• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can employers reject applicants who have a criminal history

Should the government be able to prevent discriminating against job applicants?


  • Total voters
    41

fredmertz

Active member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
358
Reaction score
115
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A Yahoo featured article's URL is below.

I didn't know this was against the law. Apparently it is (or can be). If you admit to having a felony within the past 7 years, as an employer, a company is not allowed to reject your application for that reason.

As the article explains:

"Because discriminating against those with criminal records disproportionately hurts African Americans, the practice may violate the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race-based hiring discrimination. Indeed, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has said that although considering an applicant's criminal record may be acceptable on a case-by-case basis, an "absolute bar to employment" for such people is illegal."


Help wanted — sixty-five million need not apply - Yahoo! News

But this also leads to other questions: age discrimination or gender discrimination.

These things are illegal. I don't agree with the government intervening. I'm sure many of you do. As some will undoubtedly ask, "what about race discrimination?" This is no different in my opinion (at least at the federal level, as with any of these equal opportunity bills mandated on private companies). Obviously, I'm not suggesting that they DO discriminate based on race, but rather that the federal government shouldn't intervene.

It's a private company! For public services, sure, do what you wish.

So the question:

Do you believe the government should be able to prevent private companies from discriminating against applicants based on: age, gender, race and criminal history?
 
Business has the right to exclude people if they wish. Its a bad business decision though.
 
I believe that employers should not be allowed to reject applicants based on race or gender. However, I believe they should be able to reject applicants based on a past criminal history. If a guy was convicted of fraud or theft, would you want to trust that person with company finances or management? I believe they shouldn't discriminate based on gender or race (and that includes hiring blacks over whites due to affirmative action or "corporate diversity").
 
Do you believe the government should be able to prevent private companies from discriminating against applicants based on: age, gender, race and criminal history?

No the government should not be able to. In the end, it's pretty much laziness on our part to put in the rules. This can all be properly regulated through educated and intelligent consumerism. But it takes work on our part to do so.
 
Hiring is about discriminating. You have a job opening. You have 325 applicants. The only process that would not be discriminatory would be a lottery. "Okay, the guy who can't dance is our new dance instructor. Congratulations."

Someone who has finished high school has an edge over someone who finished the 5th grade. Hiring someone who has experience in your field is discriminating against the guy with no experience. Hiring someone who comes with a portfolio of references from past employers over someone who doesn't have a single past employer who says he would hire him again is discriminatory. Or, how about the guy who has sued his last five employers over workmans comp claims. You want to hire him? Or, how about someone who sued his last employer for demanding he work on the Sabbath? You want to hire him for a job that involves working on the Sabbath? Would you discriminate against someone who flashed your secretary while waiting for his interview?

A friend of mine had to sue a local trucking company to get a job driving a delivery truck. The company said she wasn't big enough or strong enough to do the job. They were forced to hire her. Six months later, she was off with a permanent disability. The company was right. My friend said that the problem was that the company refused to make a "reasonable" accommodation of getting truck 1/3 smaller in all dimensions and hiring an assitant to move the heavy packages. Right.
 
No the government should not be able to. In the end, it's pretty much laziness on our part to put in the rules. This can all be properly regulated through educated and intelligent consumerism. But it takes work on our part to do so.

there is nothing in the constitution that properly empowers the federal government from playing ANY role in this area and sorry libs-the Commerce Clause was improperly interpreted and everyone knows that
 
there is nothing in the constitution that properly empowers the federal government from playing ANY role in this area and sorry libs-the Commerce Clause was improperly interpreted and everyone knows that

The Commerce Clause has to rank up there with one of the most abused powers of government.
 
Hiring is about discriminating. You have a job opening. You have 325 applicants. The only process that would not be discriminatory would be a lottery. "Okay, the guy who can't dance is our new dance instructor. Congratulations."

