This is easy to fix. There's a whole bunch of vacancies coming in the House and Senate.

Just when I think the stupidity can't get worse. I don't even
think this qualifies as stupidity. I don't know what to say about it.

"People make mistakes," said Hudson, who is black, "but when they correct their mistake, they should not be punished again outside of the court system."

And actions have consequences beyond the court system. Or does she think society doesn't get to have thoughts about this stuff?

And she didn't correct her mistake. She got caught and was punished.

...discriminates against black and Latino job seekers, who have arrest and conviction rates far greater than whites

Which is obviously the fault of racist white laws, and not the destruction of character in minority communities where the family has been shredded by the entitlement state.

Can Jesus come back and destroy everything now? I think we've had enough.

If you think we live in a Nanny-state now, just wait until Obamacare swings into full force. All facets of Government will be on the lookout for "harmful" behavior(what you eat, drink, and inhale), unless of course you are part of a privileged(elected official) and, or protected class(minority). Oh, the Horror!

So, if someone is convicted of anything, they are forever branded? What about teen sex offenders, whom I thought we pretty much agreed were being stigmatized unfairly.

Violent felons? I can't see hiring them. Welfare fraud? Well, she couldn't be a bookkeeper, but a bus driver? Is she a menace to society still? will she steal fares?

What if the court ordered restitution? She can't find a job, should she prostitute herself?

We are once again confronted with simplistic zero tolerance answers which never replace judgement.

For me, it would depend on the crime and the subsequent behavior. If someone has committed welfare fraud Seven Times, then she may not be a menace to society, but that dishonest mindset could definitely be a menace to my business.

And Amy, I definitely had to put an "Oh my!" after that title. And now I'm changing it to Rapists, Thieves and Muggers to go with Lawyers, Guns and Money.

"So, if someone is convicted of anything, they are forever branded?"

IIRC, most job applications ask if you have ever been convicted of a crime. Lying on a job app is cause for dismissal.

MarkD: "So, if someone is convicted of anything, they are forever branded?"

I think Amy's point was this: "Sure, you can choose to give somebody a chance, but being forced to by the government?"

No one's saying that she should never get a job. But you also can't force a company to hire her. It's their choice. And if they have several candidates with similar qualifications, why shouldn't they go with the ones who haven't committed a crime? It's the safer, smarter bet most of the time!

Steamer: "IIRC, most job applications ask if you have ever been convicted of a crime. Lying on a job app is cause for dismissal."

I can't see where in the article it says she lied on the app, so I'm not sure we've got any cause to point fingers there.

As for the credit check thing, I've never quite understood that...

"Violent felons? I can't see hiring them. Welfare fraud? Well, she couldn't be a bookkeeper, but a bus driver? Is she a menace to society still? will she steal fares?"

Will she lie on her time card? Will she cut corners? Will she treat my customers with respect? Will she try to see how little work she can actually get away with? None of these behaviors are limited to people who are criminals, but past behavior is a pretty good indication of future behavior. Her past actions have indicated to me that there is a entitled and dishonest streak in her. How is that going to manifest if I hire her to work for me?

- cornerdemon

"I can't see where in the article it says she lied on the app, so I'm not sure we've got any cause to point fingers there."

- from the article

"...when the company found out she had been convicted seven years earlier for welfare fraud."

I made an assumtion that if she had disclosed this on her app, the company would not have had to find out after she was hired.

Whoops, thought I read the article better than that.
Seven years ago is a whole lot different than seven times. Mea maxima culpa.

jksisco says: "If you think we live in a Nanny-state now, just wait until Obamacare swings into full force. All facets of Government will be on the lookout for "harmful" behavior(what you eat, drink, and inhale)"

Uh, dude, I don't think it's the Democrats who are getting all frothy at the mouth over the California proposition to legalize pot. Or over who sleeps with whom. It has nothing to do with "Obamacare" and everything to do with controlling people's private behavior, never a Democratic priority.

