude people from employment based on a criminal record". If I were to do a background check, the commission report states that I should limit my inquiries to criminal records related only to the open job.

So, if were to hire a manager, a manager who handled money, sold contracts that included taking credit card numbers and bank account information, I would likely not be subject to a discrimination claim for not hiring an individual convicted of identity theft but could be for not hiring a convicted drug dealer?

The majority of my members are women and many of them wear tight clothing when working out. On that basis, can I exclude an individual convicted of rape? How about sexual assault?

I'm thinking someone convicted of embezzlement could be ruled out.

What I'm trying to get a handle on, is what crimes that someone had been convicted of would be suitable for the job of a manager at my business? A discrimination claim from someone who has done time is not something I feel is in my best interest.

Bueller?

 

[rudder]

Nothing wrong with ex-cons guarding their former cell mates... Or that convicted embezzler handling money at the bank.

 

[Anarchist420]

That's a rather scary situation. My guess is that if it changed, then employers will be required to hire "undesirables". Some States are pretty liberal in their hiring legislation... it wouldn't surprise me if the Blue State Communists got the policies made more leftist for the whole country.

 

[MarkLuvsCS]

This link provides scenarios covered by their 'guidance'

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm#IV

Some of it seems fairly obvious: White guy + black guy have same prior misdemeanor, but you tell the black guy sorry criminal past is a problem, but then hire white guy. That becomes racial discrimination.

It does say arrest records with no convictions should have no bearing on employment, which seems sensible because that's assuming guilt rather than innocence just for an 'arrest'. You do think people are innocent until proven guilty no?

 

[pcgeek11]

Snip

Some of it seems fairly obvious: White guy + black guy have same prior misdemeanor, but you tell the black guy sorry criminal past is a problem, but then hire white guy. That becomes racial discrimination.

Snip

Why would you tell the black guy anything? It would be stupid to tell him " sorry criminal past is a problem ".

Just hire whoever the hell you want. An explanation is not required. " Sorry you didn't get the job. "

 

[Double Trouble]

What an incredibly dumb stance for the commission to take. They want to promote minority hiring, but the only thing this will accomplish is that more businesses will shy away from doing background checks, resulting in more harm to everyone by allowing people into jobs that they shouldn't be in.

Studies published by the University of Chicago Legal Forum and the Journal of Law and Economics show businesses are much less likely to hire minority applicants when background checks are banned, as reported by The Wall Street Journal.

Not surprising.

Why would you tell the black guy anything? It would be stupid to tell him " sorry criminal past is a problem ".

Just hire whoever the hell you want. An explanation is not required. " Sorry you didn't get the job. "

That's not the issue, the issue is that you can't simply have a background screening for all applicants (regardless of color) anymore, because these morons will argue that you're discriminating if you do a background check.

This is insane.

 

[boomerang]

What an incredibly dumb stance for the commission to take. They want to promote minority hiring, but the only thing this will accomplish is that more businesses will shy away from doing background checks, resulting in more harm to everyone by allowing people into jobs that they shouldn't be in.



Not surprising.



That's not the issue, the issue is that you can't simply have a background screening for all applicants (regardless of color) anymore, because these morons will argue that you're discriminating if you do a background check.

This is insane.

I would say your interpretation pretty much mirrors mine. If a business is fully cognizant of this and chooses not to do background checks, what will the ultimate cost be when people are hired that are let go from the perspective of liability of the company, unemployment costs, etc? I know the EEOC is not concerned about this type of fallout in the slightest.

I still wonder what criminal activity I would deem acceptable for a position I'm looking to fill. Below are some I would rule out.

Murder - nope
Rape - nope
Embezzlement - nope
Burglary - nope
Larceny - nope
Auto theft - nope
Arson - nope
Insider trading - nope
Tax evasion - nope
False Imprisonment - nope
Kidnapping - nope
Forgery - nope
Receipt of stolen goods - nope
Drug convictions - nope

I can't come up with any that would entice me to hire someone.

 

[Newbian]

What would worry you about insider trading and tax evasion if it's a gym they are working at and you report the earnings like legit companies do?

 

[boomerang]

What would worry you about insider trading and tax evasion if it's a gym they are working at and you report the earnings like legit companies do?

I would pose this question to you.

Would you feel comfortable hiring someone with a known criminal history? That's what it comes down to.

 

[Newbian]

I would pose this question to you.

Would you feel comfortable hiring someone with a known criminal history? That's what it comes down to.

No issues with the two I listed for a normal job in a gym and this way you can pay them less because of it. :awe:

 

[highland145]

The majority of my members are women and many of them wear tight clothing when working out.

Hmmm, I'll swap you a daycare, even.

 

[zsdersw]

What jobs should convicted criminals who have served their time be able to get?

If we want people off of the taxpayer's dime they have to be able to find private-sector employment upon completion of their incarceration.

 

[highland145]

What jobs should convicted criminals who have served their time be able to get?

Had an excellent woman that I wanted to hire but the insurance commission said no because she had a prior misdemeanor charge. Obviously, I wouldn't hire a convicted and time served molester at the daycare. Financial fraud wouldn't get you hired at my office or the day care. Sorry, that's the way it is.

 

[boomerang]

Hmmm, I'll swap you a daycare, even.

Tempting, but I think I'll pass.

 

[zsdersw]

Had an excellent woman that I wanted to hire but the insurance commission said no because she had a prior misdemeanor charge. Obviously, I wouldn't hire a convicted and time served molester at the daycare. Financial fraud wouldn't get you hired at my office or the day care. Sorry, that's the way it is.