Someone who has finished high school has an edge over someone who finished the 5th grade. Hiring someone who has experience in your field is discriminating against the guy with no experience. Hiring someone who comes with a portfolio of references from past employers over someone who doesn't have a single past employer who says he would hire him again is discriminatory. Or, how about the guy who has sued his last five employers over workmans comp claims. You want to hire him? Or, how about someone who sued his last employer for demanding he work on the Sabbath? You want to hire him for a job that involves working on the Sabbath? Would you discriminate against someone who flashed your secretary while waiting for his interview?

A friend of mine had to sue a local trucking company to get a job driving a delivery truck. The company said she wasn't big enough or strong enough to do the job. They were forced to hire her. Six months later, she was off with a permanent disability. The company was right. My friend said that the problem was that the company refused to make a "reasonable" accommodation of getting truck 1/3 smaller in all dimensions and hiring an assitant to move the heavy packages. Right.

Exactly correct. The reason why CRA and also affirmative action hasn't destroyed more businesses is that some HR personnel are more artful than others in culling applicants. Ubiquitous vagueness and plausible deniability are the keystones for sifting through all the undesirables.
 
Last edited:
Do you believe the government should be able to prevent private companies from discriminating against applicants based on: age, gender, race and criminal history?


Age - Depends on job. A company should not be forced to hire a 80 year old man as a furniture mover and if Walmart only wants to hire seniors and cripples as greeters instead of young perfectly healthy able bodies people as greeters then that is their business. Some jobs depend on people who are able to lift heavy weight and not pass over and some jobs or more done as a service to the community like jobs for the elderly or disabled. Jobs that do not meet these two exceptions the government should ban businesses from discriminating on age.

Gender -Depends on job.If Hooters only wants to hire females as waitresses, a maid cafe only wants to hire females as waitresses and Chip and Dales only wants to hire males as strippers then that is there business seeing how those businesses cater only to a specific crowd. If a business is not trying to attract a specif gender or a certian sexuality then they should not be allowed to discriminate on Gender. Jobs that require heavy lifting can simply weed out females though weight lifting and endurance ability requirements.

Race is about the one thing the government should prevent companies from discriminating on. It should not even be a question on a job application and affirmative action should be illegal.

Criminal history- depends on job. If its a job handling money then an employer should not be forced to hire someone convicted of theft or robbery, if its a child care provider then an employer should not be forced to hire someone convicted of child molestation or rape. In those cases the government should mandate that they ask specific questions like "have you been convicted of assault on a child, child abuse, child molestation or rape" on a application for child care provider, priest or any other job handling children, Have you been convicted of theft on a job application for a bank teller. If it's the law that an employer is not supposed to discriminate on past convictions then an employer should not be legally allowed to ask period.
 
Last edited:
I do not believe that the government should have any say in private business, outside, perhaps, ensuring some generalized requirements for job safety and the like.

In my mind, it would be better to let a business discriminate on whom they hire based on race or any other factor - and get at least partially boycotted by the marketplace for it.

Of course, this might not happen everywhere - I doubt a business hiring only people who were of X race or whatever would be boycotted if the people in the area they did business in agreed with such a policy.

For example, a business in, say, Saudi Arabia that only hired people who believed in X sect of the Islamic faith would likely have far less issue if said faith was the prevalent one in that area.

In my ideal world, the marketplace would and should dictate to the business (through his success or lack thereof) what policies were acceptable, and said marketplace would dictate no discrimination other than the quality of the potential employee’s work and history of work.

Of course, criminal background would be part of that equation, but race, sex, and religion should not be.


Of course, this all depends on how you define “private business” vs. “public business”, or whatnot…
 
Age - Depends on job. A company should not be forced to hire a 80 year old man as a furniture mover and if Walmart only wants to hire seniors and cripples as greeters instead of young perfectly healthy able bodies people as greeters then that is their business. Some jobs depend on people who are able to lift heavy weight and not pass over and some jobs or more done as a service to the community like jobs for the elderly or disabled. Jobs that do not meet these two exceptions the government should ban businesses from discriminating on age.

Gender -Depends on job.If Hooters only wants to hire females as waitresses, a maid cafe only wants to hire females as waitresses and Chip and Dales only wants to hire males as strippers then that is there business seeing how those businesses cater only to a specific crowd. If a business is not trying to attract a specif gender or a certian sexuality then they should not be allowed to discriminate on Gender. Jobs that require heavy lifting can simply weed out females though weight lifting and endurance ability requirements.

