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

[highland145]

Who is liable when that convicted criminal commits a crime in the workplace?

In our society, everyone that can be served, ftl.

 

[Veliko]

Who is liable when that convicted criminal commits a crime in the workplace?

Who is liable when this employee sexually assaults an employee's child on bring your kid to work day? Or at company day care?

Well that would be the person who committed the crime.

 

[Oldgamer]

Who is liable when that convicted criminal commits a crime in the workplace?

Yea, I understand what you are saying through your question. However, common sense and looking at all the circumstances is what an employer should do, instead of arbitrarily writing that person off for some criminal offense on their record.

You want to assign blame on someone like the company in the event "something should happen" or in this case your assuming someone with a criminal record is going to re-offend.

If you had a habitual criminal, someone who shows a criminal history or a pattern, in that case you wouldn't hire.

Again see my previous posts on this.

We want people to not re-offend, we want them to be rehabilitated so they can become productive citizens again and pull their own weight. If we keep pushing people with a criminal record out of the workforce or put them back onto the streets desperate, they will resort right back to criminal behavior out of "survival mode".

Again, looking at all circumstances is important.

1) how long has it been since they committed the crime?
2) have they re-offended, is there a criminal history/pattern
3) how serious were the charges? Assault, stalking, murder, or something less
4) What was the age of that person when they committed the crime?
5) What were the circumstances?

 

[nextJin]

.....except for that one mistake....

Yea no, there is no "mistake" when it comes to criminals especially rape. If I start a business I will never hire anyone with any sort of criminal history unless it is a traffic ticket, speeding or pot related. They are not my problem, they made their choice and as far as I care they could die in a ditch somewhere. I really do not care, there are ample amounts of qualified adults or high schoolers ready to do the job and get off to a good start in life. It's not my job to give them second chances, it's the church and their gods job.

If liberals want to hire child molesters then let them, but don't tell me who I can and can not hire.

 

[airdata]

What are chances OP has committed felonies but just not been caught & arrested for them?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Yea no, there is no "mistake" when it comes to criminals especially rape. If I start a business I will never hire anyone with any sort of criminal history unless it is a traffic ticket, speeding or pot related. They are not my problem, they made their choice and as far as I care they could die in a ditch somewhere. I really do not care, there are ample amounts of qualified adults or high schoolers ready to do the job and get off to a good start in life. It's not my job to give them second chances, it's the church and their gods job.

If liberals want to hire child molesters then let them, but don't tell me who I can and can not hire.

They already tell you that you have to hire unqualified "minorities". You think they aren't going to make you hire past criminals to go with it? :sneaky:

 

[LTC8K6]

Well that would be the person who committed the crime.

Yes, no one will sue the company for hiring a known criminal.

 

[Veliko]

Yea no, there is no "mistake" when it comes to criminals especially rape. If I start a business I will never hire anyone with any sort of criminal history unless it is a traffic ticket, speeding or pot related. They are not my problem, they made their choice and as far as I care they could die in a ditch somewhere. I really do not care, there are ample amounts of qualified adults or high schoolers ready to do the job and get off to a good start in life. It's not my job to give them second chances, it's the church and their gods job.

If liberals want to hire child molesters then let them, but don't tell me who I can and can not hire.

Check out the Internet hard man here, lads.

I bet he's up in all the gun restriction threads as well, foaming at the mouth at the prospect of being able to shoot a burglar.

 

[LTC8K6]

Yea, I understand what you are saying through your question. However, common sense and looking at all the circumstances is what an employer should do, instead of arbitrarily writing that person off for some criminal offense on their record.

You want to assign blame on someone like the company in the event "something should happen" or in this case your assuming someone with a criminal record is going to re-offend.

If you had a habitual criminal, someone who shows a criminal history or a pattern, in that case you wouldn't hire.

Again see my previous posts on this.

We want people to not re-offend, we want them to be rehabilitated so they can become productive citizens again and pull their own weight. If we keep pushing people with a criminal record out of the workforce or put them back onto the streets desperate, they will resort right back to criminal behavior out of "survival mode".

Again, looking at all circumstances is important.

1) how long has it been since they committed the crime?
2) have they re-offended, is there a criminal history/pattern
3) how serious were the charges? Assault, stalking, murder, or something less
4) What was the age of that person when they committed the crime?
5) What were the circumstances?

I wouldn't want to get involved in checking out all of that. IIRC, you are limited to what you can ask/find out, anyway.

How would I know if they have re-offended? Unless they got caught, I would have no way to know.

If I have two applicants that are close in qualifications, I'm probably not bothering with the convicted felon.

