Reply With Quote
it is an employers right to know who they are hiring.
Standard NewsNov. 17 – The FBI wants to start including "non-serious offenses" on criminal-history reports to employers – a move some say could unduly taint people’s job prospects and spread misinformation.
If the proposal goes into effect, many employers using the FBI’s system could discover a job applicant had been convicted for drinking in public, or had been arrested for vagrancy as a teenager, among other offenses.
"This new policy is bound to destroy a lot people's lives," said Roberta Meyers-Peeples with the Legal Action Center, which helps people with criminal records rejoin the workforce.
In joint comments filed with the FBI, labor and civil-liberties groups warned that the plan, coupled with other efforts to expand the criminal-data system, would foreclose employment opportunities for an untold number of people, disproportionately impact people of color, and invite the abuse of sensitive information.
Under the proposal, which has not yet been finalized, the FBI would report minor offenses on "rap sheets" – records used by employers for screening job and licensing applicants and employees. These offenses – which can range from traffic violations to urinating in public – would be reported through the FBI’s nationwide fingerprint databank.
Add another government proposal the M$M is not telling us about that is expotentially eroding our Cons utional protections.
it is an employers right to know who they are hiring.
Oh, come on!? Your employer does not need to know about your misdemeanors. It's the right of the average citizen to privacy concerning issues that don't affect their work, like whether they were done for drinking in public back in 1996 or got a speeding fine last year.
Why do you think that corporate ins utions should have more power over a person's information that individual citizens? The road towards a Big Brother society is advanced by this kind of thinking... particularly ironic when you consider your sig - "land of the free..."
I'm not sure how would affect hiring practices; I'm guessing many companies would recognize the pitfalls of severely narrowing the applicant pool based on speeding tickets and public intoxication.
yes, you're free to do whatever you want...but there are consequences for your actions as well.
More paperwork to keep us from stopping the "real" criminals. Clan loves his big government, doesn't he?
not more paperwork, just allowing the employers full access. you guys have never been business owners. you'd want to know what kind of employees you are hiring.
Of course it's more.not more paperworkYou want to know if they parked too close to a fire hydrant twenty years ago?you'd want to know what kind of employees you are hiring.
public intoxication... sure, that may be something an employer would like to know.
That wasn't the question.
okay, then no. i could care less about the fire hydrant scenario, but the public intox yes. and that is an offense that would be listed on the new report. and overall i am for less government. i would love to get rid of social security, medicaid, etc...
Why?but the public intox yes.
As an alcoholic employer*, I couldn't care less. What drugs my employees indulge in on their spare time, and how, is none of my business; much less what they did before I employed them.
*obviously whether someone has personal experience as either an alcoholic or an employer should have no bearing on their judgment
Last edited by Bob Lanier; 11-18-2006 at 07:43 PM.
Yeah, thanks for the lecture. Actually, I'm quite aware that with rights come responsibilities.However, that is not the issue here.
The justice system has already punished you for the 'wrong' you have performed, whether it be a fine or community servvice or whatever, so why should that "black mark" then have further repercussions on your employability? People occasionally do silly things, and they mostly regret them, but they aren't relevant to your employer.
The other issue here is privacy, and the degree of power which employers should be able to exert power over individual citizen's lives. This is clearly an unnecessary violation of people's privacy. We are not talking about felonies here, we're talking about misdemeanors.
Traffic infractions are a gateway crime to terrorism so of course it makes sense.
So let's say a guy, otherwise excellent for the job and a responsible citizen, had a public intoxication beat on his rap sheet. He happened to be walking down the street with a beer in his hand and some cops stopped and ticketted him. You wouldn't give him the job?
See context comes into these things too,and that's why it's dangerous to judge people on what are probably isolated lapses in judgement.
Sure, if someone has a history of criminal behaviour, you want to know about it, but I'd vouch that most people with a criminal pattern go beyond misdemeanors. The only thing this law will do is make life more difficult for people who once did something stupid.
Lets take a drug company rep for instance. If a drug company hires a drug rep and provides them a company car to spend 5 days a week driving from doctors office to doctors office, you don't think that persons driving record is important?? Are they going to want someone with a bunch of speeding tickets out driving their cars for business? Thats a serious liability exposure for said drug company. You cannot tell me that an employees past driving records is irrelavent.
Then wouldn't they already be asking for the driving records without involving the federal government?
Exactly. Local matters should be handled locally. If it isn't a federal offense, what the is the federal government doing disseminating that info? This is a PERFECT example of that "big government" you people are constantly crying about.
however, more often than not, people who use drugs are more of a liability than an asset to your business.
you could ask him about it and find out what happened.
I'd like to see some empirical evidence of that. It certainly hasn't been my experience that people with recreational drug habits (I'm fairly certain that people under my supervision have used at the least alcohol, marijuana, nicotine, opiates, caffeine, and psychedelics) have been liabilities so long as they aren't under the influence while on the job (a very rare problem).
Some traffic violations can be felonies. Like a second DWI.Yeah, thanks for the lecture. Actually, I'm quite aware that with rights come responsibilities.
The justice system has already punished you for the 'wrong' you have performed, whether it be a fine or community servvice or whatever, so why should that "black mark" then have further repercussions on your employability? People occasionally do silly things, and they mostly regret them, but they aren't relevant to your employer.
The other issue here is privacy, and the degree of power which employers should be able to exert power over individual citizen's lives. This is clearly an unnecessary violation of people's privacy. We are not talking about felonies here, we're talking about misdemeanors.
And how about a bus company/cab company/trucking company, they
don't need to know about a person's driving record.
Or a company that furnishes a person a company car?
You see RNR there may be many reasons to look at persons driving record.
and people who use drugs and/or smoke are more likely to miss work, be sick, etc... overall they cost the company more money. that is why insurance companies charge them more. they HAVE THE EVIDENCE.
People who are overweight or obese, both not illegal, will have more fat-related diseases, and suffer more from fat-complicated symptoms and diseases. There also, "they HAVE THE EVIDENCE."
A lot companies who offer group health refuse, secretly of course, to hire older candidates because older candidates tend to have higher medical claims and run up the company's health coverage premiums.
So Clanny, should employers refuse to hire candidates who are, say, more than X% body-fat or have an elevated BMI?
Or do you want to deny employment only to candidates who have committed non-violent "morality/mores" crimes?
Typical simplistic radical right, always elevating yourself to holier-than-thou perfection while wanting to hammer and punish anybody who dares be imperfect, by your legalistic, moralistic, self-righteous definition.
My group is good, your group is bad, so I'm gonna punish your group.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
