• 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
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

one would think that the correction to the mis-interpretation would have been effected by now had there actually been one

and as you are an attorney, i note that you failed to make any semblance of a case to defend your position

that either speaks to the weakness of your position or your legal attributes. establish a defense of your position and let us decide which is the weaker element
 
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.


Wow, I dont know how to explain to you just how wrong you are. Im hoping your a very young person who has this opinion out of naivette.
The higher the education it seems the bigger the ripoffs, instead of robbing convenience stores the educated rob large segments of society out of millions and billions.....like the Enron and Worldcom Ceos and maidoff , the list is endless, open your eyes.
 
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").

This is directed towards you and those that agree with you (which seem to be many): Are you stating that you don't think an employer SHOULD discriminate or that you think it should be ILLEGAL for them to discriminate? As in the government is telling them that they cannot disregard an applicant based on their own personal beliefs because it conflicts with the majority's beliefs or is immoral, in the government's opinion. The government is trying to tell them how to think! (though I agree with the government on the topic of race (and race only), I still don't think it's their place to force our behaviors).

Please explain why the government should have the authority to control our actions to such a degree within our own personal lives. It's not like we're impeding their rights. They don't have a right to be an applicant for the job I'm looking to hire out. Why is the government giving them that right (them being 'that gender', 'that race', 'that age', etc.). Why isn't it MY decision for MY company?
 
Last edited:
This is directed towards you and those that agree with you (which seem to be many): Are you stating that you don't think an employer SHOULD discriminate or that you think it should be ILLEGAL for them to discriminate? As in the government is telling them that they cannot disregard an applicant based on their own personal beliefs because it conflicts with the majority's beliefs or is immoral, in the government's opinion. The government is trying to tell them how to think! (though I agree with the government on the topic of race (and race only), I still don't think it's their place to force our behaviors).

Please explain why the government should have the authority to control our actions to such a degree within our own personal lives. It's not like we're impeding their rights. They don't have a right to be an applicant for the job I'm looking to hire out. Why is the government giving them that right (them being 'that gender', 'that race', 'that age', etc.). Why isn't it MY decision for MY company?

Why isn't it your choice? I am not understanding this at all. The CRA did not change anything. It only gave certain groups the right for extreme redress. All one has to do is hire a very good lawyer if it comes to that. I have hired whomever I like irrespective of criminality, race, gender, or ethnicity for decades with no repercussions.
 
You, my friend, need to get outside your city limits more often. :)

Fine. If blacks have a higher rate of crime than other races I argue that it is the fault of the public education system - the government. There is no doubt in my mind that the educational opportunitiies of blacks and of whites are a million miles apart.

The way to rectify this situation is focus on the education of our young blacks rather than force busineses to hire those the government failed to educate. I do think New Orleans is a very good city to look at to consider the overall problem.
 
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?

They already do what they wish.

Companies can and do discriminate based on age, criminal record, sex, etc.

They're just not stupid enough to go on record. They don't make it a written policy or advertise it. That would be like reporting your own post when you troll someone.

They know that if they don't want a felon, to just higher someone with out a felony. Even in the rare case of an applicant suing, the applicant has to prove the reason they were not hired is due to a record. Good luck.

The company can always say someone else interviewed better.

The government can writ down some words on some paper, and it won't matter in the least.
 
Last edited:
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.

This is why I support discrimination.
 
I am against discrimination for or against people on the basis of factors that have nothing to do with job performance.
 
Whatever happened to "paying your debt to society"? It seems some would have anyone who breaks the law pay for it for the rest of their life.
 
I am against discrimination for or against people on the basis of factors that have nothing to do with job performance.

but isn't that the point

some people discriminate against prospective employees

not because they themselves would be inadequate employees, but only because they are members of a group that a discriminatory employer believes will not provide adequate job candidates

be they felons, non-Christians, gay, young, old, minority, majority, married, unmarried, male, female, fat, skinny, educated, uneducated ...

the government, thru the eeoc, enforces laws against particular forms of discrimination. violations of those laws are so difficult to prove, that if one is convicted, they were very likely guilty of overt discrimination

that said, should the eeoc conflate the refusal to hire felons as the equivalent of practicing race discrimination against blacks, then the eeoc should be found misguided
 
Whatever happened to "paying your debt to society"? It seems some would have anyone who breaks the law pay for it for the rest of their life.

I totally agree. I think discrimination because of a previous felony should be enforced with the same vigor as race/religion/sex. If one's previous crime has nothing to do with the job for which one is being interviewed, I think it's very wrong to discriminate.

Many men and women who've served their time want nothing more than to "go straight." If we are going to go out of our way not to hire felons who've served their time, we might as well just shoot them. I think it's very wrong to discriminate in this way -- and very sad for those who are trying their best to get their lives together.
 
Whatever happened to "paying your debt to society"? It seems some would have anyone who breaks the law pay for it for the rest of their life.


And what about false convictions, where it has not yet been cleared from your record - or can't for whatever reason?
 
Whatever happened to "paying your debt to society"? It seems some would have anyone who breaks the law pay for it for the rest of their life.