 

[nextJin]

Check out the Internet hard man here, lads.

I bet he's up in all the gun restriction threads as well, foaming at the mouth at the prospect of being able to shoot a burglar.

Ah yes I am such an ethug, thank you for noticing. Fortunately for me you're a retard who hates rich people with nothing of relevance to add in basically every single one of your posts here in P&N. I could literally sum up everyone of your posts in a sentance referencing rich people and hate.

As far as guns, no. Again your a retard.

 

[Ryan]

I see some good in these kinds of laws. I used to work for a pizza place, and we always asked about felony history. Unfortunately, our rules were so strict that even people who were arrested of stupid shit 10+ years ago were not hirable. I had to turn down many middle aged people because of stuff they did when they were 18 (mostly drug related charges....)

I just think that kind of stuff is ridiculous.

 

[Veliko]

Ah yes I am such an ethug, thank you for noticing. Fortunately for me you're a retard who hates rich people with nothing of relevance to add in basically every single one of your posts here in P&N. I could literally sum up everyone of your posts in a sentance referencing rich people and hate.

You could, but then you'd actually be very wrong.

 

[nextJin]

You could, but then you'd actually be very wrong.

Still nothing of relevance to the thread, move along retard.

 

[Oldgamer]

I wouldn't want to get involved in checking out all of that. IIRC, you are limited to what you can ask/find out, anyway.

How would I know if they have re-offended? Unless they got caught, I would have no way to know.

If I have two applicants that are close in qualifications, I'm probably not bothering with the convicted felon.

I have no idea what you do in the way of a background check, but I guess for most larger companies (as one that I have run in the past), a detailed background check is done via a company we use. That background check can pull up quite a bit, showing all arrests, dates, convictions, more dates, credit history, etc.

Anyway, if your a small company or a one man show (business wise), then I can see where you might not feel its worth investing in such a company that does detailed background checks. So yes, I guess you would go with the potential employee who is less to worry about. *shrugs*

 

[1prophet]

The biggest bombshell in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws that require employee background checks can still be targeted for EEOC lawsuits.


This is a key issue in a case the EEOC commenced in 2010 against G4S Secure Solutions after the company refused to hire a twice-convicted Pennsylvania thief as a security guard.



G4S provides guards for nuclear power plants, chemical plants, government buildings and other sensitive sites, and it is prohibited by state law from hiring people with felony convictions as security officers. But, as G4S counsel Julie Payne testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights this past December, the EEOC insists "that state and local laws are pre-empted by Title VII" and is pressuring the company "to defend the use of background checks in every hiring decision we have made over a period of decades."





The EEOC's new regime leaves businesses in a Catch-22. As Todd McCracken of the National Small Business Association recently warned: "State and federal courts will allow potentially devastating tort lawsuits against businesses that hire felons who commit crimes at the workplace or in customers' homes. Yet the EEOC is threatening to launch lawsuits if they do not hire those same felons."

There are no shortage of dumb asses no matter what party is in charge,


but instead of laughing at Democrat stupidity how about a solution,


For all the businesses requiring job applicants have a background check, let the federal government decide if the applicant will pose a potential risk to the said business, and if hired the federal government must bear all responsibility.


Just like the TSA absolves the airlines of responsibility for security,
the EEOC will be responsible and businesses will be immune from any lawsuits relevant to the background check,

because it seems the only way to make people realize the extent of their stupidity is to hold them accountable for it.

 

[boomerang]

What are chances OP has committed felonies but just not been caught & arrested for them?

I know the OP pretty well and he's commited no felonies or even misdemeanors.

Oh, and what the fuck is wrong with you?

 

[boomerang]

Yea, I understand what you are saying through your question. However, common sense and looking at all the circumstances is what an employer should do, instead of arbitrarily writing that person off for some criminal offense on their record.

You want to assign blame on someone like the company in the event "something should happen" or in this case your assuming someone with a criminal record is going to re-offend.

If you had a habitual criminal, someone who shows a criminal history or a pattern, in that case you wouldn't hire.

Again see my previous posts on this.

We want people to not re-offend, we want them to be rehabilitated so they can become productive citizens again and pull their own weight. If we keep pushing people with a criminal record out of the workforce or put them back onto the streets desperate, they will resort right back to criminal behavior out of "survival mode".

Again, looking at all circumstances is important.

1) how long has it been since they committed the crime?
2) have they re-offended, is there a criminal history/pattern
3) how serious were the charges? Assault, stalking, murder, or something less
4) What was the age of that person when they committed the crime?
5) What were the circumstances?

This is a bunch of feel-good bullshit. You've already forgotten that doing background checks is essentially forbidden unless an employer wants to chance exposing himself to a potential discrimination lawsuit.

This is the problem with the thinking of the left. You want it all, but set up criteria that preclude it. I can't run a background check but you would like me to consider all these criteria to determine whether I hire a convicted felon. It's an impossibility within the parameters you've created because I cannot find out any of that information. I can't find out anything about the individual that cannot be gleaned from a resume.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

This is a bunch of feel-good bullshit. You've already forgotten that doing background checks is essentially forbidden unless an employer wants to chance exposing himself to a potential discrimination lawsuit.

This is the problem with the thinking of the left. You want it all, but set up criteria that preclude it. I can't run a background check but you would like me to consider all these criteria to determine whether I hire a convicted felon. It's an impossibility within the parameters you've created because I cannot find out any of that information. I can't find out anything about the individual that cannot be gleaned from a resume.

And thus business owners eventually are less likely to not hire a new employees unless they really need to in the end. Which of course eventually nudges unemployment higher in the economy than it should be naturally as whole without this policy. Especially when the inevitable outcome the negation of information that offers employers an appropriate ability weight the actual risks vs reward of hiring someone with a past criminal history is forced onto them and the effects materialize in the economy as whole.

The reason being is that they eventually employers start realizing that the potential risk of hiring a new employee (who may turn out to be a nightmare employee) has over night increased versus the benefits of simply having existing employees work more overtime in their business(es). Thus eventually employers would be more inclined to offer overtime as they are also less and less inclined to seek out new hires unless business is so booming that they can afford to take the risk of hiring blindly in regards to not being able to filter or appropriately weigh the risks of hiring verified and known ex-felons to fill in certain positions at their place business.

 

[airdata]

How would I know if they have re-offended? Unless they got caught, I would have no way to know.
.

How interesting you say this.

I previously made the point that there are plenty of scum bags among us who by the grace of god didn't get caught being scum bags.

So when you're lumping in every type of offender in your post, don't forget about all those creepy rapist, serial killer types who don't get caught...

All the sex offenders who rape their way through highschool and college without a felony conviction....

I'd take an honest ex con over date rape johnny any day of the week.

 

[airdata]

Or you can just band together with anybody else w\ hiring power and just outright refuse to hire anybody w\ a criminal background and have fun w\ the crime rates.

 

[boomerang]

Obama Administration Sues Dollar General for Using Background Checks on Job Applicants – It’s Racist (Video)

Dollar General and a BMW facility in North Carolina are now being sued by the Obama administration for the alleged unfair use of criminal background checks for job applicants.

I guess these two companies have only themselves to blame becuase they were warned not to do this.

Those convicted of robbery have every right to work behind a cash register in Obama's America.

 

[First]

lol gym owner.

 

[Oldgamer]

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?

Well where I use to work we hired people with criminal pasts, if they were Misdemeanor type offenses and it showed they hadn't re-offended, it was ususally a case by case basis. But what I noticed was that they typically tended to be white applicants that they hired, I never saw them hire anyone of color with a criminal record of any kind. It's all relative and you have to keep some perspective.

Part of the problem is, in this country if someone does something unlawful, non violent (basically) they are forever paying for it, long after getting out of jail / prison and having paid their dues. There seems to be a more disproportionate amount of people of color who this is affecting more than those who are caucasian. The facts are there, the statistics are there, and people have come to realize that if a person is perpetually unable to be a productive citizen again because of some criminal past, then we just set them up to fail again and go back to re-offending.

Don't assume that these individuals will re-offend again. If given the chance and opportunity to make a decent living, and be productive again, they will not re-offend.

 

[Oldgamer]

It says in the OPs article, " Instead, businesses must also prove the criminal history would exclude an applicant from a specific job or duties and consider such factors as how long ago the crime was committed."

" The guidance is not legally binding, but the commission will use it as a basis of enforcing discrimination claims"

 

[OverVolt]

Yea no, there is no "mistake" when it comes to criminals especially rape. If I start a business I will never hire anyone with any sort of criminal history unless it is a traffic ticket, speeding or pot related. They are not my problem, they made their choice and as far as I care they could die in a ditch somewhere. I really do not care, there are ample amounts of qualified adults or high schoolers ready to do the job and get off to a good start in life. It's not my job to give them second chances, it's the church and their gods job.

If liberals want to hire child molesters then let them, but don't tell me who I can and can not hire.

It requires more time and effort to dig through the applicant pool to do this then we wonder why our economy isn't competitive when its full of bleeding heart hippies.