Can employers reject applicants who have a criminal history

Yukon said:

By discriminating against those of us who have broken the law and unfortunately were caught you are simply forcing us to commit more crime in order to survive.

Click to expand...

The unfortunate part is not that you were caught but that you committed a crime in the first place.

X Factor said:

The unfortunate part is not that you were caught but that you committed a crime in the first place.

Click to expand...

nobody is forcing anyone to commit a crime, unless you live in such abject poverty that you must commit theft to survive. I highly doubt this is Yukon's case.

I don't think the law matters in a moral sense, since both parties have valid complaints. But I'm not sure how effective it is, as it is much easier to come up with a pretense for continually rejecting people with criminal histories than people of different ethnic, religious, or racial backgrounds.

Like outlawing prostitution or drugs. You can't cure social evils that afflict humankind passively aggressively. Personally, if a large number of unemployed ex-convicts is a concern, I would offer incentives to compensate employers for taking a risk and helping an ex-convict integrate back into the community. The average job-seeker loses in that scenario, but such are the sacrifices demanded when you try to actively solve a social evil.

TurtleDude said:

how do you feel about ex cons being able to own firearms or vote?

Click to expand...

I can somewhat understand that a felon might lose his right to own a gun...but it's bothersome. As to voting? I don't think they should lose that right. They will continue to pay taxes...they should be represented.

Yukon said:

Unfortunately people still must be proteced form the hatred spewed from the mouths of the right-wing, loons of society. They hate blacks, chinese, liberals, abortions supporters, capital punishment oppoesers. they are a sick disgusting racist group. They are the TEA Baggers !

Click to expand...

Wow! That's a lot of hatred you have there, Fidel.

And no, excons are in no way equal to people who have obeyed the rules. You'd have to do something very heroic or demonstrate massive philanthropy to put any criminal life behind you.

StillBallin75 said:

nobody is forcing anyone to commit a crime, unless you live in such abject poverty that you must commit theft to survive. I highly doubt this is Yukon's case.

Click to expand...

In the US, one doesn't need to steal to eat. Shoot, we have panhandlers on every corner where I live. As much as I would hate to beg, I'd do that before stealing from someone else.

MaggieD said:

I can somewhat understand that a felon might lose his right to own a gun...but it's bothersome. As to voting? I don't think they should lose that right. They will continue to pay taxes...they should be represented.

Click to expand...

Actually I think ex-cons are more likely to be supported by taxes.

X Factor said:

Actually I think ex-cons are more likely to be supported by taxes.

Click to expand...

I hear ya', and my heart honestly goes out to those who want to turn their lives around. It is so damned difficult...

X Factor said:

In the US, one doesn't need to steal to eat. Shoot, we have panhandlers on every corner where I live. As much as I would hate to beg, I'd do that before stealing from someone else.

Click to expand...

John Stossel just did an undercover report on pan handlers. You would get about $150 per day begging. Tax free. Even if your sign said you will work for beer.So no, there is no need to steal in big-hearted America
.

Yukon said:

Patrick,

I dont post hatred nor do I sink to the use of subtle racist comments. Do not confuse truth and non-PC discussion with hate.

Click to expand...

This from the guy who says White Anglo Saxon Protestants were granted dominion over the earth by God. :roll:

X Factor said:

Is from the guy who says White Anglo Saxon Protestants were granted dominion over the earth by God.

Click to expand...

I think he actually meant being overtly racist when he said that.

StillBallin75 said:

I think he actually meant being overtly racist when he said that.

Click to expand...

Then he has no business claiming that conservatives hate minorities.

StillBallin75 said:

nobody is forcing anyone to commit a crime, unless you live in such abject poverty that you must commit theft to survive. I highly doubt this is Yukon's case.

Click to expand...

Nobody is forcing anyone to commit a crime regardless. No matter what kind of abject poverty you live in, there are always choices. There are charities, there is public assistance, there is panhandling, there are lots of things that can be done to make money and get food and shelter that don't require anyone to break the law. That's clearly true because not all poor people are criminals, obviously some of them, in fact most of them, are better than that.

There are no excuses for people to commit crimes, no matter how hard they try to justify it. Someone screws up, they have to deal with the consequences of their actions and some actions have livelong consequences, like it or not.

First, I believe that the government has an obligation to defend the populace from discrimination due to race, religion, gender and age if the applicant is qualified for the job. That said, it's impossible to enforce unless the employer is stupid enough to say "I won't hire you because you're the wrong religion, race, gender or age."

Now when it comes to a person's felonious history, damned right an employer has the right to discriminate. I don't want a convicted child molester working in a day care or at a school. I don't want someone convicted of embezzlement working in accounting. I don't want someone with a history of theft working on the loading dock.

Frankly, it's logic 101.

DiAnna said:

First, I believe that the government has an obligation to defend the populace from discrimination due to race, religion, gender and age if the applicant is qualified for the job. That said, it's impossible to enforce unless the employer is stupid enough to say "I won't hire you because you're the wrong religion, race, gender or age."

Now when it comes to a person's felonious history, damned right an employer has the right to discriminate. I don't want a convicted child molester working in a day care or at a school. I don't want someone convicted of embezzlement working in accounting. I don't want someone with a history of theft working on the loading dock.

Frankly, it's logic 101.

