hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Mar 25, 2011 17:46:23 GMT -5
No problem there. Someone with a DUI can go to jail, but after that, do you want them disqualified from ANY job or just jobs that require driving? And if you never want them to work again, then expect them to be sucking Uncle Sammy's sugar teat. How is this any different than taking 5 people with 4 job openings and giving the 4 jobs to the ones with clean records? The 1 with the DUI has no job. If you give the one with the DUI a job, then someone without a DUI is in the same position anyways. Giving someone with a criminal record a job does not magically cause more jobs to show up. You're always going to have a certain number of people unemployed. The only question is picking which people they are.
|
|
sil
Established Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 18:56:29 GMT -5
Posts: 396
|
Post by sil on Mar 25, 2011 18:27:34 GMT -5
The more we penalize former employers for revealing the true reason an employee was let go and the more we limit an employer's ability to screen candidates based upon criteria like credit scores / criminal records, the more ugly people will be unemployed. Resumes are so full of over-blown details that most could qualify as works of fiction, former employers are scared to give any information other than, "yes, so-and-so worked here from 2008 to 2011" and interviewers have to maneuver their way through a mine field to avoid asking a discriminatory question while figuring out if a person is capable of doing a job. Now we're going to eliminate their ability to weed out criminals and deadbeats, because people with records who are not-so-guilty get tossed out in the process. So what's left? Keep the good looking candidates, because at least if they turn out to be incompetent, the rest of the team wont mind having something pretty to look at.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 28, 2024 7:44:02 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2011 18:27:34 GMT -5
That is true, but it is also irrational to assume that everyone who has a run-in with the law is the same. A rapist is not a pot-smoker. Also, for people to have sweeping," I will not hire anyone with a record" ideas is the same as announcing that they might as well graduate to more serious crimes as that is where the money is and one may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. At any rate, the question is whether such standards disproportionately affect minority communities and the answer is, "yes." When one lives in a rough neighborhood, one is more likely to carry an illegal weapon or be involved in an assault charge due to the need for self-protection.
When one lives in a poorer community where police-checks are commonplace, one is more likely to be found with contraband, and when one lacks money or political influence, minor peccadilloes of all kinds get blown out of proportion. Not all minorities live in rough neighborhood, btw.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 25, 2011 18:40:03 GMT -5
No problem there. Someone with a DUI can go to jail, but after that, do you want them disqualified from ANY job or just jobs that require driving? And if you never want them to work again, then expect them to be sucking Uncle Sammy's sugar teat. Nobody says that person should never be able to work again. He should not be "disqualified". What I am saying is that a business owner if faced with the decision should be able to pick the job candidate with a clean record if everything else is equal over the one with a DUI without being called a racist, no matter which one of the candidates was black or white or whatever skin color.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 25, 2011 18:53:20 GMT -5
Tough, I value your opinion, but disagree with you. If everything else is equal, I do not at all think a decision based on the only difference between two candidates (criminal record vs. clean record) is racist at all.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 25, 2011 19:12:34 GMT -5
So I should hire the person WITH the criminal record (remember, everything else is equal) to avoid being considered a racist? Or the one from a certain race only, with no regards to the criminal record? Or what should a hiring manager do? I am very very anti-racist, and when looking for a candidate, would be looking for a legit reason to reject one over the other if there is only one opening. IMO, a criminal record would be such a reason. What should be done? I don't get it ... I am not sure I'd care much about the lipstick theft 20 years ago though, LOL. But you have to make a decision .... I would probably ask why the person stole a lipstick, and listen to the story.
|
|
schildi
Well-Known Member
3718 and no text
Joined: Jan 14, 2011 1:38:58 GMT -5
Posts: 1,799
|
Post by schildi on Mar 25, 2011 19:25:29 GMT -5
You should hire the person who best suits the position and if the criminal record is ancient, minor and unrelated, ignore it. Do you really care that the person who will be hefting garbage cans or digging graves can't be trusted around cash? There will always be examples where the record doesn't matter, I agree. But I have seen cases where we interviewed ~ 10 people on site, and in the end had to decide between two candidates who really were as equal as it gets in terms of qualifications for the (professional) job. The decision was very, very hard to make, and not as easy as "who best suits", because that "who" did not exist. What about that case? Tough, you are ignoring the "everything else equal" part. It does exist, I've seen it. Sometimes they may have slightly different skills, but still be equally qualified because one skill can compensate for the lack of another.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Mar 25, 2011 19:36:11 GMT -5
I think the term "racism" has been thrown around so much in recent years that the sting has been lost.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,719
|
Post by midjd on Mar 25, 2011 19:39:11 GMT -5
People are a lot more judgmental now (including myself) and I view that as something that is more detrimental to our society as a whole than the mistakes of a certain segment of our population. I see it on these boards and more disturbingly, in those who consider themselves Christians. It was very brave of you to share your story. I can see how it is easier and safer for employers to use a background check as weeding tool. However, the fact that the severity/type of crime isn't considered is an issue. I do some work with bar admissions, and there are some applicants who will never be admitted in our state. It doesn't matter whether they had a minor misdemeanor at 18, or are a triple murderer - treated the same. This doesn't seem right to me - though I can understand the reasoning behind it, when it's played out in real life it tugs at one's heartstrings a bit. I also think that our society promotes judgment and it is not a healthy thing. I make a conscious effort to not think ugly thoughts (a struggle sometimes!) A few years ago I went through a period where all my thoughts were negative and I just felt drained and ugly. Trying to look on the bright side of things and give people the benefit of the doubt has done wonders for my mental state
|
|