Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by diehardgator1, Jun 22, 2013.
Cases on employment discrimination have already been argued and decided by the court.
The former contract workers for BMW failed a criminal background check. If BMW decides they don't want criminals working in their factory next to their law abiding employees, that should be their right.
BMW changed the rules which resulted in 88 blacks loosing their jobs. Many had worked there over 10 years....not exactly current criminal convictions.
Can a violent criminal become a police officer? No, is that discrimination? Obama want's all violent criminals to get their right to vote, I'll bet. There is far more to this 'tip-of-the-iceberg' act by the EEOC... you can bet on that Nana.
I would like you to present this case as the Solicitor General would to the SCOTUS. How can you defend the rights of criminals versus the rights of legitimate businesses?
this is tough, if they're bad crimes I can understand however most people should be judged on their working habits and how well they did their job.
I'm just torn, I can see both sides. I knew a guy that didn't get a job because of his credit, the guy was a fantastic worker but didn't pay his bills a while before. It sucked talking to him
Can a job discrimination even come into play for a felon? :no:
This link contains the guidelines from the EEOC that reflect court findings in many cases on this topic.
It was already decided...Green vs Missouri Railroad Company.
Unless its a business necessity, it's against the law to discriminate on the basis of a criminal record alone.
In other words, the absurd analogy presented by a previous poster that somebody convicted of molesting a child can work at a day care presents a business necessity. Under that criteria, a business has the right to not hire that person.
Somebody gets caught smoking weed and they try to get a job sweeping floors? Not a business necessity and illegal per the court.
That makes sense, but if you can't even check their background how will you know? And if the person has a violent past why should you be forced to endanger the other employees even if the person in question was already hired?
This should not be an agencies job to determine the laws and ground rules that all companies have to abide by. This should be a matter for Congress, and then brought to the SCOTUS for it's Constitutionality.
As I said before, not all criminals are the same. Neither are their crimes. Victimless crimes should not be a part of this whole witch-hunt, though businesses should be allowed to know if any of their employees has a violent past history.
It's already been decided by the court....my link above points that out. The EEOC is using those findings to guide them. No one is saying an employer can't check the background of an applicant or employee.
Okay, but where does discrimination come into play then?
"The suits were filed June 11 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which last year issued new guidelines that cautioned against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommended businesses eliminate policies that “exclude people from employment based on a criminal record.”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/22/obama-administration-files-
As you can see from the above the rules were changed last year There is no time frame or severity mentioned just not to reject "MINORITY" applications regardless from employment. From the way it reads there is no protection for whites . Clearly a raciest policy generate by a black president .
If you read my link above, these are not new policies as Fox would have you believe. The cases were decided back in the early 70s and 80s.
what part of "NEW GUIDELINES WERE ISSUED LAST FALL" that were not in effect when those court cases were heard is hard to understand. In other word obama is trying to change the rules from what the courts ruled in the 70s and 80s
First of all, the page you linked is gone. If you read the link I posted, the current EEOC investigation and suits are aligned with the earlier court decisions.
If your home delivery dry cleaner driver - freshly released from prison for a rape and burglary sentence - breaks into your house, rapes your wife, and steals you blind, I don't think you would be calling the attorney you hired to sue the dry cleaners sleazy.
The page is not gone just linked on it but here it is again
Still working just linked on it again
True. You know what and who I'm referring to though don't you?
My real question here is why would there be a suit? What would be the purpose of a suit other than to try and put a monetary value on a human life?
Obama is a criminal and noboy was able to check his backround so is this just for blacks or is it for all criminals? Does the goverment become liable if a criminal is hired without backround check and robs the company blind?