Background checks off limits to employers?

[deerslayer]

A San Francisco suburb passed an ordinance preventing city contractors from checking applicants' criminal backgrounds.  Also, the EEOC sued BMW and Dollar General on the basis that their use of background checks constituted discrimination. 

 

The felons-should-be-able-to-own-guns crowd should love this. 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/03/new-laws-make-criminal-pasts-off-limits-in-california-city/?test=latestnews

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/27/states-attorneys-now-opposing-feds-opposition-to-criminal-background-checks-for/

[RobertNashville]

Oh well...so teh slide to complete idiocy continues...stories like this are getting so common that I have trouble even careing any more.

 

I'm just sort of shttinghere  :popcorn:   waiting for the final shoe to drop.

[TMF]

Discrimination against felons? Are they a protected class now? I'm having a hard time keeping up.

[Cherokee Slim]

So the plea deal now so common, punishes one of 20 charges with all but that one dismissed.  So you have a serial/career thief,rapist or whatever that you put to work because he paid his debt to society for one crime.  There is no way this wont turn into a disaster.

Cherokee Slim

[luvmyberetta]

Discrimination against felons? Are they a protected class now? I'm having a hard time keeping up.

 

Maybe Obama's hoping that if felons start getting jobs he can brag about lowering the unemployment rate...that is, until the stealing, raping, & killing starts. Then he'll just blame "white America". Way to go voters!

[Guest The Itis]

It used to be that imprisonment was supposed to be a deterrent to criminals.

That didn't work.

Then it was the threat of not being employable, but criminals who couldn't make a living went back to crime.

Now they're trying the threat of being employable, I guess.
It's subversive reintegration.

Edited August 3, 2013 by The Itis

[leroy]

I dont know that that will work... .  I think it's "red meat" for the children.... . There is no way that the "city" can check up on the hiring practices of a contractor; nor can they tell them what to do... . More than that; how to they know when background checks are utilized?   Unenforceable, i say.

 

RE:  The suits against BMW and Dollar General...  Goin nowhere; even in kommiefornia.. .  The gubmt cannot dictate the terms of the "employment contract" between a company and an individual; even in kommiefornia.

 

disbelievin leroy

[Defender]

Oh believe it!  Its here too.  Im in the employment business and Ive already seen it happening right here in Nashville. While it is NOT a law, (yet), they can make it a part of the contract, and the company that enters that contract actually has to agree with abiding by that policy...if they then dont, and the other side finds out, they can cancel or have other penalties invoked.  The feds have been doing this for years...if a company into a contract with the federal government for $100,000.00 or more, there are MANY rules the company must agree to follow to get the contract award.  The feds even have  what they call the Office of Federal Contract Compliance in the USDOL that monitors that compliance, and even conducts inspections or reviews to insure said compliance is maintained.  So does the company have to comply?  Only if they want a very lucrative contract.  The feds control us with money, in these type of contracts, but also, highway money, school money, and many others... they take form the people in taxes, then give some back if you follow their rules...all without even making a law!

[DaveTN]

I bet they ask applicants for the Police and Fire Departments about their criminal history; and I bet they check.

[Guest TankerHC]

How long before Pedophiles are a protected class? The "Marlin Brando Lookalike Association" has actually been lobbying Congress on that one. How they can do that and go before Federal Judges on that without getting followed and arrested is beyond me.

[Sam1]

How long before Pedophiles are a protected class? The "Marlin Brando Lookalike Association" has actually been lobbying Congress on that one. How they can do that and go before Federal Judges on that without getting followed and arrested is beyond me.

 

Already happening in Britain 

[DaveTN]

Watch this trend closely. Keep in mind that a large voting class will want this to become the norm. Should they decide to climb off the couch and go get a job they don’t want a trivial detail like being a child molester or having done time for selling heroin on the corner to be held against them.

[TMF]

Watch this trend closely. Keep in mind that a large voting class will want this to become the norm. Should they decide to climb off the couch and go get a job they don’t want a trivial detail like being a child molester or having done time for selling heroin on the corner to be held against them.

I thought that class of people weren't allowed to vote.

[DaveTN]

I thought that class of people weren't allowed to vote.

Only 12 states revoke your right to vote permanently and even in those it depends on the case.
23 states allow you to vote after time served and parole or probation.
13 states allow you to vote after time served.
2 states do not take away voting rights and allow convicts to vote by absentee ballot while in prison.

[deerslayer]

Only 12 states revoke your right to vote permanently and even in those it depends on the case.
23 states allow you to vote after time served and parole or probation.
13 states allow you to vote after time served.
2 states do not take away voting rights and allow convicts to vote by absentee ballot while in prison.

 

And what amazes me is that a significant portion of users of this forum support this kind of crap.  Some of the "felons should be able to own guns" threads really leave me scratching my head. 

[DaveTN]

And what amazes me is that a significant portion of users of this forum support this kind of crap.  Some of the "felons should be able to own guns" threads really leave me scratching my head. 

It doesn’t surprise me; you will always have the entitlement crowd. Part of the deterrent of committing a felony is that it stays with you for life.

[deerslayer]

Amen.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just because an ordinance passes, doesn't make it enforceable. There are plenty laws that are unenforceable,

or at least able to be challenged and thrown out. This law will take a willing company to challenge it. That's all.

 

Of course, a willing company may be difficult to find, with all the PC on the left coast. San Fran being among

the worst.