Race is about the one thing the government should prevent companies from discriminating on. It should not even be a question on a job application and affirmative action should be illegal.

Criminal history- depends on job. If its a job handling money then an employer should not be forced to hire someone convicted of theft or robbery, if its a child care provider then an employer should not be forced to hire someone convicted of child molestation or rape. In those cases the government should mandate that they ask specific questions like "have you been convicted of assault on a child, child abuse, child molestation or rape" on a application for child care provider, priest or any other job handling children, Have you been convicted of theft on a job application for a bank teller. If it's the law that an employer is not supposed to discriminate on past convictions then an employer should not be legally allowed to ask period.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter. I'm fine with employers discriminating against people who have criminal convictions if those convictions relate to the job they would be doing.
 
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.

Helped Wanted.
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".
 
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!

Mayor Snorkum objects to your statement on one ground.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Don't confuse teenage antics with having a no **** criminal record. Those are two different things.
 
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.

A juvenile record isn't the issue. In most states juvenile records are not accessible in public records. Now if you have an adult criminal record, that is a different thing, especially if there is a pattern of behavior over a sustained period.

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.
 
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.

I blame the education system as much as anything for the behavior of some races. People with BAs don't go around robbing people. There's no excuse for allowing kids to blow off an education. I have to go by what I see in my town.
 
I blame the education system as much as anything for the behavior of some races. People with BAs don't go around robbing people. There's no excuse for allowing kids to blow off an education. I have to go by what I see in my town.

i'll bet madoff had a BA.
 
I think it should depend on what it is. I mean if it's rape or murder, then yes. But something like jaywalking, no.
 
I voted "other" for this reason:

The overall purpose of Civil Rights Act is "equality among the races", and as we know this country does have a history of treating one racial demographic better than all others. There's also class discrimination, gender discrimination and age discrimination, but the primary purpose of the CRA is to try and make all aspects of a civil society "fair and equal to all" with its primary focus being on discriminatory actions against minorities (Blacks).

That said, there's also the EEOC which attempts to make things fair in the workplace for all employees regardless of race, religion, sex, or age. Now, those who argue "it's a private business serving the public" forget that a civilized society can't pick and choose what members make up that society any more than they can control who walks through their doors at any given time - not unless you either post a guard or post signs listing the "conditions" under which people may not patron a place of business, i.e., "no shirt, no shoes, no service", which is far less demeaning than "No Blacks Allowed". It is this practise of "at the owner's discretion" that some still support their right to "restrict" whomever they please from patroning their establishment. In short, it's racism masked behind "freedom of choice".

To the singular issue at hand, should the government prohibit discriminatory hiring practises of a private business? The answer is "Yes" because to allow such discriminatory practises would once again usher in an era of the "have's" and "have nots". However, what the OP fails to distinguish in his question is the difference between a one-time criminal offense -vs- a historical pattern of criminal activity, let alone outline exactly what said felony offense might have been. I believe it matters.

For example: If a 25 yr old Black male applies for a job but admits to murder, unless you as a business owner conducts a background check OR just asks the individual what were the circumstances behind his conviction, he/she might not learn that such was in self-defense or perhaps it was vehicular manslaughter where no drugs or alcohol were involved, but the accident happened on a dark, wet rainy night and the guy fell asleep at the wheel. So, judging him on this one felony conviction alone doesn't paint an accurate picture of the individual's social behavior. In short, you ask questions and try not to pre-judge. I believe that's what both the Civil Rights Act and the EEOC both try to do - provide the venue for common sense, common desency and respect, fairness and impartiality. Without these human characteristics, we may as well be barbarians and revert back to the days of the Wild West where the law was whatever the bad guys generally made it out to be.
 
Last edited:
I blame the education system as much as anything for the behavior of some races. People with BAs don't go around robbing people. There's no excuse for allowing kids to blow off an education. I have to go by what I see in my town.

You, my friend, need to get outside your city limits more often. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom