Isn't it ironic that our wonderful government sees nothing wrong with requiring gun owners to go through background checks, yet the very same bunch of goofballs say that having employers run investigations on those applying for jobs is discriminatory. Either finding out someone's history is either great or an invasion of his/her privacy. So much for consistency!
The EEOC says that these checks are racist, yet the average person (white, black, brown, yellow or red) can be subjected to the same imposition without any hesitation as they want to purchase a legal product. Ironic or moronic? Government at its best!
Conservative Tom
The EEOC says that these checks are racist, yet the average person (white, black, brown, yellow or red) can be subjected to the same imposition without any hesitation as they want to purchase a legal product. Ironic or moronic? Government at its best!
Conservative Tom
EEOC: Background Checks Are Racist
February 22, 2013 by Sam Rolley
PHOTOS.COM
The Administration of Barack Obama has widely emphasized the need for criminal background checks to be performed on anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm. Meanwhile, officials at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) are threatening lawsuits against some companies that perform background checks on potential employees because they have a disparate impact on minorities.
According to the EEOC’s own enforcement guide for criminal background checks, they’re racist because they can lead to: “(1) disparate treatment (e.g., intentionally treating a white job applicant with a criminal conviction differently than a minority job applicant); or (2) disparate impact (e.g., a neutral policy of excluding job applicants with criminal histories, but such policy disproportionately screens out certain racial or ethnic groups).”
EEOC officials contend that to avoid being sued for civil rights violations for not hiring an applicant with a criminal history, an employer’s policy or practice of excluding applicants based upon criminal history must be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), the agency that makes sure companies doing business with the Federal government adhere to affirmative action mandates, announced earlier this month:
OFCCP stated it is aware of contractors posting job announcements that categorically exclude applicants with arrest or conviction records or require applicants to have a “clean” criminal record. OFCCP believes these practices likely violate federal discrimination laws.Also of note, OFCCP follows EEOC’s recommendation that employers not ask about criminal convictions on job applications. Further, OFCCP suggests that if an employer asks about an individual’s criminal history at any point during the application process, the employer limit the inquiry to convictions that are related to the job in question and are consistent with business necessity.
In the Nation’s past, from the time slavery was abolished until the Jim Crow South became a relic, the gun-control laws that were the harshest were those that were levied against blacks. If the EEOC feels background checks are so racist that companies should hire people without the benefit of knowing whether the new employee is a convicted felon or habitual misdemeanor offender, should the same logic apply to encouraging across-the-board background checks for firearm purchases? Of course, maybe it doesn’t matter, gun control was born of racism in the United States.
My take on this one is that an employer should have the right to ask whether the applicant has a criminal record. However, he may not use that information in a discriminatory way. For example, he may not treat it as an automatic disqualifier for blacks, but not for whites.
ReplyDeleteContinuing our discussion of John Roberts....
Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder
In this case, the Supreme Court will consider invalidating section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. I can just about guarantee you that Roberts will join with Scalia, Thomas, and Alito on this one.
--David
I would not bet on Roberts!
ReplyDeleteIf I would find anyone who had a bad report I would not hire him, regardless if he was Green!
However, it seems that you have no problems with background checks for guns, is that a bit hypocritical?
I would bet on Roberts!
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with background checks for guns or employment. I am consistent, not hypocritical. Criminals should not have access to guns, and an employer has a right to refuse employment to felons.
As I said, I only have a problem with the employer who would use the information in a discriminatory manner, such as treating it as an automatic disqualifier for blacks, but not for whites. Do you have a problem with that?
--David
It is hypocritical of government (or anyone) to insist on background checks for guns but demand that it is unfair for employers to do the same.
ReplyDeleteThat is my point..
I agree, so why were you calling me hypocritical? My point was that the employer has the right to do background checks, but not to use them in a manner that discriminates against blacks, such as treating a criminal record as an automatic disqualifier for blacks but not for whites. This is the third time I have said that, so maybe the point will get through this time.
ReplyDelete--David
Here is the latest where Roberts votes with Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/us/politics/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-fisa-surveillance-law.html?_r=0
Many, many more to come. Guaranteed.
--David
David, Roberts voted WITH the Obama Administration and not against it in the case you cite.
DeleteLet's talk when Roberts goes AGAINST the Administration in a major case. Find me a case like that and we can talk, however, until then, I will continue to believe that Roberts has been compromised, bought and sold to the Administration.
So do I understand you to say that background checks that discriminate against blacks are wrong? What about whites? What about criminals of all colors? The EEOC's point is that since blacks are predominately residents of our penal system, it is discriminatory to use background checks for employment, yet this same government has no problem with background checks for guns.
ReplyDeleteThat is my point. That is the hypocrisy that I see in the government. Can we at least agree on that?
As Toobin points out in his book about the Supreme Court, the Roberts court pretty much consistently votes with the government (Bush, Obama) when it is a case of an individual vs. the Government or an individual vs. a Corporation, and the liberal wing of the Court more often sides with the rights of the individual against the government or the corporation. So, this case follows the pattern. Roberts sides with the conservative wing of the Court, and will continue to do so. We have several more of them coming before June. I'll keep you posted as more come in.
ReplyDelete>"So do I understand you to say that background checks that discriminate against blacks are wrong?"
No, that is not quite what I said. I said that I have no problem with government or employers using criminal background checks for gun purchases or employment application. My only problem is with employers who USE the information in a discriminatory manner, such as treating criminal history as an automatic disqualification for blacks but not for whites.
Yes, we agree on the EEOC, but you tried to hang the "hypocrisy" tag on what I wrote. That is not warranted, because my position is that both the government and the employer both have a right to do criminal background checks.
--David
Roberts votes with Obama, the liberal justices also vote with Obama. Roberts used to be considered a conservative until he was compromised whether by ideology or by bribe or something else. He is useless.
ReplyDeleteI will NEVER believe in him after his convoluted, illogical approval of ObamaCrapCare.
Whatever he did before ObamaCrapCare is meaningless.