Like it or not, there are some things which, once done, can never be undone. You may pay your debt to society, but that doesn't obligate them to pretend it never happened. A child molester might go to jail, they might be "reformed", but nobody in their right mind will ever leave them alone with a child again, nor should they.
 
We do criminal background and credit checks, amoung other things, on all prospects. If they have a felony on their record or less than very good credit, they never hear from us. They never even know they were being considered.

.
 
It depends on the job. If the job has relevancy to the crime then yes. But I wouldnt go as far as saying a DUI should have any bearing on being a truck driver either.
 
We do criminal background and credit checks, amoung other things, on all prospects. If they have a felony on their record or less than very good credit, they never hear from us. They never even know they were being considered.

.

Now THAT should be illegal! That should be VERRRRRY illegal! A persons credit has ZERO to do with job performance. In fact it is very personal information. Any company that asks for a credit background check on a job applicant should be heavily fined. Plus the person whos credit was run should be able to sue the company.
 
Now THAT should be illegal! That should be VERRRRRY illegal! A persons credit has ZERO to do with job performance. In fact it is very personal information. Any company that asks for a credit background check on a job applicant should be heavily fined. Plus the person whos credit was run should be able to sue the company.

In Illinois, as I know you know, it is illegal to run credit for the purposes of considering one for employment. Not in all states, though.

Users of the information for credit, insurance, or employment purposes (including background checks) have the following responsibilities under the FCRA:

They must notify the consumer when an adverse action is taken on the basis of such reports.
Users must identify the company that provided the report, so that the accuracy and completeness of the report may be verified or contested by the consumer.

You can see the Fair Credit Reporting Act would be hard to enforce re running credit checks on potential employees.
 
In Illinois, as I know you know, it is illegal to run credit for the purposes of considering one for employment. Not in all states, though.
One easy way around that is just don't hire anyone from IL. ;)

You can see the Fair Credit Reporting Act would be hard to enforce re running credit checks on potential employees.
Another easy way around these laws is to just outsource the checking. There are numerous companies not subject to USA jurisdiction that handle this function. All the USA based companies see is a list of candidates that meet their requirements. They don't even know if anyone was excluded from the list or reasons for any exclusions.

.
 
Now THAT should be illegal! That should be VERRRRRY illegal! A persons credit has ZERO to do with job performance. In fact it is very personal information. Any company that asks for a credit background check on a job applicant should be heavily fined. Plus the person whos credit was run should be able to sue the company.

if i am a lender looking for someone to process loan applications, their credit history has a huge bearing on whether they would make a suitable candidate for the job
 
if i am a lender looking for someone to process loan applications, their credit history has a huge bearing on whether they would make a suitable candidate for the job

Not only that, but credit history is a good indicator of reliability. If you can't even pay your own bills on time, how can I trust you as an employee to work reliably? Plus, people with a high debt ratio may be more apt to steal from the company to pay their bills.

I'll bet that the people who are complaining loudest are the ones with bad credit scores.
 
We do criminal background and credit checks, amoung other things, on all prospects. If they have a felony on their record or less than very good credit, they never hear from us. They never even know they were being considered.

.

I would like to know what company you work for, because conducting a criminal or credit background without their knowledge and written consent is illegal. Without their consent, obtaining that information is a violation of their right to privacy.
 
Now THAT should be illegal! That should be VERRRRRY illegal! A persons credit has ZERO to do with job performance. In fact it is very personal information. Any company that asks for a credit background check on a job applicant should be heavily fined. Plus the person whos credit was run should be able to sue the company.

Folks like myself don't borrow money, so naturally I will have a bad credit score for the rest of my life.

For those who do worship the I-love-debt score, every credit check penalizes the score, and every check will appear on your report, so you can prove a damage.
 
Not only that, but credit history is a good indicator of reliability. If you can't even pay your own bills on time, how can I trust you as an employee to work reliably? Plus, people with a high debt ratio may be more apt to steal from the company to pay their bills.

I'll bet that the people who are complaining loudest are the ones with bad credit scores.

I don't use a credit card to pay my bills, so my credit score is incapable of displaying my level of responsibility.

As I don't borrow money, I have a bad score. Forget the fact that I do maintain a positive balance on my utilities, rent, insurance and child support.

I bet the people who complain the loudest are responsible people like myself who are deemed inferior just because we don't regularly borrow money.
 
I would like to know what company you work for, because conducting a criminal or credit background without their knowledge and written consent is illegal. Without their consent, obtaining that information is a violation of their right to privacy.
First off, the chance of you getting that is slim to none and slim left town.

That said however, I misspoke. We do not do the checks, ourself. For USA based employees, we give the position requirements to a couple of offshore companies. Those requirements always include extreme honesty and trustworthness. We get a list of folks that meet those requirements. So far, these two companies have not disappointed us.

.
 
People who have served their sentence should be allowed to rejoin society and function as productive citizens. If they can't get jobs, how the Hell are they supposed to do that?

I've got a simple solution for business afraid of hiring someone with a theft conviction because they might steal again. If someone gets caught a second time, shoot them. It will cut down on the problem drastically.
 
Back
Top Bottom