That’s racist
Per the EEOC, refusal to hire someone with a criminal record or because they have bad credit may be racist. They blame technology.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 12th, 2010 at 11:25 am
That’s why you never hire new employees directly. You should always hire from a temp agency. That way you can impose whatever contions you want – drug testing, credit check, background check, etc and also have a trial period to see if the employee will be a good fit. If they don’t work out, you send them back and they have no recourse against you because you are not legally their employer.
August 12th, 2010 at 11:37 am
Disparate impact theory strikes again.
August 12th, 2010 at 11:46 am
What the hell does this “credit rating” thing have to do with anyone’s honesty or ability to do a job? Used to be, there was no such thing. Also, have you noticed that, lately, employers have started asking for SSANs on job applications? Also unheard-of when I was young. I always decline to provide it unless and until I am hired.
August 12th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Do you think someone would hire a person in money trouble to handle money?
August 12th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
So I guess that makes criminals the latest race, supplimenting the muzzies ass the libs race-of-the-day.
August 12th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
So if you need a job to pay your bills, and they won’t hire you cause you can’t pay your bills…well then WTF?
August 12th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
“What the hell does this “credit rating” thing have to do with anyone’s honesty or ability to do a job? ”
Also note that the signature at the bottom of a credit card receipt is not a form of ID, but agreeing to the contract of paying money due.
Not a 100% analogous metric but it does speak volumes about somebody who keeps agreeing to pay money they later renege on.
August 12th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Am I the only one who noticed that she was ‘fired’, not passed over? That means she was almost certainly fired not for the conviction, but for lying about it on the application and being caught.
August 12th, 2010 at 1:29 pm
That’s the advice I’ve heard for clearance applications – tell the truth, shame the devil, and don’t be doing that no more…
August 12th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Am I the only one who thinks it’s incredibly racist to suggest that blacks and hispanics are more likely to have criminal records or bad credit.
August 12th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
>/ignoring statistics<
August 12th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
please put a preview post function up, ty ty
August 12th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
@Uncle on comment number 3. No, of course not. That has nothing to do with, say, competence to operate a machine, or maybe keep the shelves in order, help the customers find things, and patrol against potential shoplifters.
August 12th, 2010 at 2:28 pm
It’s not racist, it’s Bankist.
August 12th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
Jon,
According to the article, the conviction was overturned (didn’t say why) so in that respect, she considered herself innocent and would not have listed it on the application. In cases like this, I would say that she has a right to be upset if she was fired due to bad data from a reporting agency.
But if a report is *correct* and a person got fired for not putting it on their application, then that’s just tough.
August 12th, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Assuming people who are black or Hispanic can’t get jobs because they’re a bunch of poor criminals is racist.
August 12th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Do you think someone would hire a person in money trouble to handle money?
Only if they’re being hired for a job in the Obama administration.
August 12th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
mike w.–
ROTFLMMFAO
August 12th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I’ve been involved in the past with hiring and training entry level workers (I’m in no hurry to go back), and the fact is that the harder it gets to fire someone the harder employers work to screen out poor employees, even to the point of what the grievance lobby wrongly calls discrimination. In principle I’d have liked to take more chances on people without work histories trying to get off food stamps and on to the job ladder, or people with criminal convictions trying to go straight. Some of those people work out, but not as many do compared to your ideal candidates, and some of those who don’t work out, don’t work out in a quite spectacular fashion. If you could truly fire for cause without worrying about a lawsuit or penalties then you’d see more people getting a chance, but that’s not the world we live in.
ParatrooperJJ has it right above. There’s no escaping the law of unintended consequences. When you define effective hiring as “discrimination” you just drive “discrimination” underground. But employers are going to find a way to screen new hires.
August 12th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Aw comeon, we hire criminals all the time. We elect them to congress and even the presidency.
August 12th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
The reality is that all the caselaw is against the EEOC on this. Their position is not the current state of discrimination law in this country.
August 12th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
“What the hell does this “credit rating” thing have to do with anyone’s honesty or ability to do a job?”
One hell of a big bunch. You’ve never run a business, have you? I used to run credit checks on prospective renters, too, when I was renting real estate.
The ability to do the job, and the one’s general level of honesty and responsibility, are equally important. Business owners take huge risks as it is. Give ’em a break. Hiring someone is a lot like marriage. You can get out of the deal, but it’s not a good match it’s gonna be painful along the way, and it’s gonna cost you big time. Give ’em several big breaks. They are not the enemy. Unlike government, you can choose to ignore businesses and they won’t come after you. Credit checks are just one little way to mitigate the already huge risks.
Technology is racist too. Hell, why not? Everything else is racist. Sunlight is racist, because it doesn’t shine on whites as much as blacks. Fucking sun.
August 12th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
http://img811.imageshack.us/i/computersracistmadebywh.jpg/
August 13th, 2010 at 1:23 am
I may be stupid, but don’t you get a criminal record because you committed a crime, got caught, were found guilty or plea bargained a sentence? And because you belong to some Sociological Defined Niche Group that has no basis in Biology (since we are all supposed to be Homo Sapiens, right?), you can claim discrimination? So if 2 convicted felons, one “White” and one “Black” apply for a job, and they both are turned down because of their criminal record, the “Black” one can complain and the company can be forced to hire him? But if they both were “White”, neither one could be forced onto the company? That’s about as stupid as giving out Home Loans to people who don’t qualify because they’re too poor, or putting up $3 Billion dollars of Federal Tax Money to pay for their mortgages when they’re unemployed just so they won’t be foreclosed, even though they never earned on their best day enough money to buy a house in the first place. Ooohps, never mind, Congress just did that yesterday. Something tells me that this just another means of getting “40 Acres and a Mule”.
August 13th, 2010 at 1:40 am
Lyle, when I was growing up, no one had ever heard of a “credit rating.” Except for home mortgages, most people paid cash or did without. As recently as 1970-something, I tried to find out if I even _had_ a credit history, be it good, bad, or indifferent. I did not. None of those “credit” people had ever heard of me. I think that’s the optimum way to be.