awfercyinoutloud (cont’d)

The End™ justifies the meanies.

The Obama administration’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says it should be a federal crime to refuse to hire ex-convicts — and threatens to sue businesses that don’t employ criminals. [insert rationalization as statistical racism]

An EEOC commissioner who opposed the new policy [said] that the new guidelines will scare businesses from conducting background checks. … If a check does disclose a criminal offense, the EEOC expects a firm to do an “individual assessment” that will have to prove that the company has a “business necessity” not to hire the ex-convict. If the firm does not do the intricate assessment, it could be found guilty of “race discrimination” if it hires a law-abiding applicant over one with convictions.

[T]he “biggest bombshell” in the new guidelines is that businesses complying with state or local laws requiring background checks can still be sued by the EEOC.

That came to light when the EEOC took action against G4S Secure Solutions, which provides guards for nuclear power plants and other sensitive sites, for refusing to hire a twice-convicted thief as a security guard — even though Pennsylvania state law forbids hiring people with felony convictions as security officers.

“State and federal courts will allow potentially devastating tort lawsuits against businesses that hire felons who commit crimes at the workplace or in customers’ homes. Yet the EEOC is threatening to launch lawsuits if they do not hire those same felons.” [more]

Now cut that out !

23 Comments!

  1. Fartyfar
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 8:26 am |

    Raise minimum wage, force small business to purchase health care if they grow, force business to hire criminals.
    If I didn’t know how much the Obama administration cared about us I would think they were deliberately trying to sabotage small business. Good thing he doesn’t give tax breaks to companies like GE, Google and Facebook.

  2. tctsunami
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 8:33 am |

    I would think that if the applicant is a registered democrat or ever voted for obama that would meet the EEOC’s definition of a criminal.

  3. Stick
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 8:46 am |

    YGBFSM

  4. logdogsmith
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 9:13 am |

    We don’t want too many deterrents to crime, now do we?

  5. SondraK, Queen of my domain
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 9:14 am |

    I think this proves that government is way too small.

  6. Posted February 17, 2013 at 10:00 am |

    I wonder. What would be the best city in which to hold a Constitutional Convention?

  7. DougM (Progophobe)
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 10:05 am |

    Now, let’s look at Congressional staff hiring practices.
    (What? Secret Service, too?)

  8. s2
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 10:21 am |

    (5) SondraK

    Funny you should mention that.

  9. rickn8or
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 10:21 am |

    That came to light when the EEOC took action against G4S Secure Solutions, which provides guards for nuclear power plants and other sensitive sites, for refusing to hire a twice-convicted thief as a security guard — even though Pennsylvania state law forbids hiring people with felony convictions as security officers.

    Yeah, yeah. I know. “To catch a thief, set a thief” and all that. But the “logical” conclusion is that we can no longer bar convicted child molesters from working at day care centers.

  10. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 10:57 am |

    So much for what is not enumerated for the Feds is reserved for the states or the people.
    I looked at s2′s link. George Washington’s government had 1 Fed employee per 2500 citizens.
    Uhbama’s government fiefdom has 1 employee per 144 citizens.
    If we include the military at 1.5 million, which is now very much a standing army, plus Centcom contractors at 137,000 and the post office at 574,000, we have
    1 Fed employee per 71 citizens.
    No wonder we’re more than broke.

  11. Hopefulone
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 12:02 pm |

    Illegalize everything and the government owns everybody.

    “…it could be guilty of ‘race discrimination’?” Is there now a *criminal* race???

  12. Steve Skubinna
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 12:13 pm |

    So this means the end of the Lautenberg Amendment, right?

  13. Posted February 17, 2013 at 12:32 pm |

    As noted in the article (and as is so often the case in government), their race-based “guidance” may end up harming the honest members of those very classes.

    As for numbers of government “workers” – add in state, county, and municipal employees for a real eye-opener.

  14. Posted February 17, 2013 at 12:45 pm |

    Slightly off-topic, but I noticed in the original post, the Barack-ack-ack Obama regime is called “administration”. If, by “administration”, you mean it in the sense of, “administer an enema: high, hot and helluva lot”, then yes, it’s an administration. But for simplicity, I prefer to call it a regime, in the sense of, “The Obama regime: The People’s monarchy since 2008″

  15. Fat Baxter
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 2:51 pm |

    The EEOC says it should be a federal crime to refuse to hire ex-convicts

    Congresscritters are just trying to make sure they can find jobs if/when they leave office. Can’t have perspective employers checking up on whether they had sex with underage Dominican prostitutes, for example.

  16. geezerette
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 5:43 pm |

    Fat Baxter– what the hell do they need jobs for?? They are paid for life and have life time benefits. I’d like to try to “get along” on what our taxes pay them.

  17. Merovign
    Posted February 17, 2013 at 11:57 pm |

    So, wait, is it or isn’t it still racist to say most criminals are minorities? Or is it only racism if you’re not a progressive bucreaucrat/thug?

    Really, really over-the-top tired of the self-righteousness of bureaucrats. You’re servants not masters, that means you ask, you don’t order.

  18. Lucius Severus Pertinax
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 2:33 am |

    “…even though Pennsylvania state law forbids hiring people with felony convictions as security officers.”

    There is the proper response to EEOC:

    “Pennsylvania state law forbids…”
    You got a problem with that? Don’t talk to me; talk to the Governor!”

  19. Trialdog
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 6:59 am |

    Ever heard of a “negligent hiring” case?
    I’m just sayin’.
    Think about it.

  20. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 9:37 am |

    Hot damn! All the recidivist prone pedophiles can get jobs in day care. Now that’s an opportunity!

  21. Chuck from Tacoma
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 7:44 pm |

    Does this require that the Los Angeles Police Department be required to hire Charles Manson as a patrolman should he be paroled? Maybe a twice convicted bank robber get a job as a vault teller at Bank of America?

  22. ZZMike
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 8:44 pm |

    In England (before it became Formerly Great Britain), during WW II, there was a ministry of employment that decided who was going to work, and where. If you needed to hire someone, you sent the Ministry a note, then they sent someone around, and you hired him.

    It greatly simplified job searches. Here’s a clip from an article about it:

    “Regulation 58A of the Defense (General) Regulations” (which empowered the Minister of Labour and National Service to direct any person to perform services of which he is capable anywhere in the Nation),”

    Employment Security in Great Britain During the First 14 Months of the War

    On the other hand, those were meaner times in FGB.

  23. Paul
    Posted February 18, 2013 at 9:56 pm |

    Don’t be shocked when the Democrats try to allow felons to vote to.

    After that, the asylum will be ran, literally, by the inmates.