There's more information here at this "frozen" wsj page that requires no registration: http://www.freezepage.com/1371363154JJKDAJNJRJ

It's hard to read it and not think that BMW's policy was terribly stupid.

Basically BMW had an outside company under contract to provide some services to its factory in South Carolina. That company worked for BMW for 10 years, and did background checks on its employees for 7 years. When the contract ended, BMW kept the workers on and did new background checks on them, with no time limit to the background check.

And sure, a lot of workers had had at one time a problem with the law. So BMW fired them.

But these are workers that BMW knows have been working for them years and years and were clean for 7 years. There weren't guys off the streets, these were employees for BMW for years that were let go.

So I certainly understand why the EEOC decision seems so stupid, but is it? After working for BMW successfully for years and years, knowing the employees have no criminal records past seven years, why did BMW need to go back to birth on these guys? What was obviously going to happen disproportionately to their Black employees THAT BMW had had no problems with at all in the prior years?

Or you could argue it could be evidence of biased juries, but in any case, the discrimination isn't on the employer's part.

Thank you jerry, that does change things quite a bit. If the EEOC could have itself not been racist, and included the white applicants, it would not seem so bad.

A thirty year old bust for an ounce of weed should not be a reason to drop an applicant, though perhaps a two week old one might be. The President of my High School senior year was in his early twenties, having served time for robbery (after several family disputes, he had lifted money from the cash register of his father`s store).

The suit says 70 black BMW contractors and 18 non-black contractors had criminal convictions, and the company declined to hire them. The suit seeks redress, such as hiring the plaintiffs, back pay, legal costs and more, but only for the black contractors.

Note that the EEOC is discriminating against the 18 non-black contractors. Why?

Probably what happened is that the contractor didn't do the background checks to spec, or the spec changed between the original "hire" and the re-check.

But overall what you did in the past is your responsibility in general. You have to own it.

Ironic, isn't it, that the government creates criminal laws that disproportionately criminalize men and minorities, and then, when the private sector acts upon information about government actions in prosecuting people, the government says it is the PRIVATE SECTOR that is racist.
-Jut

"After working for BMW successfully for years and years, knowing the employees have no criminal records past seven years, why did BMW need to go back to birth on these guys?"
Different company different hiring rules. They did not legally work for BMW before. Just as an example the gov't subcontracts all the time, not all those people would pass a top secret background check.

Otherwise you have people now working working for BMW that BMW could not hire according to its rules. If they stayed hired the company would be open to litigation by all past and future people who failed a background check. Probably thousands of people.
As to is 7 years long enough? Well it is 7 years since conviction. So a murderer rapist gets sentenced to 10 yrs but gets let out in 7, the next day can apply for this job. What kind of lawsuit would the company face if a hired excon recivitates on the job?

Damned criminals, getting jobs and trying to turn their lives around after their punishment is over.

Don't they understand that we're a Puritan nation? There is no forgiveness and their punishment will never be over!

Society is now reaping the rewards of the criminalization of damn--near--everything.

Yes, child molestors should not be teaching kindergarten, and embezzlers should not be in your book keeping department, but the broad felony brush has rendered a lot of men, damn near unemployable in any capacity.

This has for the most part, pushed their support on the taxpayers, as surely as if they were actually incarcerated.

There are various sides to this - it's a complex issue. An employer who refuses to hire someone with a criminal record - when that record is truly irrelevant to employment - is really not being fair.

Ok, let's throw out all the non-violent stuff like most drug convictions. The hard, cold truth is that blacks still have a *massively* higher crime rate than other races. Discrimination against people who have committed robbery, assault, and other serious crimes is *correct* and *justified* for many, perhaps most jobs.

It's nice for leftists to imagine life however they want, but watch: when it's time to hire convicted thieves to run the till in their businesses, they will suddenly find some reason not to...

Want a real head-shaker of an idea?

The President's association with certain people during his formative years would deny him all jobs handling nuclear weapons and the cryptographic systems he uses as President. At that, he's hardly the first person held in contempt by the people who support the office.

That's what you get with a popularity contest called "an election".

I watched a local news program investigation into the plight of felons getting work. One part that sticks with me was an interview of a lady who ran a bar and she wanted to help, to give a second chance, she had, had a rough life and understood. The problem she found was that her insurance went through the roof. This was followed by an interview with another woman who had done something similar. She said she went without insurance. Ultimately she had given up because it was just too many problems. Employees stealing, getting high on the job, etc.

Oh yeah - one other was an interview with a lawyer and they asked him why not just specific crimes. The lawyer said it was much easier to deffend all crimes of level x (e.g. all third degree felonies) than individual ones. Does crime Y really affect job W?

My father was partner in a business ... he was the book keeper primarily... Well, the partners agreed to hire this salesman since the last one left - the one thing was he had been busted for MJ in his early 20s (he was now early 30s) - my mother did not want him hired but ultimately he was. Later the partners found out he was smoking at work and dealing a bit out of the place to cover his costs. And some stock was missing that according to my father looked the salesman or his buddies took it but couldn't proved. Of course if the cops had caught him there that would have been the end of the business.