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.
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?
Mom to Arianna (5), Conner (3) and Trent (my baby)
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)
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
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.
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.
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.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.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.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.
Last edited by Potter75; 02-23-2013 at 03:59 PM.
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.
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.