3rdnlng Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 <p>The Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it should be a federal crime to refuse to hire ex-convicts — and threatens to sue businesses that don’t employ criminals. In April the EEOC unveiled its “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records,” which declares that “criminal record exclusions have a disparate impact based on race and national origin.” The impetus for this “guidance” is that black men are nearly seven times more likely than white men to serve time in prison, and therefore refusals to hire convicts disproportionally impact blacks, according to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by James Bovard, a libertarian author and lecturer whose books include “Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen.” Latest: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll Most businesses perform background checks on potential employees, but the EEOC frowns on these checks and “creates legal tripwires that could spark federal lawsuits,” Bovard observes. An EEOC commissioner who opposed the new policy, Constance Baker, said in April that the new guidelines will scare businesses from conducting background checks. Reason: If a check does disclose a criminal offense, the EEOC expects a firm to do an “individual assessment” that will have to prove that the company has a “business necessity” not to hire the ex-convict. If the firm does not do the intricate assessment, it could be found guilty of “race discrimination” if it hires a law-abiding applicant over one with convictions. Bovard points out that the “biggest bombshell” in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws requiring background checks can still be sued by the EEOC. That came to light when the EEOC took action against G4S Secure Solutions, which provides guards for nuclear power plants and other sensitive sites, for refusing to hire a twice-convicted thief as a security guard — even though Pennsylvania state law forbids hiring people with felony convictions as security officers. Bovard quotes Todd McCracken of the National Small Business Association: “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.” Bovard concludes: “Americans can treat ex-offenders humanely without giving them legal advantages over similar individuals without criminal records.” Latest: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/eeoc-federal-crime-convicts/2013/02/15/id/490605?s=al&promo_code=12791-1#ixzz2L1HNlhpK Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 Wow. Just, wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) I think that embezzlers and convicted thieves should be hired to manage the EEOC members' personal finances. Perhaps force them to hire some baby rapers to provide daycare services for their children or grandchildren. I mean, we wouldn't want them being accused of being racist, afterall. Edited February 16, 2013 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 That's spectacular. Not "it discriminates against people who've already been punished for their actions," which, agree with it or not, is at least rational. But "It discriminates against criminals because they're mostly black," which is in itself more racist than actually discriminating against ex-cons for being ex-cons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Cain Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 That's spectacular. Not "it discriminates against people who've already been punished for their actions," which, agree with it or not, is at least rational. But "It discriminates against criminals because they're mostly black," which is in itself more racist than actually discriminating against ex-cons for being ex-cons. And it also is discriminatory because it is these same blacks once freed who are 10 times more likely to die at the hand of the gun. Disarming felons, and keeping them unemployed is a good way to ensure they'll live a shorter life which means less time in the big house soaking up our tax dollars while they watch ESPN & lift weights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 16, 2013 Author Share Posted February 16, 2013 That's spectacular. Not "it discriminates against people who've already been punished for their actions," which, agree with it or not, is at least rational. But "It discriminates against criminals because they're mostly black," which is in itself more racist than actually discriminating against ex-cons for being ex-cons. Try another perspective. The federal government will reserve the right to sue the security company that guards nuclear facilities that don't hire felons, while the state law states that armed security guards can not have a license if they are a felon. The feds are trying to usurp all state authority, not even by laws passed by Congress, but by fiat. I'm thinking Red Dawn, but without the Russians and Cubans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts