Don't Be Using That Embezzlement Conviction Against That Guy You'll Be Hiring As Your Accountant
@Johnnydontlike, KABC radio host John Phillips, reminded me last night of this ridiculous EEOC policy:
There is no Federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records. However, using such records as an absolute measure to prevent an individual from being hired could limit the employment opportunities of some protected groups and thus cannot be used in this way....Several state laws limit the use of arrest and conviction records by prospective employers. These range from laws and rules prohibiting the employer from asking the applicant any questions about arrest records to those restricting the employer's use of conviction data in making an employment decision.
From Tom Trinko at AmericanThinker:
While the new policies (EEOC testimony) are targeted at all potential employees, the motivation was the EEOC's concern that since African-Americans and Hispanics have a higher rate of criminal convictions than whites, considering former crooks as a hiring risk would unfairly impact minorities....Further, while the EEOC guidelines do not force companies to hire those with criminal records, the fact that the EEOC is even addressing the issue is highly questionable. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can prevent companies from rejecting a candidate for a job because of the behavior of that person? Behavior, unlike race, is something people can control. Additionally, while there are no "bad" races, there are bad behaviors. What's next? Forcing private schools to consider hiring a teacher convicted of child molestation because the teacher has "reformed"?
Here's how it works in Philly, per Mahleah Chicetwan at examiner.com:
In April of 2011, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed into law the Philadelphia Fair Criminal Screening Standards Ordinance. On January 13, 2012 the ordinance, also known by the catchy phrase of Ban the Box, became a way of life.The ordinance states that any business with more than 10 employees can't ask, either on the application or in the first interview, about an applicant's criminal convictions. To do so, may result in a warning and then, if the employer continues to violate the law, could result in fines of $2,000 per violation.
The ordinance wants to level the playing field for ex-offenders who often find the door to legitimate employment locked thus forcing them back into their illegal line of work.
On Wednesday, April 25th, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) agreed with Mayor Nutter and his law; that a potential employer lacks the ability to properly assess a potential applicant's abilities if they're already aware of a conviction history.
(Whole EEOC thing is here -- "Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.")
Typical. They mean well. But: just as with affirmative action, the net result will be to increase bias against the "protected groups".
Suppose I am hiring someone for a relatively unskilled job. In an ideal world, I wouldn't care about skin color. However, I very much care about whether I can trust the employee.
Suppose I have a white applicant and a black applicant, equally qualified for the job. The chances that the black guy has been in jail are statistically *much* higher. If I can't ask about convictions, who do you think I'm more likely to hire?
Don't worry, it won't be racism. You can always pick out something to justify hiring the person you want.
This is the same kind of reason I would never want to go to a black doctor. Affirmative action means that, statistically, black doctors are be less qualified. Why take the risk?
Get rid of "protected groups". Let people compete as individuals. If that had been enshrined as policy 50 years ago, today's racial problems might very well not exist.
a_random_guy at May 5, 2012 9:44 AM
Unfortunately the EEOC has been at war with buisness for decades, creating crazier and more ludicrous rules, opening the door for more lawsuits.
I think this should be fought by applying it to all hires, not just those of places larger than 10. That way, it actually affects the general public too and they can see how inane it is.
I'm sorry Mrs. but asking your potential nannies/babysitters if they have been convicted of child molestation is illegal. You aren't allowed to. "that a potential employer lacks the ability to properly assess a potential applicant's abilities if they're already aware of a conviction history." So you can't judge how good at caring for kids they might be if you knew what they did.
Joe J at May 5, 2012 9:47 AM
It will be fun to watch the libtards when the first company in philly uses the law as a defense to a negligent hiring lawsuit.
DirkJohanson at May 5, 2012 11:34 AM
I went and read the text. I pretty much was ok with the ideas until I got to this:
A. Hiring in Certain Industries:
Federal laws and regulations govern the employment of individuals with specific convictions in certain industries....to Title VII analysis.
Basically a good chunk was if you do background checks, you have to do them regardless of national origin, etc. That I can deal with.
This is what I choked on:
I look at it that if a private organization wants to set EEO, but higher standards, they should be allowed to, regardless of why. I see no disparate impact.
Now if the same bank that would waive the rule for someone -- then enforce it for others, I agree. But if there is no waiver, there is no case.
Jim P. at May 5, 2012 11:49 AM
So, according to the EEOC, discriminating against criminals amounts to discrimination against African Americans and Hispanics. And this is not a racist stereotype?
Ken R at May 5, 2012 6:50 PM
Great point Ken, now, how does one go about filing a dicrimination charge against the EEOC?
lujlp at May 6, 2012 1:17 PM
The ordinance states that any business with more than 10 employees can't ask, either on the application or in the first interview, about an applicant's criminal convictions.
Simple, every hire requires at least 2 interviews. You now can ask at the second interview, and none of this is an issue.
E. Steven Berkimer at May 7, 2012 4:50 AM
I think industry should be able to do as it sees fit.
I agree that ARREST records should not be used for anything, ever. Those records shouldn't even exist. You are basing a person's record on the whim of a law enforcement officer. You can be arrested under suspicion of anything, no proof needed and probable cause is a constitutional travesty. Conviction is a different matter.
vlad at May 7, 2012 1:50 PM
BTW forget 20 years how about 40 years later.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/yolanda-quesada-wells-fargo_n_1496273.html?1336411923&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D158498#s609107&title=10_Real_Estate
vlad at May 7, 2012 1:59 PM
Leave a comment