If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
It's not discrimination to not want to hire a convicted criminal and it's absolute idiocy to think otherwise. The idea that because lots of black people have criminal records, that they should get a pass is ridiculous. They don't have criminal records because they're black, they have them because they committed crimes!
I find it funny that the federal government asking a private company don't do something that the federal government does do. Anyone who went though a SF-86 background investigation knows this.
If we're discussing a private sector business, then the government doesn't have any legitimate authority at all, only illegitimate power.
What is a job? Is a job something held by the worker? Well, no. The job is what the worker does. The job itself is a need of the employer to have some task performed, and the employer is willing to provide compensation to the person they agree to allow to perform it. So if an employer has some seriously fine soldering to do, is he discriminating when he hires only women under the age of fifty to do the task? No. Well, yes, but not sexually. He's no hiring the banana fingered males, he's hiring the people with the smaller fingers who are more likely to be more nimble to do the task. Should he be forced to take the risk of loss of performance by hiring men? No, it's his business, not the government's. His loss, not the government's. The unemployment lines should be swelled massively by the number of people released from government employe whose sole purpose was enforcing those silly anti-"discrimination" laws.
Irish need not apply.
People don't think twice about hiring the Irish anymore. The other supposedly down-trodden minorities can work their way to cultural equality just like the Irish did.
Don't give any guff about how some minorities are born looking different. Some minorities are named "Gilligan".
Any person who served time or was convicted for simple possession of drugs. That's a victimless crime and should present far less stigma than any DUI related conviction. So the guy has some weed, or a bag of coke. If he wasn't driving a car or selling the stuff in the schoolyard, who's harmed? No one.
But that's still a crime.
Perhaps some criminal convictions should not be part of the public record, since they shouldn't be considered crimes at all if society was sane.
As someone who has powers as a Hiring Manager, I'll tell you right now that if I see the following criminal convictions on an application; sex related crimes and larceny I refuse to hire them. If someone got a DWI per say thats more of a meh, since my job doesn't require employees to drive for work such a conviction would be irrelevant to the job. Its not the governments job to set employment standards.
Jackboots always come in matched pairs, a left boot and a right boot.
Did anybody ever get through the teens without committing some sort of crime? Even we goody goody catholic boys did stuff that was illegal. There would be nobody to hire if you were too strict about the rules.
The whole premise of the OP is silly. Statistically, black males DO commit more crimes, per capita, than white or Hispanic males. To say it is discrimination is saying that criminal behavior in blacks is an integral part of their race. Now that should be a comforting thought to blacks everywhere.