Are background checks discriminatory? - Page 2
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
Like Tree10Likes

Thread: Are background checks discriminatory?

  1. #11
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphire Sunsets View Post
    If it was a race related thing they wouldn't even have gotten to the point of doing the background check on the person. Every place that has ever done a background check on me for a job interviewed me first. Background checks cost companys money, last time i checked they usually don't like to spend money doing a background check on someone they wouldn't hire anyways.

    Well, you may say that, but without knowing all the details of the case I'm wondering how you can say so confidently that you disagree with the courts ruling? This is about people being denied jobs based on charges that they were not found guilty of that come up on background checks. You would be compliant with not getting a job that a company was poised to give you because the police messed up? I wouldn't. that would seriously mess with my ability to support my family, and that doesn't seem fair to me.

    As to your bolded, I totally disagree. If that was true why on earth would they do the background check? As you stated it costs money.

  2. #12
    Prolific Poster ftmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    2,378

    Default

    I still dont get how it is a race thing. If they are eliminating anyone who has been arrested, that would be white people too, right?
    Sapphire Sunsets likes this.
    Kyla
    Mom to Arianna (5), Conner (3) and Trent (my baby)

  3. #13
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,670

    Default

    I get why it's a race thing in that minorities are more likely to be arrested for a crime they didn't commit, only because they are, in some areas, automatically under suspicion due to their skin color.

    That said, this is the wrong end of the equation to be making changes in. The problem is at the root; you don't solve it by not allowing companies to check on potential employees. I've had to do a background check for every job I've had in the past few decades.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 11 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  4. #14
    Community Host Sapphire Sunsets's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Northeast, USA
    Posts
    7,964

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Well, you may say that, but without knowing all the details of the case I'm wondering how you can say so confidently that you disagree with the courts ruling? This is about people being denied jobs based on charges that they were not found guilty of that come up on background checks. You would be compliant with not getting a job that a company was poised to give you because the police messed up? I wouldn't. that would seriously mess with my ability to support my family, and that doesn't seem fair to me.

    As to your bolded, I totally disagree. If that was true why on earth would they do the background check? As you stated it costs money.


    First bolded: If you were an employer hiring someone who was going to be reponsible for handling ALOT of money in your business and you did a background check on them and it came up that they were arrested for stealing or robbery, you would really still consider them a candidate?? It tells you nothing why they were found not guilty. They could very well have been guilty but there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Your really going to put your business that you have poured sweat, heart and money into at risk? Ya, have fun with that.

    Second bolded: That was my point. It it was a race discrimation thing why would they do a background check if they aren't going to hire the person anyways?
    ~ Sara -

    ~ DH - Jim -

    ~ Zachary - 4/19/95 ~ stillborn @ 33 wks

    ~ *J* - 16yr old

    ~ *M* 11yr old

  5. #15
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Its a race thing in that blacks are way more statistically likely to be arrested for or found guilty of a crime they didn't commit, or unjustly pulled over/searched due to racial profiling. Though I tend to agree with Laurie, I get what this law is trying to accomplish. This idea of "all CRIMINALS" don't deserve a job is only going to keep people (often innocent ones) further in poverty or lead to them resorting to actual/more crimes if they don't have viable work options. Its hard to argue that that is good for society.

    North Carolina Racial Justice Act | American Civil Liberties Union

    In 2011, NYPD Made More Stops Of Young Black Men Than The Total Number Of Young Black Men In New York | ThinkProgress
    I can tell you that near me at the 25K/year private high schools filled with white kids kids are NOT arrested for things like writing on desks. Is it fair for someone to have an arrest record that would prohibit them for getting a job because they went to an inner city school where the police are more likely to be called than some richy rich friends school in the suburbs? http://www.nyclu.org/news/new-nypd-d...rrested-school

    I see the point.

  6. #16
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,395

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphire Sunsets View Post
    First bolded: If you were an employer hiring someone who was going to be reponsible for handling ALOT of money in your business and you did a background check on them and it came up that they were arrested for stealing or robbery, you would really still consider them a candidate?? It tells you nothing why they were found not guilty. They could very well have been guilty but there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Your really going to put your business that you have poured sweat, heart and money into at risk? Ya, have fun with that.

    Second bolded: That was my point. It it was a race discrimation thing why would they do a background check if they aren't going to hire the person anyways?
    Arrested and found not guilty are two totally different things. I was almost arrested once at a traffic stop. He ended up not arresting me because he and both knew he couldn't for what he thought I was doing wrong. I also got out of the traffic ticket because he didn't do his job (thus being able to show I wasn't speeding).

    I had jury duty 6 months ago and all of us on the jury couldn't believe it went to trial. There was no evidence or really even probable cause to believe he was a part of any of it.