SteveH, if you don't think that controlling people's private behavior is a priority for Democrats, here's three words for you:
* Cigarettes
* Salt
* Toilets

"A blanket refusal to hire workers based on criminal records or credit problems can be illegal if it has a disparate impact on racial minorities, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. "

The interesting bit is that my employer's customer, which is the U.S. government, requires us to screen employees based on these exact criteria. We are absolutely not permitted to hire anyone who has a felony or misdemeanor conviction.

"So, if someone is convicted of anything, they are forever branded?"

In a word, yes. And it should be up to the company hiring if they want to take the chance that the welfare thief will steal from them as well.

The credit check thing goes to character. If you don't pay the people you owe, you probably won't be real upstanding at a job, either. There may be a touch of "people with money problems are more likely to steal" too. I had seriously bad credit a while after the divorce. Prospective employers were understanding of the cause, but I brought it up any time it seemed like I was in serious consideration for a job. I definately go with "best defense is a good offense" theory in my life.

As for the credit check thing, I've never quite understood that...

Let me explain it to you. Law suits and federal laws regarding discrimination have made it impossible to hire anyone based on test scores, or references. They want to make it as close to a dart board approach as possible because that is the only way to tilt the employment stats in favor of minorities and women and away from white males. The one thing you CAN still check is someone's credit scores so this has become one of the few things that you can learn about them prior to making a decision between two or more candidates for a job. Credit scores are a pretty good indicator of whether you are a responsible person as you will have a bad one if you don't pay your bills. Is it the best way to evaluate a potential employee? No, but it is one of the only ways that employers have left that is still legal.

I'm going to go the other way on this one and side with MarkD. At least in the case of Ms. Hudson.

Welfare fraud is indeed a crime of character, but I doubt her bus driver gig would put her in a fiduciary position allowing her to steal. Putting her out of work entirely increases her incentive for recidivism. Also, the crime occurred seven years ago. I don't think she has a legitimate discrimination case, but I do think there is very little to be gained for anyone involved by her firing.

Steamer:>>I made an assumtion that if she had disclosed this on her app, the company would not have had to find out after she was hired.

I thought about this (after I posted), and you're probably right. The likelihood of someone in HR overlooking the box checked "yes" for criminal convictions seems pretty small, so I guess it makes sense. ((If I were the company PR guy, I'd bring it up, too)).

How does the credit check thing work for people like me? I mean, I have virtually no credit, because I dislike credit cards, I'm young, and have yet to purchase a house or car to incur major debt. So do I look bad to an employer? I've been told that on a credit check, I do look bad because I'm off the radar.

I understand that if you've got loads of bad credit, no one's gonna want to hire you in a position where you'll have to balance books. And if you're in dire straits, sometimes a retail position where you work register is gonna be like offering chocolate to a diabetic.

Isabel>> "Law suits and federal laws regarding discrimination have made it impossible to hire anyone based on test scores, or references. They want to make it as close to a dart board approach as possible..."

This makes a lot of sense. Like how you can't get into college with just good grades anymore, now you have to fit into a specially marked slot declaring yourself in some way/shape/form as "diverse". Thanks.

Don't mean to threadjack, by the way, just curious.

For the life of me I can't fathom how much more ridiculous these things can get.

I'll hire the best, fire the worst, and tell the liars, thieves, and frauds to piss off.

"I don't think she has a legitimate discrimination case, but I do think there is very little to be gained for anyone involved by her firing."

But that would be up to the company, don't you agree? And whatever happened to "can't profit from a crime"? You lie on your application, the company should rightly fire you whenever they find out about it.

"give me a job or I'll reoffend" has got to be the crappiest argument for it, too. Extortion never works.