Edited August 4, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[DaveTN]

Just because an ordinance passes, doesn't make it enforceable. There are plenty laws that are unenforceable,

or at least able to be challenged and thrown out. This law will take a willing company to challenge it. That's all.

 

Of course, a willing company may be difficult to find, with all the PC on the left coast. San Fran being among

the worst.

It might stop over a liability issue. I wonder what would happen when one of the office girls is raped by a convicted rapist that the company would not have hired, except for the fact they were banned by the city from doing a background check.

[Guest Cazador]

I don't think you can be held liable for the action of an employee with a criminal background that you were unable to check by law. But that is only common sense it has nothing to do with the legal system. When McDonalds gets sued by a family because their children are extremely overweight. Even though the parents fed them McDonalds 5 times a week. We live in a time of no personal responsibility. It is always someone else's fault. Heck the mayor of San Diego is now saying that what he did to the women he worked with is the cities fault because they did not provide him with quality sexual harassment courses.
This goes along with some of the stupid laws on the books here. As an employer it is illegal for me to ask a person if he is a legal citizen or not, even if they don't speak English. If I ask I am open to a discrimination suit. If I hire an illegal who has documents it takes up to months before the Feds notify me that the documents were not correct. I have lost time and money training someone that could have been eliminated at the beginning. It is almost a nightmare to hire anyone. You never know how many are putting in applications just to claim discrimination when they are not hired. It is the next get rich quick scheme.
I guess this is why nothing is made in the USA anymore. The tangled web of employment laws and regulations is ridiculous.

[Guest TankerHC]

And what amazes me is that a significant portion of users of this forum support this kind of crap.  Some of the "felons should be able to own guns" threads really leave me scratching my head. 

 

Texas lets convicted Felons own guns for HD. not googling it, but I did read last year, that if you were a convicted Felon, and had not been in any trouble within "I think" 7 or 12 years, you get your 2A rights back. As I recall, you couldn't even get a parking ticket.

[DaveTN]

I don't think you can be held liable for the action of an employee with a criminal background that you were unable to check by law. But that is only common sense it has nothing to do with the legal system. When McDonalds gets sued by a family because their children are extremely overweight. Even though the parents fed them McDonalds 5 times a week. We live in a time of no personal responsibility. It is always someone else's fault. Heck the mayor of San Diego is now saying that what he did to the women he worked with is the cities fault because they did not provide him with quality sexual harassment courses.
This goes along with some of the stupid laws on the books here. As an employer it is illegal for me to ask a person if he is a legal citizen or not, even if they don't speak English. If I ask I am open to a discrimination suit. If I hire an illegal who has documents it takes up to months before the Feds notify me that the documents were not correct. I have lost time and money training someone that could have been eliminated at the beginning. It is almost a nightmare to hire anyone. You never know how many are putting in applications just to claim discrimination when they are not hired. It is the next get rich quick scheme.
I guess this is why nothing is made in the USA anymore. The tangled web of employment laws and regulations is ridiculous.

I’m not talking about holding the employer responsible; I’m talking about holding the city responsible for the ordnances they pass. I’m taking about a crime victim suing the city for not allowing the employer to run a background check that would have disqualified the applicant.
 
Everyone wants people held responsible for what they do until it comes to a criminal that made a free will decision to be a criminal. These are criminal hugging politicians that are just trying to keep their costs down at the expense of the public’s safety. The dirt bag criminal may not have any money to get, but the city has money for the victim to get when they were injured because of a hiring practice forced on their employer by the city.

How do these idiots get in office? The citizens of that city should call for the immediate dismissal of any city council member that voted for that. They shouldn’t be running a widget factory let alone a city.

[RobertNashville]

...Some of the "felons should be able to own guns" threads really leave me scratching my head. 

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

The only truly logical reason to deny convicted felons the right to bear arms is if by doing so they would be a danger to society but felons who are a danger to society/other people should not be out of prison and allowed to be part of society in the first place The fact that they are out of prison is a failure of the system.

 

Other "felons" who's crimes had nothing to do with violence/physical harm/firearms, etc and who truly are no longer a danger to society should have their rights restored to the same level as all other citizens.  We tend to think of felonies as only serious, violent crimes (rape, murder, etc) but I think we should take into consideration that many otherwise relatively minor offenses can "become" felonies...pass a few bad checks, even if it was unintentional and you may well be convicted of a felony...should that person forever lose his right to arms (or to vote, etc.) forever, even after long since completing his/her sentence?

 

I'm not suggesting that all crimes should be ignored but I think there is room in our current system to make some changes.

[DaveTN]

but I think we should take into consideration that many otherwise relatively minor offenses can "become" felonies...pass a few bad checks, even if it was unintentional and you may well be convicted of a felony...should that person forever lose his right to arms (or to vote, etc.) forever, even after long since completing his/her sentence?

You think there are people out there that unintentionally wrote bad checks and were convicted of a felony?

[RobertNashville]

You think there are people out there that unintentionally wrote bad checks and were convicted of a felony?

There is a difference between someone who writes multiple checks with the intent of defrauding the recipients compared to someone who is simply sloppy at keeping up with their balances. However, intentional or unintentional isn't the point; as I suspect you know given that you and I have had this discussion before.

There is a difference between a rapist or a murderer or and armed robber who should likely be in jail until he dies vs someone who wrote some bad checks or had a couple of ounces of weed and has completed his sentence. The rapist should never be allowed to be in society again making his "right" to own arms moot.  The person who's crime was nonviolent at all and who has completed a reasonable sentence should, in my opinion, have all his rights restored.