PDA

View Full Version : Hiring Convicted Criminals



patrickt
07-02-2013, 10:13 AM
The Federal Goverment is suing BMW and Dollar General for using criminal history checks as a condition of employment. The federal government is taking the disparate impact theory supported by at least one Supreme Court Justice which says that disparate impact on an approved minority is sufficient to prove discrimination.I have hired people convicted of crimes. But, I would hate to be required to hire people convicted of crimes or face a horrendously expensive lawsuit from the federal government. And, assume I hired a convicted criminal who then re-offends and victimizes a co-worker. I can get sued for that.So, do you think the government's position that using criminal history checks in hiring is, on it's face, illegal discrimination because more blacks are effected. More males are also effected but they're not a liberally approved minority. They are, in fact, a minority but not government approved.

GrassrootsConservative
07-02-2013, 10:29 AM
If you are paying someone you should be able to take whatever steps you want to make sure that they are the best for the job.

If two people are equally qualified and one has served time for breaking the law, why is it not okay to hire the one who hasn't served time?

Chris
07-02-2013, 10:29 AM
It should be up to the employer.

Chloe
07-02-2013, 10:38 AM
I guess I could see it both ways..On one hand why would you want someone working for you if they committed a crime if you could pick someone over that person that has a clean record? That's understandable, however, on the other hand it also helps to keep convicted criminals that are now free as almost a permanent lower class citizen because of something that happened in their past. There isn't a rule that states that once you are convicted of something then your future dictates that you will break the law again or that you will always be considered a bad person. Also since not all crime is committed for fun and sometimes it's done because of situation, circumstance, necessity, and so on it pretty much means that inner city areas and areas of poverty are almost destined to either remain poor, go to jail, or go to jail, get out, but then still be branded as a criminal as they restart their lives.

Ultimately it should be up to the company hiring the person to make a fair decision, but I don't think just because someone made a mistake in their life that it should mean that they should have a permanent scar on them as they try to improve their life. They need a job to start that process and if they can't get a job because of a past mistake then they are destined to probably repeat their mistakes out of desperation in my opinion, or simply give up and live their lives in poverty. It's a tough subject.

Adelaide
07-02-2013, 10:47 AM
I feel as though the only time an employer should be allowed to do a criminal background check is if the job involves working with people who are at high risk of abuse (children, disabled/sick persons, elderly), or if the position involves handling something like pharmaceuticals, or if it is a position like in the military, law enforcement or certain positions within government. There are probably other situations that I'm not thinking of, but I think that it isn't very rehabilitative to essentially remove any chance of legal employment - it seems like that's just asking for more illegal behaviour in a way.

For my job, it's required we have a specific type of criminal backround check called a "Vulnerable Sector Check" or "Vulnerable Persons Screening", which will also show any pardoned sexual offences. But it's healthcare.

Edit: I voted no. I'd rather have background checks for all industries than remove them for those that I think it's appropriate/necessary.

Peter1469
07-02-2013, 10:56 AM
There are some jobs that ex cons flock too. Debt collections is one of them. At least that is what a friend of mine told me. He is a lawyer in PA and deals with debt collectors a lot.

Taxcutter
07-02-2013, 11:06 AM
If an employer is liable for the actions of his employees while on the clock, forcing him to hire a known felon is asking too much.

Leopards do not change their spots.

patrickt
07-02-2013, 02:52 PM
Most of the ex-cons I dealt with didn't work steady before they went to prison and didn't work steady when they got out. I hired two burglars to paint my house and ten years later when I left town they had stayed out of trouble and were still painting houses. Another man I knew went to prison for 2nd degree murder, got out, got a job driving a truck, and died in a pedestrian accident twelve years later. Another man who was a convicted felon had become a very successful real estate developer. I wouldn't have bought property from him and didn't trust him but he wasn't returning to prison and was making money.

It's rather like a certain percentage of the people who were sent to Vietnam under the draft had mental problems and when they came home they had mental problems but the problems when they came home were blamed on having been in Vietnam.

It is my opinion that an ex-con who is at least a high school graduate, has some sort of job history showing an ability to show up on time and do a job, and who is reasonably presentable can find a job. Once he's had one job he can get others and advance.

If you have an ex-con who quit school at fifteen, can't read or write, doesn't speak standard English, has never held a job for more than a week, and looks like a gangster will have problems finding a job but President Obama is going to give him a hand.

roadmaster
07-02-2013, 03:03 PM
Depends on the crime and how long they have been out without a problem. Also, I don't think anyone who hurt children should be allowed to work with them. To be honest I don't think they are tying to pass it for the US citizens but the illegals that will become legal. JMO