Feds file civil rights suits on companies using criminal background checks for hires

[Revmitchell]

The Obama administration is suing Dollar General and a BMW facility in South Carolina for the alleged unfair use of criminal background checks for job applicants, months after warning companies about how such screenings can discriminate against African Americans.

The suits were filed June 11 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which last year issued new guidelines that cautioned against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommended businesses eliminate policies that “exclude people from employment based on a criminal record.”

The suits have re-ignited concerns over such issues as potential federal overreach, the overlap of state and federal law and companies losing their rights to protect customers, workers and assets while trying to adhere to fair hiring practices

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nal-background/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2X0SlThcE

 

[Salty]

Of course, the federal govt never does background checks for civillian* jobs.

* as opposed to law enforcment, militiary, ect

 

[saturneptune]

I worked at Dollar General for as a second job as an assistant manager the years our budget got really tight. They are an excellent company to work for, and when I worked there, the fact they were owned by a Christian family was very apparant in the way the business was run. I believe I noticed within the last few months they just started selling cigarettes.

Sorry, back to the op, Dollar General is a private company that produces jobs. Obama is suppose to be in favor of producing jobs. It seems to me that a criminal background check has several purposes. Most of all, it lets the company know that the new employee will not be stealing the store blind. The point is, the government needs to keep their nose out of a private companies internal policies in hiring. If one does not like their policies, then don't work there.

 

[Crabtownboy]

If you do not need background checks on people buying guns why have them for hiring purposes. After all people with guns kill other people. People working pay taxes. :wavey:

 

[sag38]

Crabby that is about the stupidest post you have made on this site. The last three times I purchased firearms I had to undergo a back ground check.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Crabby that is about the stupidest post you have made on this site. The last three times I purchased firearms I had to undergo a back ground check.

Glad some places have background checks. I was think more about the shrill replies in other threads from those opposed to checks.

Regardless, your gun could kill someone.

 

[Don]

Glad some places have background checks. I was think more about the shrill replies in other threads from those opposed to checks.

"Some"? Try "most." Background checks aren't required for private sales; everywhere else must do them.

Regardless, your gun could kill someone.

So could my knives, shovels, axes, and golf clubs.

 

[Aaron]

The Obama administration is suing Dollar General and a BMW facility in South Carolina for the alleged unfair use of criminal background checks for job applicants, months after warning companies about how such screenings can discriminate against African Americans.

The suits were filed June 11 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which last year issued new guidelines that cautioned against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommended businesses eliminate policies that “exclude people from employment based on a criminal record.”

The suits have re-ignited concerns over such issues as potential federal overreach, the overlap of state and federal law and companies losing their rights to protect customers, workers and assets while trying to adhere to fair hiring practices

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nal-background/?intcmp=HPBucket#ixzz2X0SlThcE

Right out of the Marxist Socialist playbook. Absalom's too.

 

[exscentric]

"Regardless, your gun could kill someone." Uhhh so can your pocket knife, your fork your spoon, your fist your -- most anything, register them all, they can kill. Great point sir.

Convicted murderers and sex offenders often re-offend, imagine the uproar if some store hired a sexual predator and he struck in the dressing room!

This is not limited to these two companies, many companies have done it for years.

 

[Crabtownboy]

"Convicted murderers and sex offenders often re-offend, imagine the uproar if some store hired a sexual predator and he struck in the dressing room!

I agree ... and in how many places can these same people buy a gun without a check into their backgrounds.

This is not limited to these two companies, many companies have done it for years.

I agree. My primary point is that it seem inconsistant to me to criticize an employment background check but to be in favor of no background checks when it come to purchasing guns.

 

[exscentric]

"I agree ... and in how many places can these same people buy a gun without a check into their backgrounds."

Not sure why you ask, sex offenders don't often carry guns and the OP speaks of one reason for BG checks and you speak of another. The reasons are different - apples and oranges.

"I agree. My primary point is that it seem inconsistant to me to criticize an employment background check but to be in favor of no background checks when it come to purchasing guns."

Say what? The government is the one against BG checks for employment AND for BG for guns. ?????

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I agree ... and in how many places can these same people buy a gun without a check into their backgrounds.

What part of "nowhere" did you not understand?

I agree. My primary point is that it seem inconsistant to me to criticize an employment background check but to be in favor of no background checks when it come to purchasing guns.

This is beginning to look like the practice of the "big lie." Tell it often enough, loudly enough and regardless of its complete lack of veracity, people will believe it. Problem is, when fifteen people have told you you're wrong, repeating is unlikely to get anyone to believe it, regardless.

 

[Revmitchell]

What part of "nowhere" did you not understand?

This is beginning to look like the practice of the "big lie." Tell it often enough, loudly enough and regardless of its complete lack of veracity, people will believe it. Problem is, when fifteen people have told you you're wrong, repeating is unlikely to get anyone to believe it, regardless.

He always does that. He is just working hard to convince himself. We are used to it.