The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

We all knew it would come to this.

Holder files suits on companies using background checks for hires. The Obama administration is suing Dollar General and a BMW facility in South Carolina for the alleged unfair use of criminal background checks for job applicants, months after warning companies about how such screenings can discriminate against African Americas.

The suits were filed June 11 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under Holder, which last year issued new guidelines that cautioned against rejecting minority applicants who have committed a crime and recommended businesses eliminate policies that “exclude people from employment based on a criminal record.”

The suits have re-ignited concerns over such issues as potential federal overreach, the overlap of state and federal law and companies losing their rights to protect customers, workers and assets while trying to adhere to fair hiring practices.

Obama only wants such checks for legal citizens wanting to buy guns.

A criminal record is a real reason to pass over a potential new hire.

The one I have a problem with is when the employer wants to check your credit history and look at your personal finances.

How the fuck is that relevant to how somebody can perform their job description?

Fortunately I haven't personally had to suffer this, ( I know several people who have) but I would never submit to it.

Fuck those corporate motherfuckers.

Along those same lines, if ya get a new dentist or physician, you'll be asked for a photo ID.

Also, many of them want your SSN to do a credit check (decline this).

As far as I am concerned, if you did the crime and did the time, then everybody should get a chance to get the job.

I can understand if they don't want someone who has a history of money problems working near the company vault or child molesters working with kids. That's legit. In this county all kinds of stupid shit is against the law, loitering, public intoxication, possession of a joint. Everybody has done something that they shouldn't have. That shouldn't arbitrarily disqualify someone.

At work, our company was bought out, and we just had to do background and piss tests for the new company. I'm not sure what they are supposed to get out of it? We all had the background checks when we were originally hired. So are they going to fire someone who got through the original screening? It would make no sense. It's difficult to find people who get in on time, get along with everybody, and do a good job. It costs a fortune to fire, rehire, and retrain a new employee.

It's good to see the EEOC go after HR jerkoffs....

At work, our company was bought out, and we just had to do background and piss tests for the new company. I'm not sure what they are supposed to get out of it?

Sorry to hear your past caught up to you.

RealJustme wrote:

At work, our company was bought out, and we just had to do background and piss tests for the new company. I'm not sure what they are supposed to get out of it?

Sorry to hear your past caught up to you.

Justme's attempt at going anti-Obama backfires...

:lol:

Elk tries the ole wiggle wiggle distract to avoid the conversation. So what if they did their time for the crimes they committed? The people who obeyed the laws did the right thing so they should get the job over a criminal every time!

It's the liberals same ole song, they feel there should be no consequences for their actions.

RealJustme wrote: The people who obeyed the laws did the right thing so they should get the job over a criminal every time!

So if I interview a candidate then I should ignore their qualifications?

Even though the Sup Ct has become a joke, with Roberts unable to tell a tax from a penalty, the Ct did note the other day that voting notions have a changed backdrop.

The standard notion that the accident of being born black constitutes an endless moral entitlement will have to change.

Reverse racial discrimination is just as wrong as the original racial discrimination it sought to remedy.

So if I interview a candidate then I should ignore their qualifications?

Where did I say that? I said a person (no matter his or her color) is responsible for their actions and if they commit a crime against society that should be taken into consideration when looking at that person for a job.

RealJustme wrote:

So if I interview a candidate then I should ignore their qualifications?

Where did I say that? I said a person (no matter his or her color) is responsible for their actions and if they commit a crime against society that should be taken into consideration when looking at that person for a job.

Do you understand why the EEOC sued to begin within the first place?

There was a woman who was fired after working for about 15 years at the company who had a misdemeanor conviction that was 20 years old.

So you have someone who is doing a good job, then they should be fired???

So you have someone who is doing a good job, then they should be fired???

Not unless they lied on their application. What has that to do with screening them before they're hired?

RealJustme wrote:

So you have someone who is doing a good job, then they should be fired???

Not unless they lied on their application. What has that to do with screening them before they're hired?

This EEOC lawsuit has nothing to do with lying on an employment application.

This EEOC lawsuit has nothing to do with lying on an employment application.

Who said it did?

RealJustme wrote:

This EEOC lawsuit has nothing to do with lying on an employment application.

Who said it did?

Did you even bother reading the material that you posted?

:lol:

Did you even bother reading the material that you posted?

Where did I say the lawsuit had anything to do with lying on applications?

elklindo69 wrote:As far as I am concerned, if you did the crime and did the time, then everybody should get a chance to get the job.

I can understand if they don't want someone who has a history of money problems working near the company vault or child molesters working with kids. That's legit. In this county all kinds of stupid shit is against the law, loitering, public intoxication, possession of a joint. Everybody has done something that they shouldn't have. That shouldn't arbitrarily disqualify someone.

At work, our company was bought out, and we just had to do background and piss tests for the new company. I'm not sure what they are supposed to get out of it? We all had the background checks when we were originally hired. So are they going to fire someone who got through the original screening? It would make no sense. It's difficult to find people who get in on time, get along with everybody, and do a good job. It costs a fortune to fire, rehire, and retrain a new employee.

It's good to see the EEOC go after HR jerkoffs....

Notice the "Smoke Screen" that elk thows up, claiming "loitering, public intoxication, possession of a joint." - but he fails to mention that you don't go to Jail for those things, normally, and rarely.

The problem with the Obama destruction is that they actually sued a gun store for not hiring a convicted felon, which is against the law - the Obama destruction said that it being against the law to hire Convicted Felons for Gun Store jobs was the stores problem, deal with it.