    There was a case on Judge Judy a while back. A college student was assigned a roommate. The roommate stole his ID. Later the roommate stole a car and left the stolen ID in the car. The young man whose ID it was was arrested and spent a night in jail. In no way was he guilty of anything. And once it was investigated, all charges were dropped. But under your theory, a company should never be able to trust him to drive a company car.

    The background check isn't always done at a set point of the interview. Just like credit checks can be used to weed out applicants up front, a background check at the beginning of the process can be used to filter out those who the company won't even call for the interview.

  7. #17
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sapphire Sunsets View Post
    First bolded: If you were an employer hiring someone who was going to be reponsible for handling ALOT of money in your business and you did a background check on them and it came up that they were arrested for stealing or robbery, you would really still consider them a candidate?? It tells you nothing why they were found not guilty. They could very well have been guilty but there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Your really going to put your business that you have poured sweat, heart and money into at risk? Ya, have fun with that. Second bolded: That was my point. It it was a race discrimation thing why would they do a background check if they aren't going to hire the person anyways?
    Have you read the links provided? This is specifically addressed. So before you get all flip and "have fun with that" why don't you educate yourself about the actual debate matter. No one is advocating that someone convicted of, say, embezzlement be entrusted with financial record keeping. I would, however, hire a criminal to take care of the handling of my alot. Thats easy.
    Employers should instead utilize a targeted screening process that takes into consideration the nature of the crime, the time elapsed since the conviction, and the nature of the job held or sought. The EEOC further recommends that employers study recidivism data to determine whether a particular conviction should be considered, rather than rely only on generalized concerns. By way of example, the Guidance states that a 15-year-old misdemeanor conviction for misrepresenting income on a loan application likely would not be sufficient grounds to disqualify an applicant from a customer service job at a bank, unless the employer can demonstrate that there is an increased likelihood for that person, who has been crime-free for more than 10 years, to commit a financial crime.
    Your second point shows that you still don't understand the debate. It isn't about employers being racist and intentionally setting out to not hire people of a certain color.
    The Guidance builds on the EEOC's long-held position that, although Title VII does not protect individuals with criminal records as a class, an employer's reliance on arrest and conviction records in deciding whether to hire or retain employees may result in illegal discrimination based on race and national origin.
    I don't agree with this method of encouraging companies to hire people with issues on their background check as I think that the guidelines are really cumbersome ~ I also don't think that its as simple of an issue as saying "our government is SO STUPID" or, "hey don't be a criminal if you don't want a bad background check". I can see that there is or could be a valid issue here, but I don't necessarily agree that these new guidelines are the best way to fix it.
    Last edited by Potter75; 02-23-2013 at 03:59 PM.

  8. #18
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    Now that we've discovered that the background check also turns up things that you weren't actually found guilty of, I think it's a lot more ludicrous.

    Having said that, I also dislike the attitude of "if you've ever been a criminal, you should just expect that no one will ever hire you again." Seems like the most efficient way to keep people criminals, IMO. Making a mistake in your past doesn't mean that suddenly you don't need an income any more, so if you can't make it legally, what are the odds that you'll make it illegally? I'm not saying, for example, finance companies should be required to hire someone who went to jail for embezzlement, but a company could hire him to work on my lawn or bag my groceries, or whatever. Just saying, there are some jobs where background checks make more sense, but I don't think it should be the rule for all employment everywhere that no criminal is ever hired again. That seems like a recipe for more crime, not less.
    freddieflounder101 likes this.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  9. #19
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    Now that we've discovered that the background check also turns up things that you weren't actually found guilty of, I think it's a lot more ludicrous.

    Having said that, I also dislike the attitude of "if you've ever been a criminal, you should just expect that no one will ever hire you again." Seems like the most efficient way to keep people criminals, IMO. Making a mistake in your past doesn't mean that suddenly you don't need an income any more, so if you can't make it legally, what are the odds that you'll make it illegally? I'm not saying, for example, finance companies should be required to hire someone who went to jail for embezzlement, but a company could hire him to work on my lawn or bag my groceries, or whatever. Just saying, there are some jobs where background checks make more sense, but I don't think it should be the rule for all employment everywhere that no criminal is ever hired again. That seems like a recipe for more crime, not less.
    If you were a business owner and wanted to take a gamble on a criminal, that would be your choice. Businesses should not be forced into hiring criminals though.

    ~Bonita~

  10. #20
    Posting Addict Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,770

    Default

    I wasn't really talking about "forcing" business owners to hire ex-cons. I'm just saying in general, I don't think the "well if you ever want to work again, don't be a criminal" attitude seems kind of harmful to society, assuming we want to actually rehabilitate criminals.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions