Comments on: “NCAA sued over rule barring felons”

By: MattS

MattS — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 02:04:04 +0000

Reading the source article, the situation is even worse than this article makes is seem.

1. The EEOC has already had at least one case on this issue tossed by a US District Judge who called the EEOC’s argument insulting to minorities.

2. Besides the company mentioned in the quote, they are going after another company G4S “G4S provides guards for nuclear power plants, chemical plants, government buildings and other sensitive sites, and it is prohibited by state law from hiring people with felony convictions as security officers.” They are going after a company that is legally prohibited from hiring felons and are trying to force G4S to individually justify criminal background checks in decades worth of past hiring decisions.

By: Matthew Brown

Matthew Brown — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:46:09 +0000

I also worry, like the article, that such a rule will result in more discrimination, and less fair discrimination, at least if you think, like I do, that discrimination on *actual conduct* is fairer than discrimination on the basis of “looks like bad news”, a judgment much more likely to result in discrimination based on race, color or culture, and which may hit a law-abiding citizen equally hard.

If too many minorities get sent to prison, take a look at the imprisonment industry — fix it where it should be fixed. If long-ago minor crimes can be shown to have little bearing on an employee’s current trustworthiness, expand the policy that allows certain convictions to be legally void after the passage of time.

By: wfjag

wfjag — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:40:44 +0000

I wonder if anyone at the EEOC has a security clearance? (since a criminal background check – and answering questions about any arrests and/or convictions – is part of it).

By: Craig Loehle

Craig Loehle — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:29:26 +0000

So, leaving aside drug convictions, it is ok to have people with felonies for robbery handling your company’s money? A violent felon working in your high stress workplace? A sexual offender working with youth or traveling alone with women? And what happens when you get sued after a bad outcome?
This is all based on the differential outcome theory–that if it affects a minority more, it should be illegal.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:56:57 +0000

Personally, if the applicant in front of me seemed okay except for a marijuana conviction in Texas 20 years ago, I’d be inclined to offer the benefit of the doubt.

The key there is “personally.” This is an area where the government should have no input whatsoever. A conviction speaks to moral character and the weight of that conviction when hiring is my decision, and not the government’s. If they want to hire ex criminals, let ’em. With few exceptions, don’t extend the government’s hiring practices into my private company.

By: ras

ras — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:46:40 +0000

As existing markets dry up, industry players must find new ones or die: exhibit A, the EEOC.

By: Canvasback

Canvasback — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 18:36:34 +0000

What a dilemma. The Justice Dept. and Corrections Corp. need convictions to keep their numbers up. EEOC and the IRS need people with jobs paying taxes. And this isn’t a case of reasonable minds differing. Essentially, they’re government employees working in opposite directions. This is something Obama could actually address.
Personally, if the applicant in front of me seemed okay except for a marijuana conviction in Texas 20 years ago, I’d be inclined to offer the benefit of the doubt.