Click to expand...

Not quite logic 101, IMO.



What we feel the government has an 'obligation' to protect comes down to what we individually prioritize: The freedom of the business owner to run his/her business as they please OR making sure the privelage of work is equally accessible.

To me, work is a privelage. Not a right. Making decisions on running your business (property) as you see fit (so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others) is a true right.

fredmertz said:

Not quite logic 101, IMO.

What we feel the government has an 'obligation' to protect comes down to what we individually prioritize: The freedom of the business owner to run his/her business as they please OR making sure the privelage of work is equally accessible.

To me, work is a privelage. Not a right. Making decisions on running your business (property) as you see fit (so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others) is a true right.

Click to expand...

The business owner *DOES* have a right to hire, or not hire, whoever they want, regardless of their criminal history. If you own a business and want to hire all ex-cons, feel free. Nobody can stop you. However, you can neither require another business owner to do so, just because you think they ought to. Work is a privilege, true, but there's no such thing as "equally accessible" in the workplace. People without medical training cannot get work as doctors. People who have not passed the bar cannot work as lawyers. I certainly wouldn't hire a flower arranger if I needed someone trained as a civil engineer. Likewise, I wouldn't hire a convicted thief if I needed someone who was trustworthy. They've already proven by their actions that they cannot be trusted. Maybe if they've been out of prison and had a clean record for 15-20 years, I might consider them, but right out of the cell? Hell no.

I've known more criminals than most. Very, very few committed crimes out of necessity. Most chose to commit crimes. In thirty years I met less than a dozen people who were, in my opinion, evil. Most were dumb as a turnip. Many couldn't read. Many, perhaps most, had dropped out of school. They had zero job experience. Many had serious problems with substance abuse, anger, and impulse control. In short, they had a lot of reasons for not getting hired but I have no doubt the one they talked about was that they were an ex-con. It's so much easier than saying, "I didn't get hired because I couldn't fill out the application."

I helped a lot of ex-cons get jobs. I was very selective because businesses were trusting me to use some judgement. Most of the time it worked out. But, occasionally, people I was willing to help didn't want the kind of jobs you can get when you drop out of school and go to prison. Starting out as bank president is pretty much out of the question.

fredmertz said:

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?

Click to expand...

I get away, as an employer, on a daily basis with denying employment to anyone who falls under the following:

1. Crimes of Moral Terpitude.
2. Any Felony
3. Any individuals charged with crimes against kids or the elderly but not yet found to be Not Guilty.

In fact, as an employer, I even get away with running them through BCI and opening up sealed records and denying employment based upon what is in those records. Juvenile convictions are even open for review.

How?

It's simple. I own a small software company whose primary purpose is the development of software for schools that contains high security items within it. If you have been convicted of a crime against kids, charged but not yet found Not Guilty, a crime of moral terpitude or any felony then my company will show you the door. It's simple, what we do works with kids, our job is to actually help protect the schools, if we have ex-cons working for us then how can we ensure we havethe best people for the job who have the best interests of the kids at heart. Now granted, we don't get many applicants with criminal records and while some will argue that looking at juvenile convictions or those that have been sealed/expunged is illegal, it's not.

Look at the law in regards to sealed/expunged records. They can be opened up basically either of 2 ways:

By a signed order of the court that sealed it or if the applicant is subject to a background check for a position that will have them working directly or indirectly with children and/or elderly as their primary position. Because my company works directly for schools that means that all my employees work directly or indirectly with children and thus we hire noone with basically more than a minor traffic ticket. Yes, a DUI or DUS ticket will cause use to deny you employment.

As far as the 65 million who are ex-cons looking for jobs, go rent a u-haul and move to where they don't care if your a criminal. People have the legal right to decide who is and is not allowed in their home, companies are privately owned and we as owners have the right to decide who is and is not allowed inside of our business. I promise you, the first time someone tries to force me to hire a criminal I will shut my doors and move the company to a location so far away that convict will never consider applying.

Henrin said:

Business has the right to exclude people if they wish. Its a bad business decision though.

Click to expand...

No it isn't. You have to protect your other employees.

If you hire a felon and he hurts another employee, you are 100% liabel for the damage.

fredmertz said:

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?

Click to expand...

For the record if you have a criminal background, you cannot get a job with any type of government.

Hypocrisy?

Mason66 said:

No it isn't. You have to protect your other employees.

If you hire a felon and he hurts another employee, you are 100% liabel for the damage.

Click to expand...

I was talking about what the law should say.

Henrin said:

I was talking about what the law should say.

Click to expand...

You said it was a bad business decision to reject felons. I say it is not.

The other employees safety is paramount.

fredmertz said:

"Because discriminating against those with criminal records disproportionately hurts African Americans,

Click to expand...

The solution could be very easy, African American will stop to commit crime!

Mason66 said:

You said it was a bad business decision to reject felons. I say it is not.

The other employees safety is paramount.

Click to expand...

I was talking about a long series of issues that involve their decisions, not just felons. But they shouldn't be accountable for the felon and if the felon served his time, he should get whatever job he wants unless the business decides they don't want them.

Alfons said:

The solution could be very easy, African American will stop to commit crime!

Click to expand...

yes, we could hear Christ evoke those same bigotted words [/sarcasm]