That's not really what I'm asking, or talking about.

 

[boomerang]

What jobs should convicted criminals who have served their time be able to get?

If we want people off of the taxpayer's dime they have to be able to find private-sector employment upon completion of their incarceration.

I would ask you this. Is completion of sentence proof of rehabilitation? Any possibility that time behind bars would give one the opportunity to come up with a plan to do it better next time? Is there such a thing as a career criminal?

I'm derailing my own thread with the above. To get back on track, I am not hiring anyone without a background check. I will let the chips fall where they may on that one. If someone wants to come after me for discrimination for that I guess that's what will happen and I will have to deal with it.

My issue is that I can't justify hiring anyone with a criminal background.

Perhaps a perfect job for those that have completed their incarcerations is with the government? The government would like me to hire them, so they've got to be good enough for the government. Make sense?

 

[zsdersw]

I would ask you this. Is completion of sentence proof of rehabilitation? Any possibility that time behind bars would give one the opportunity to come up with a plan to do it better next time? Is there such a thing as a career criminal?

That's an argument for better determining the disposition of prisoners/convicts. Our entire criminal justice system is built on the idea the rehabilitation is possible for the vast majority of criminals. We all have an interest in having a more accurate way to determine who is rehabilitated and who is not... regardless of their post-incarceration employment situation.

I'm derailing my own thread with the above. To get back on track, I am not hiring anyone without a background check. I will let the chips fall where they may on that one. If someone wants to come after me for discrimination for that I guess that's what will happen and I will have to deal with it.

My issue is that I can't justify hiring anyone with a criminal background.

Perhaps a perfect job for those that have completed their incarcerations is with the government? The government would like me to hire them, so they've got to be good enough for the government. Make sense?

Government is taxpayer funded... working for the government is still being on the taxpayer dime.

My question is: if we want less government dependency, what employment should former criminals have?

 

[waggy]

would i hire someone with a criminal past? depends on what and when to be honest.

I think this is a mistake they are pushing. the potential harm far outweighs the good it can do.

 

[Texashiker]

The EEOC has suggested guidelines that would eliminate policies that "exclude people from employment based on a criminal record". If I were to do a background check, the commission report states that I should limit my inquiries to criminal records related only to the open job.

One of the problems with our society, we do not forgive.

Someone commits a crime at 19 years old, the act of an immature child follows the person through adulthood.

So what if you are forced to hire someone with a criminal act on their record?

 

[zsdersw]

The government is too big when it creates rules like this, but not too big when people propose that former criminals receive government jobs. Hypocrites...

 

[airdata]

One of the problems with our society, we do not forgive.

Someone commits a crime at 19 years old, the act of an immature child follows the person through adulthood.

So what if you are forced to hire someone with a criminal act on their record?

This is my stance on this issue.

Going to jail is supposed to pay whatever debt to society there was deemed to exist. Plenty of people with a criminal record can prove to be hard workers as they live w\ the stigma and having to worry about the average ignorant person reviewing their criminal background during a hiring process.

Or you can just hire Johnny Date Rape who has a 4 year degree and a clear record because all the girls he raped in college never pressed charges. Plenty of those guys out there.

Your stance on not hiring anybody w\ a criminal record is a ball hair away from if you said you won't hire anybody that's black.

 

[biostud]

I would say sexually related crimes and maybe drugs, otherwise I wouldn't have a problem with hiring a man with a conviction. If a man knows he has done something wrong and wants to be a better man, then it's going to be pretty hard if he can never get a job. If the person really wants to have a better life then he'll probably is going to do his best keeping the job.

So I wouldn't rule out a person with a criminal background, if he was the best suited for the job.

 

[Linux23]

They are all scumbags. Why do they need to re-integrate into society ever again. Pffff.

 

[zsdersw]

They are all scumbags. Why do they need to re-integrate into society ever again. Pffff.

Well, unless your only punishment for any and all crimes, regardless of degree or any other circumstances, is death... the only other option is to have them be on the taxpayer dime the rest of their lives in one way or another.

 

[Chuck_v]

Will new fed guidelines force companies to hire more employees with criminal pasts?

I own a gym. My members are on contract and one of the clauses is that I can terminate a membership at any time with no reason given. As an example, if I were to discover that a member had a record as a sex offender, I could terminate that member. This would be pretty much a necessity because my members have 24/7/365 access but we are not staffed all those hours. That's how I can deal with my members. Potential employee's, well that's different.

The EEOC has suggested guidelines that would eliminate policies that "exclude people from employment based on a criminal record". If I were to do a background check, the commission report states that I should limit my inquiries to criminal records related only to the open job.

So, if were to hire a manager, a manager who handled money, sold contracts that included taking credit card numbers and bank account information, I would likely not be subject to a discrimination claim for not hiring an individual convicted of identity theft but could be for not hiring a convicted drug dealer?

The majority of my members are women and many of them wear tight clothing when working out. On that basis, can I exclude an individual convicted of rape? How about sexual assault?

I'm thinking someone convicted of embezzlement could be ruled out.

What I'm trying to get a handle on, is what crimes that someone had been convicted of would be suitable for the job of a manager at my business? A discrimination claim from someone who has done time is not something I feel is in my best interest.

Bueller?

You hold the individual who is seeking employment to the level of position competency, character, morals and ethics as you hold yourself and if in your estimate they do not meet that criteria you do not hire them...f**k the government.