Comments on: Hey, EEOC….

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 14:01:40 +0000

I don’t know the rationale, Max. Why is that necessarily a problem?

OBQuiet, I’m glad you were able to use the venue to vent a little. Hopefully, it helped.

By: OBQuiet

OBQuiet — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 21:50:21 +0000

This rule makes perfect sense to me. How else can you produce a situation where the employer can be sued whether they do or they don’t? That is the goal right? Check that someone has a violent criminal records and you get sued for discrimination. Hire someone without checking and get sued when they commit some act against an employee or customer.

Either way the lawyers win and that is the whole reason the rest of us exist. To feed lawyers.

By: Max Kennerly

Max Kennerly — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:03:40 +0000

The big issue to me is not if the checks are done, but if they are disclosed as being done and the real reason for the non-hiring explained. If the checks are done in secret and the person not told, that’s a problem.

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 14:04:27 +0000

Certainly, it would seem to be fair game to know whether a potential applicant for a job has criminal convictions.

By: Ed

Ed — Wed, 30 May 2012 21:36:43 +0000

So does this mean that when a woman gets raped at work, the EEOC will be sued and not the company because they had to hire a convicted sex offender. Nah, the government’s never to blame. Damned if you do; damned if you don’t