"give me a job or I'll reoffend" has got to be the crappiest argument for it, too. Extortion never works"

Yeah, but that's not what she's saying. She already had the job. I had a buddy who once had to fire a 10 year employee because corporate all of a sudden discovered a criminal conviction from the employee's youth. It was idiotic. The employee had a spotless record since and had given the company no other reason for the termination. But because it might endanger their insurance coverage, they had to let him go. Just a stupid result from a thoughtless blanket policy.

Ms. Hudson's case sounds very similar to me.

Again, she probably won't win anything with this lawsuit. My point isn't about what's legal here, its about what's best.

Quote: "when they correct their mistake, they should not be punished again outside of the court system."

Convicts have not corrected their mistake, they have only received the punishment that should have prevented their horrible behavior to begin with. They are a negative example for others, not an example of reform and enlightenment.

Government to Peasant Manager:

Peasant, all of your life are belong to us. As an economic unit, you are responsible for employing everyone who might vote for us, regardless of his record.

Please provide this employment in such a way as to not be liable to others in the society, who will sue you for the harm caused to them by your employee. Please place these employees into an appropriately "controlled" environment, without infringing on their sense of privacy or independence. Criminality is a disability, and you must do any reasonable thing to mitigate this disability. By any "reasonable thing", we mean any and all things which we can think up after the fact.

Just throwing this out to any future readers of this comment that are thinking this is a good idea by the EEO.

So you, as a private citizen, would be okay with forcing the privately owned satellite installation company to have to hire rapists, murderers, and thieves (and that is not including the plea-bargained voyeurs, voluntary man-slaughterers, and petty larceny convicts) to come to your $250K house with valuable possessions and children in residence to install your satellite dish?

Oh and I forgot alleged arsonists.

If you feel okay with this idea -- please let me know where you are -- I want to be far away from you.

Me I am feeling that discrimination now. Me as not a citizen of South Korea in order to teach here I need to submit a criminal record check for my E-2 plus a drug test. This change was started a few years ago due to some perverts coming to the country (Did nothing but caused trouble elsewhere). Ok all well and understood. So you thing logic would come in ok. Lets make sure all teachers you hire are not perverts so any sex crime your out... ACTUALLY just to be one the safe side lets include EVERYTHING ELSE. Now we have people who are being refused because of traffic offenses, drug convictions from decades back, and missing a court appointment. Actually one person was refused because he got hit by a bus here in Korea and not understanding how to proceed with an accident and police did something wrong which ended up with a charge

Basically the government was looking for NOTHING on the CRC(Criminal Record Check). Now where is the discrimination. Korean American (not actual Korean citizens) - Kyopos can come in and teach at private cram schools and do not have to submit any records. AND to boot they found at least two fugitives from the US both wanted for murder teaching at private schools. So we whitey, blacky and browny too have to submit drug tests, criminal record checks and some guy who was born in LA to two Korean parents gets a pass. SO NOT FAIR.

My question is why do the above people do not try for a PARDON or record EXPUNGMENT. As I think they would then clean up your record.

Heh. I've seen a blurb about the Department of Justice adding "mental disability" to the list of things for which you could not be disqualified for a Federal job. This would be the result.

I think people should be able to hire whomever they want. If they want to hire evangelical blue-eyed latinos who dye their hair green, they should be able to. Which doesn't mean I won't think you are an idiot if you take such a stance.

I agree that welfare fraud has no correlation with bus driving, and that firing her on that is idiotic. But I bet if she was the world's greatest bus driver, adored by all the children, it would have been less of an issue.

I do think it makes no sense to...

... hire a thief to polish the silver
... hire a pot grower as a gardener or groundskeeper
... hire a pedophile as a babysitter
... hire a rapist as a handyman if the missus is home alone
... hire a kleptomaniac to stock the shelves
... hire an identity thief to do IT at a bank

etc.

Judgement is important.

If the view in the article gains momentum, MAN it's gonna be good to be a minority with no criminal record.

Actually the pot grower as a gardener might not be a bad idea. ;)

Ha! He won't believe you when you say you want to grow oregano. No, really!!! Oregano!!!